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



747
Anon., Sifre Numbers, 112


nan (Bamidbar 15:27) \"And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error\": Idolatry was in the category of all the mitzvoth — for which the individual brings a ewe-lamb or a she-goat; the leader (nassi), a he-goat; and the high-priest and beth-din, a bullock. And here (in respect to idolatry) Scripture removes them from their category, to have an individual, a Nassi, and the high-priest bring \"a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering\" — for which reason this section was stated. You say that it speaks of idolatry, but perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! Would you say that? What is the subject under discussion? Idolatry! R. Yitzchak says: Scripture (here) speaks of idolatry. — But perhaps it speaks of (any) one of all the mitzvoth written in the Torah! — You reason as follows: The congregation was in the general category (of all of the mitzvoth, to bring a bullock), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed (to bring a bullock for a burnt-offering and a he-goat for a sin-offering.) And the individual was in the general category (of all the mitzvoth, etc.), and (in respect to idolatry) its offerings were changed, etc. Just as there (in respect to the congregation) Scripture speaks of idolatry; here, too, it is understood to be speaking of idolatry. \"And if one soul sin (the sin of idolatry) in error\": to exclude (from the offering) one who sins willfully (without witnesses or warning). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If \"light\" mitzvoth are liable (for an offering), willful (transgression) as unwitting, how much more the \"grave\" (transgression of idolatry)! It is, therefore, written \"in error\" — to exclude willful (transgression). \"he shall bring a she-goat of the first year as a sin-offering.\" This is a prototype, viz.: Wherever \"goat\" is written, it must be of the first year. (Ibid. 28) \"And the Cohein shall make atonement for the soul that is unwitting in sinning\": It is the sins that he has done (willfully), which have caused him to err. \"unwitting in sinning\": to exclude unwittingness of (its being) idolatry, (e.g., mistaking a church for a synagogue and bowing down to it.) For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he is liable (to bring an offering) for unwitting transgression of other mitzvoth, how much more so for the \"grave\" transgression of idolatry! It is, therefore, written \"unwitting in sinning,\" but not unwitting as to (its being) idolatry. \"to atone for him\": to exclude an instance of doubt (as to whether or not he had sinned). For it would follow (otherwise), viz.: If he must bring an offering for an instance of possible transgression of \"light\" mitzvoth, how much more so for an instance of possible transgression of idolatry (e.g., if there is a possibility of his having bowed down to an asheirah [a tree devoted to idolatry])! It is, therefore, written \"And he shall atone\" (implying that there has been a sin), to exclude (an instance of) doubt (as to whether a sin has been committed.) \"and he shall be forgiven\": absolute forgiveness, as with all of the other \"forgivings\" in the Torah, (even though the sin of idolatry [though unwitting] has been committed). (Ibid. 15:29) \"The native-born among the children of Israel, etc.\" What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Vayikra 24:22) \"All of the native-born in Israel shall sit in succoth,\" I might think that only Israelites are intended. Whence do I derive the same for proselytes? It is, therefore, written \"the native-born among the children of Israel and for the stranger that sojourns among them.\" This is a prototype: wherever \"native-born\" is written, proselytes are also included. Variantly: What is the intent of \"the native-born among the children of Israel\"? For it would follow otherwise, viz.: Israelites are commanded against idolatry, and gentiles are commanded against idolatry. If I have learned that Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, so, gentiles should bring an offering for unwitting idolatry. It is, therefore, written \"the native-born among the children of Israel\": Israelites bring (an offering) for unwitting idolatry, but not gentiles. (Ibid.) \"One Torah shall there be for you for him who acts unwittingly\": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. For I would think (otherwise), viz.: Since the congregation bring a bullock for (unwitting transgression of) all of the mitzvoth, and the high-priest brings a bullock for transgression of all of the mitzvoth, then if I have learned about the congregation that just as they bring a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, so, they bring a bullock for idolatry, then the high-priest, (too,) who brings a bullock for all of the mitzvoth, should bring a bullock for idolatry. And, furthermore, it follows a fortiori, viz.: If (in the Yom Kippur service), where the congregation does not bring a bullock, the high-priest does bring a bullock, then here, (in unwitting transgression of idolatry), where the congregation does bring a bullock, how much more so should the high-priest bring a bullock! It is, therefore, written \"One Torah (a she-goat of the first year) shall there be for you\": for the individual, and for the Nassi, and for the high-priest. \"for him who acts unwittingly\": R. Yehudah b. Betheira says: One who acts unwittingly (re idolatry) is (in principle) like one who serves idolatry, viz.: Just as serving idolatry is distinct in that it is an act in which deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth (cutting-off [viz. Vayikra 20:3]), and unwitting transgression, by a sin-offering (viz. Bamidbar 16:27) so, (the act of) all who act unwittingly, (in order to be liable to a sin-offering), must be an act where deliberate transgression is punishable by kareth and unwitting transgression by a sin-offering.", , " (Bamidbar 15:30) \"And the soul who acts with a high hand\": This is one who perverts the Torah, like Menasheh ben Chezkiah, who would sit and cast ridicule in the face of the L-rd, saying (for example): He should not have written in the Torah (Bereshit 30:14) \"And Reuven went in the days of the wheat harvest.\" And He should not have written (Ibid. 36:22) \"And the sister of Lotan was Timna.\" Of one such as he it is written in the Tradition (Psalms 50:20) \"You sit and speak against your brother; you cast ridicule against your mother. These you have done and I have kept silent. You thought I was one such as you\": (i.e.), you thought that perhaps as the ways of flesh and blood are the ways of the L-rd. (Ibid.) \"I will reprove you and set (them) forth before your eyes.\" And of one such as he, Isaiah writes in the tradition (Isaiah 5:18) \"Woe unto those who pull transgressions to themselves with strands of deceit, and sin as with the ropes of a wagon\": In the beginning, sin is like the strands of a spider's web, and, in the end, sin is as (\"stout\" as) wagon ropes. Rebbi says: If a man does one mitzvah lishmah (for the sake of Heaven), let him rejoice not only in that mitzvah alone; for in the end, it will \"pull along\" many mitzvoth. And if a man commits one transgression, let him not despond over it alone, for in the end, it will pull along many transgressions. For mitzvah \"tows\" mitzvah, and transgression, transgression. (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes (megadef).\" R. Eliezer b. Azaryah says: As a man would say to his neighbor: \"You have scraped out the dish (of food) and 'scraped' ('megaref,' similar to 'megadef') the 'dish' itself.\" (i.e., this is the ultimate insult). Issi b. Akiva says: As one would say to his neighbor: \"You have scraped out the entire dish and left nothing in it.\" (Ibid.) \"and that soul will be cut off\": \"cutting-off\" connotes cessation (of the family line, i.e., he will be childless). \"that soul\": who acts deliberately. \"from the midst of its people\": but its people will remain at peace. (Ibid. 31) \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is a Sadducee. \"and His commandment he has broken\": This is a heretic. Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is one who distorts the Torah. \"and His commandment he has broken\": This is one who breaks the covenant of the flesh (circumcision, i.e., one who does not circumcise his sons.) From here R. Elazar Hamodai said: One who desecrates the offerings, and cheapens the festivals, and breaks the covenant (of circumcision) of our father Abraham — even if he has performed many mitzvoth, it were best to \"thrust\" him from the world! Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": this is one who says there is no Torah from Heaven. And even if he says: The entire Torah is from the mouth of the Holy One (except for) this thing that Moses said on his own — And even if he said: The entire Torah I accept, except for this inference, this kal vachomer (a fortiori argument) — this is \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised.\" Variantly: \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\": This is one who learns, but does not teach others. R. Nechemiah says: This is one who is able to learn but does not. R. Nathan said: This is one who paid no heed at all to words of Torah. R. Yishmael says: The verse speaks of idolatry, as it is written \"For the word of the L-rd he has despised\" — the first commandment of the Omnipotent One — (Shemot 20:2-3) \"I am the L-rd your G-d … There shall be unto you no other gods before Me.\" (Bamidbar, Ibid.) \"cut off shall be cut off\": \"cut off\" — in this world; \"shall be cut off\" — in the world to come. These are the words of R. Akiva. R. Yishmael says: But is it not already written (Ibid. 30) \"It is the L-rd whom he blasphemes; and that soul shall be cut off'? Are there three worlds? Rather, \"and that soul shall be cut off\" — in this world. \"cut off\" — in the world to come. \"cut off shall be cut off\" — Torah speaks in the language of man. (Ibid. 31) \"its transgression is in it\": All who die are atoned for by death; but this one, \"its transgression is in it.\" As it is written (Ezekiel 32:27) \"And their transgressions shall be upon their bones.\" — Even if they have repented? — It is, therefore, written (when) \"its transgression is in it,\" and not when he has repented. Similarly, (Devarim 32:5) \"They have corrupted themselves — not His children — their blemish\" — When their blemish is in them, they are not His children. When their blemish is not in them, they are His children. R. Yishmael says: \"its transgression is in it\": What is the intent of this? Because it is written (Shemot 20:5) \"He visits the iniquity of the fathers upon sons,\" I might think that (the father's sin of) idolatry, too, is visited upon sons \"until the third and fourth generation\"; it is, therefore, written (here, in respect to idolatry) \"its transgression is in it\" — in it (the soul of the doer) the transgression inheres, and it is not visited upon the sons, and not on the third and on the fourth generation. R. Nathan says: This (\"its transgression is in it\") is a good sign for a man, (indicating) that his transgressions are exacted of him after his death, (so that he may merit life in the world to come.) If a dead one is not eulogized or buried, or if he is eaten by an animal, or if rain descended upon it — this is a good sign, (indicating that his transgressions are being exacted of him after his death.) And even though there is no (Scriptural) proof for this, it is intimated in (Jeremiah 8:1-2) \"At that time, says the L-rd, they will remove the bones of the kings of Judah, and the bones of its officers … And they will spread them out under the sun and the moon, etc.\" R. Shimon b. Elazar said: From here (\"its transgression is in it\") I have exposed (as false) the books of the Samaritans. For they say: The dead do not live — whereupon I said to them: But it is written \"That soul shall be cut off; its transgression is in it.\" Let this not be stated (i.e., What purpose does it serve?) — It indicates that it (the soul) is destined to give an accounting on the day of judgment."


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

62 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 3.23, 18.9-18.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

3.23. וָאֶתְחַנַּן אֶל־יְהוָה בָּעֵת הַהִוא לֵאמֹר׃ 18.9. כִּי אַתָּה בָּא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ לֹא־תִלְמַד לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּתוֹעֲבֹת הַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם׃ 18.11. וְחֹבֵר חָבֶר וְשֹׁאֵל אוֹב וְיִדְּעֹנִי וְדֹרֵשׁ אֶל־הַמֵּתִים׃ 18.12. כִּי־תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה וּבִגְלַל הַתּוֹעֵבֹת הָאֵלֶּה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ מוֹרִישׁ אוֹתָם מִפָּנֶיךָ׃ 18.13. תָּמִים תִּהְיֶה עִם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 18.14. כִּי הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה יוֹרֵשׁ אוֹתָם אֶל־מְעֹנְנִים וְאֶל־קֹסְמִים יִשְׁמָעוּ וְאַתָּה לֹא כֵן נָתַן לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 3.23. And I besought the LORD at that time, saying:" 18.9. When thou art come into the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations." 18.10. There shall not be found among you any one that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that useth divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer," 18.11. or a charmer, or one that consulteth a ghost or a familiar spirit, or a necromancer." 18.12. For whosoever doeth these things is an abomination unto the LORD; and because of these abominations the LORD thy God is driving them out from before thee." 18.13. Thou shalt be whole-hearted with the LORD thy God." 18.14. For these nations, that thou art to dispossess, hearken unto soothsayers, and unto diviners; but as for thee, the LORD thy God hath not suffered thee so to do."
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 20.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

20.15. וְכָל־הָעָם רֹאִים אֶת־הַקּוֹלֹת וְאֶת־הַלַּפִּידִם וְאֵת קוֹל הַשֹּׁפָר וְאֶת־הָהָר עָשֵׁן וַיַּרְא הָעָם וַיָּנֻעוּ וַיַּעַמְדוּ מֵרָחֹק׃ 20.15. And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off."
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 15.30-15.31 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

15.31. כִּי דְבַר־יְהוָה בָּזָה וְאֶת־מִצְוָתוֹ הֵפַר הִכָּרֵת תִּכָּרֵת הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא עֲוֺנָה בָהּ׃ 15.30. But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people." 15.31. Because he hath despised the word of the LORD, and hath broken His commandment; that soul shall utterly be cut off, his iniquity shall be upon him."
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 50.16-50.21, 62.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

50.16. וְלָרָשָׁע אָמַר אֱלֹהִים מַה־לְּךָ לְסַפֵּר חֻקָּי וַתִּשָּׂא בְרִיתִי עֲלֵי־פִיךָ׃ 50.17. וְאַתָּה שָׂנֵאתָ מוּסָר וַתַּשְׁלֵךְ דְּבָרַי אַחֲרֶיךָ׃ 50.19. פִּיךָ שָׁלַחְתָּ בְרָעָה וּלְשׁוֹנְךָ תַּצְמִיד מִרְמָה׃ 50.21. אֵלֶּה עָשִׂיתָ וְהֶחֱרַשְׁתִּי דִּמִּיתָ הֱיוֹת־אֶהְיֶה כָמוֹךָ אוֹכִיחֲךָ וְאֶעֶרְכָה לְעֵינֶיךָ׃ 62.12. אַחַת דִּבֶּר אֱלֹהִים שְׁתַּיִם־זוּ שָׁמָעְתִּי כִּי עֹז לֵאלֹהִים׃ 50.16. But unto the wicked God saith: 'What hast thou to do to declare My statutes, And that thou hast taken My covet in thy mouth?" 50.17. Seeing thou hatest instruction, and castest My words behind thee." 50.19. Thou hast let loose thy mouth for evil, and thy tongue frameth deceit. ." 50.20. Thou sittest and speakest against thy brother; Thou slanderest thine own mother's son." 50.21. These things hast thou done, and should I have kept silence? Thou hadst thought that I was altogether such a one as thyself; but I will reprove thee, and set the cause before thine eyes." 62.12. God hath spoken once, Twice have I heard this: That strength belongeth unto God;"
5. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 23.29 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

23.29. הֲלוֹא כֹה דְבָרִי כָּאֵשׁ נְאֻם־יְהוָה וּכְפַטִּישׁ יְפֹצֵץ סָלַע׃ 23.29. Is not My word like as fire? Saith the LORD; And like a hammer that breaketh the rock in pieces?"
6. Euripides, Trojan Women, 888, 887 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

7. Philo of Alexandria, On The Sacrifices of Cain And Abel, 78 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

78. It is advantageous, therefore, if not with reference to the acquisition of perfect virtue, still at all events with reference to political considerations, both to be nourished in ancient and primeval opinions, and also to be acquainted with the ancient records of glorious actions, which historians and the whole race of poets have delivered to their contemporaries and to subsequent ages, to be preserved in their recollection. But when the sudden light of self-taught wisdom has shone upon those who had no foreknowledge or expectation of it, and opening the previously closed eyes of the soul, makes men spectators of knowledge instead of being merely hearers of it, implanting in the mind the swiftest of the outward senses, sight, instead of hearing, which is slower; it is then in vain to exercise the ears with speeches. XXIII.
8. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 13, 12 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

12. But they who apply themselves to this kind of worship, not because they are influenced to do so by custom, nor by the advice or recommendation of any particular persons, but because they are carried away by a certain heavenly love, give way to enthusiasm, behaving like so many revellers in bacchanalian or corybantian mysteries, until they see the object which they have been earnestly desiring.
9. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 10.19-10.20, 10.277-10.281, 12.29-12.30, 20.118-20.148 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

10.19. But in this Herodotus was mistaken, when he called this king not king of the Assyrians, but of the Arabians; for he saith that “a multitude of mice gnawed to pieces in one night both the bows and the rest of the armor of the Assyrians, and that it was on that account that the king, when he had no bows left, drew off his army from Pelusium.” 10.19. 2. Now Daniel and his kinsmen had resolved to use a severe diet, and to abstain from those kinds of food which came from the king’s table, and entirely to forbear to eat of all living creatures. So he came to Ashpenaz, who was that eunuch to whom the care of them was committed, and desired him to take and spend what was brought for them from the king, but to give them pulse and dates for their food, and any thing else, besides the flesh of living creatures, that he pleased, for that their inclinations were to that sort of food, and that they despised the other. 10.277. All these things did this man leave in writing, as God had showed them to him, insomuch that such as read his prophecies, and see how they have been fulfilled, would wonder at the honor wherewith God honored Daniel; and may thence discover how the Epicureans are in an error 10.278. who cast Providence out of human life, and do not believe that God takes care of the affairs of the world, nor that the universe is governed and continued in being by that blessed and immortal nature, but say that the world is carried along of its own accord, without a ruler and a curator; 10.279. which, were it destitute of a guide to conduct it, as they imagine, it would be like ships without pilots, which we see drowned by the winds, or like chariots without drivers, which are overturned; so would the world be dashed to pieces by its being carried without a Providence, and so perish, and come to nought. 10.281. Now as to myself, I have so described these matters as I have found them and read them; but if any one is inclined to another opinion about them, let him enjoy his different sentiments without any blame from me. 12.29. for I suppose that they were made captives without our father’s consent, and against equity; and that their country was harassed by the insolence of the soldiers, and that, by removing them into Egypt, the soldiers have made a great profit by them. 12.29. upon which Judas met him; and when he intended to give him battle, he saw that his soldiers were backward to fight, because their number was small, and because they wanted food, for they were fasting, he encouraged them, and said to them, that victory and conquest of enemies are not derived from the multitude in armies, but in the exercise of piety towards God; 20.118. 1. Now there arose a quarrel between the Samaritans and the Jews on the occasion following: It was the custom of the Galileans, when they came to the holy city at the festivals, to take their journeys through the country of the Samaritans; and at this time there lay, in the road they took, a village that was called Ginea, which was situated in the limits of Samaria and the great plain, where certain persons thereto belonging fought with the Galileans, and killed a great many of them. 20.119. But when the principal of the Galileans were informed of what had been done, they came to Cumanus, and desired him to avenge the murder of those that were killed; but he was induced by the Samaritans, with money, to do nothing in the matter; 20.121. And when their principal men endeavored to pacify them, and promised to endeavor to persuade Cureanus to avenge those that were killed, they would not hearken to them, but took their weapons, and entreated the assistance of Eleazar, the son of Dineus, a robber, who had many years made his abode in the mountains, with which assistance they plundered many villages of the Samaritans. 20.122. When Cumanus heard of this action of theirs, he took the band of Sebaste, with four regiments of footmen, and armed the Samaritans, and marched out against the Jews, and caught them, and slew many of them, and took a great number of them alive; 20.123. whereupon those that were the most eminent persons at Jerusalem, and that both in regard to the respect that was paid them, and the families they were of, as soon as they saw to what a height things were gone, put on sackcloth, and heaped ashes upon their heads, and by all possible means besought the seditious, and persuaded them that they would set before their eyes the utter subversion of their country, the conflagration of their temple, and the slavery of themselves, their wives, and children, which would be the consequences of what they were doing; and would alter their minds, would cast away their weapons, and for the future be quiet, and return to their own homes. These persuasions of theirs prevailed upon them. 20.124. So the people dispersed themselves, and the robbers went away again to their places of strength; and after this time all Judea was overrun with robberies. 20.125. 2. But the principal of the Samaritans went to Ummidius Quadratus, the president of Syria, who at that time was at Tyre, and accused the Jews of setting their villages on fire, and plundering them; 20.126. and said withal, that they were not so much displeased at what they had suffered, as they were at the contempt thereby shown to the Romans; while if they had received any injury, they ought to have made them the judges of what had been done, and not presently to make such devastation, as if they had not the Romans for their governors; 20.127. on which account they came to him, in order to obtain that vengeance they wanted. This was the accusation which the Samaritans brought against the Jews. But the Jews affirmed that the Samaritans were the authors of this tumult and fighting, and that, in the first place, Cumanus had been corrupted by their gifts, and passed over the murder of those that were slain in silence;— 20.128. which allegations when Quadratus heard, he put off the hearing of the cause, and promised that he would give sentence when he should come into Judea, and should have a more exact knowledge of the truth of that matter. 20.129. So these men went away without success. Yet was it not long ere Quadratus came to Samaria, where, upon hearing the cause, he supposed that the Samaritans were the authors of that disturbance. But when he was informed that certain of the Jews were making innovations, he ordered those to be crucified whom Cumanus had taken captives. 20.131. whom Quadratus ordered to be put to death: but still he sent away Aias the high priest, and Aus the commander [of the temple], in bonds to Rome, to give an account of what they had done to Claudius Caesar. 20.132. He also ordered the principal men, both of the Samaritans and of the Jews, as also Cumanus the procurator, and Ceier the tribune, to go to Italy to the emperor, that he might hear their cause, and determine their differences one with another. 20.133. But he came again to the city of Jerusalem, out of his fear that the multitude of the Jews should attempt some innovations; but he found the city in a peaceable state, and celebrating one of the usual festivals of their country to God. So he believed that they would not attempt any innovations, and left them at the celebration of the festival, and returned to Antioch. 20.134. 3. Now Cumanus, and the principal of the Samaritans, who were sent to Rome, had a day appointed them by the emperor whereon they were to have pleaded their cause about the quarrels they had one with another. 20.135. But now Caesar’s freed-men and his friends were very zealous on the behalf of Cumanus and the Samaritans; and they had prevailed over the Jews, unless Agrippa, junior, who was then at Rome, had seen the principal of the Jews hard set, and had earnestly entreated Agrippina, the emperor’s wife, to persuade her husband to hear the cause, so as was agreeable to his justice, and to condemn those to be punished who were really the authors of this revolt from the Roman government:— 20.136. whereupon Claudius was so well disposed beforehand, that when he had heard the cause, and found that the Samaritans had been the ringleaders in those mischievous doings, he gave order that those who came up to him should be slain, and that Cureanus should be banished. He also gave order that Celer the tribune should be carried back to Jerusalem, and should be drawn through the city in the sight of all the people, and then should be slain. 20.137. 1. So Claudius sent Felix, the brother of Pallas, to take care of the affairs of Judea; 20.138. and when he had already completed the twelfth year of his reign, he bestowed upon Agrippa the tetrarchy of Philip and Batanea, and added thereto Trachonites, with Abila; which last had been the tetrarchy of Lysanias; but he took from him Chalcis, when he had been governor thereof four years. 20.139. And when Agrippa had received these countries as the gift of Caesar, he gave his sister Drusilla in marriage to Azizus, king of Emesa, upon his consent to be circumcised; for Epiphanes, the son of king Antiochus, had refused to marry her, because, after he had promised her father formerly to come over to the Jewish religion, he would not now perform that promise. 20.141. 2. But for the marriage of Drusilla with Azizus, it was in no long time afterward dissolved upon the following occasion: 20.142. While Felix was procurator of Judea, he saw this Drusilla, and fell in love with her; for she did indeed exceed all other women in beauty; and he sent to her a person whose name was Simon one of his friends; a Jew he was, and by birth a Cypriot, and one who pretended to be a magician, and endeavored to persuade her to forsake her present husband, and marry him; and promised, that if she would not refuse him, he would make her a happy woman. 20.143. Accordingly she acted ill, and because she was desirous to avoid her sister Bernice’s envy, for she was very ill treated by her on account of her beauty, was prevailed upon to transgress the laws of her forefathers, and to marry Felix; and when he had had a son by her, he named him Agrippa. 20.144. But after what manner that young man, with his wife, perished at the conflagration of the mountain Vesuvius, in the days of Titus Caesar, shall be related hereafter. 20.145. 3. But as for Bernice, she lived a widow a long while after the death of Herod [king of Chalcis], who was both her husband and her uncle; but when the report went that she had criminal conversation with her brother, [Agrippa, junior,] she persuaded Poleme, who was king of Cilicia, to be circumcised, and to marry her, as supposing that by this means she should prove those calumnies upon her to be false; 20.146. and Poleme was prevailed upon, and that chiefly on account of her riches. Yet did not this matrimony endure long; but Bernice left Poleme, and, as was said, with impure intentions. So he forsook at once this matrimony, and the Jewish religion; 20.147. and, at the same time, Mariamne put away Archelaus, and was married to Demetrius, the principal man among the Alexandrian Jews, both for his family and his wealth; and indeed he was then their alabarch. So she named her son whom she had by him Agrippinus. But of all these particulars we shall hereafter treat more exactly. 20.148. 1. Now Claudius Caesar died when he had reigned thirteen years, eight months, and twenty days; and a report went about that he was poisoned by his wife Agrippina. Her father was Germanicus, the brother of Caesar. Her husband was Domitius Aenobarbus, one of the most illustrious persons that was in the city of Rome;
10. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.156-2.158 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.156. And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and dehortations from wickedness collected; 2.157. whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life by the hope they have of reward after their death; and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. 2.158. These are the Divine doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy.
11. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.25, 2.145, 2.161-2.162 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.25. However, our admirable author Apion hath before told us, that “they came to Judea in six days’ time;” and again, that “Moses went up to a mountain that lay between Egypt and Arabia, which was called Sinai, and was concealed there forty days, and that when he came down from thence he gave laws to the Jews.” But then, how was it possible for them to tarry forty days in a desert place where there was no water, and at the same time to pass all over the country between that and Judea in the six days? 2.25. 36. Wherefore it deserves our inquiry what should be the occasion of this unjust management, and of these scandals about the Deity. And truly I suppose it to be derived from the imperfect knowledge the heathen legislators had at first of the true nature of God; nor did they explain to the people even so far as they did comprehend of it: nor did they compose the other parts of their political settlements according to it 2.145. 15. But now, since Apollonius Molo, and Lysimachus, and some others, write treatises about our lawgiver Moses, and about our laws, which are neither just nor true, and this partly out of ignorance, but chiefly out of ill will to us, while they calumniate Moses as an impostor and deceiver, and pretend that our laws teach us wickedness, but nothing that is virtuous, I have a mind to discourse briefly, according to my ability, about our whole constitution of government, and about the particular branches of it; 2.161. and this is the character of our legislator; he was no impostor, no deceiver, as his revilers say, though unjustly, but such a one as they brag Minos to have been among the Greeks, and other legislators after him; 2.162. for some of them suppose that they had their laws from Jupiter, while Minos said that the revelation of his laws was to be referred to Apollo, and his oracle at Delphi, whether they really thought they were so derived, or supposed, however, that they could persuade the people easily that so it was;
12. Mishnah, Avot, 1.3, 1.7, 2.16, 3.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.3. Antigonus a man of Socho received [the oral tradition] from Shimon the Righteous. He used to say: do not be like servants who serve the master in the expectation of receiving a reward, but be like servants who serve the master without the expectation of receiving a reward, and let the fear of Heaven be upon you." 1.7. Nittai the Arbelite used to say: keep a distance from an evil neighbor, do not become attached to the wicked, and do not abandon faith in [divine] retribution." 2.16. He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come." 3.11. Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covet of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come."
13. Mishnah, Berachot, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9.5. One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”"
14. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification."
15. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.9. One may not slaughter [so that the blood runs] into the sea or into rivers, or into vessels, But one may slaughter into a pool (or vessel) of water. And when on board a ship on to vessels. One may not slaughter at all into a hole, but one may dig a hole in his own house for the blood to run into. In the street, however, he should not do so as not to follow the ways of the heretics."
16. 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."
17. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival."
18. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.3. They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it."
19. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.5, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.5. How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]" 10.1. All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases whichbrought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”"
20. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

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." 9.15. When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”"
21. Mishnah, Yoma, 8.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

8.8. The sin-offering and the certain guilt-offering effect atonement. Death and Yom HaKippurim effect atonement together with repentance. Repentance effects atonement for light transgressions: [the transgression of] positive commandments and negative commandments. And for severer transgressions [repentance] suspends [the divine punishment], until Yom HaKippurim arrives and effects atonement."
22. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)."
23. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 3.6, 3.12-3.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

24. New Testament, Luke, 20.34-20.35 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

20.34. Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage. 20.35. But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage.
25. New Testament, Mark, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

6.6. He marveled because of their unbelief. He went around the villages teaching.
26. Plutarch, On Isis And Osiris, 75 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

75. The crocodile, Cf. Herodotus, ii. 69. certainly, has acquired honour which is not devoid of a plausible reason, but he is declared to be a living representation of God, since he is the only creature without a tongue; for the Divine Word has no need of a voice, and through noiseless ways advancing, guides By Justice all affairs of mortal men. Euripides, Troades, 887-888; Cf. Plutarch, Moralia, 1007 c. They say that the crocodile is the only animal living in the water which has a thin and transparent membrane extending down from his forehead to cover up his eyes, so that he can see without being seen; and this prerogative belongs also unto the First God. In whatever part of the land the female crocodile lays her eggs, well she knows that this is destined to mark the limit of the rise of the Nile Ibid. 982 c; Aristotle, Hist. Animalium, v. 33 (558 a 17). ; for the females, being unable to lay their eggs in the water and afraid to lay them far from it, have such an accurate perception of the future that they make use of the oncoming river as a guide in laying their eggs and in keeping them warm; and thus they preserve them dry and untouched by the water. They lay sixty eggs Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animalium, ii. 33, v. 52. and hatch them in the same number of days, and those crocodiles that live longest live that number of years: the number sixty is the first of measures for such persons as concern themselves with the heavenly bodies. of the animals that are held in honour for both reasons, mention has already been made of the dog. supra, 355and 368 f. The ibis, Cf. Diodorus, i. 87. 6. which kills the deadly creeping things, was the first to teach men the use of medicinal purgations when they observed her employing clysters and being purged by herself. Cf. Aelian, De Natura Animalium, ii. 35; Pliny, Natural History, x. 40 (75). The most strict of the priests take their lustral water for purification from a place where the ibis has drunk Cf. Moralia, 974 c; Aelian, De Natura Animalium, vii. 45. : for she does not drink water if it is unwholesome or tainted, nor will she approach it. By the spreading of her feet, in their relation to each other and to her bill, she makes an equilateral triangle. Cf. Moralia, 670 c. Moreover the variety and combination of her black feathers with her white picture the moon in its first quarter. There is no occasion for surprise that the Egyptians were so taken with such slight resemblances; for the Greeks in their painted and sculptured portrayals of the gods made use of many such. Tor example, in Crete there was a statue of Zeus having no ears; for it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone. Beside the statue of Athena Pheidias placed the serpent and in Elis beside the statue of Aphroditê the tortoise, Cf. Moralia, 142 d; Pausanias, vi. 25. 2. to indicate that maidens need watching, and that for married women staying at home and silence is becoming. The trident of Poseidon is a symbol of the Third Region where the sea holds sway, for it. has been assigned to a demesne of less importance than the heavens and the air. For this reason they thus named Amphitritê and the Tritons. An effort to derive these names from τρίτος, third. The Pythagoreans embellished also numbers and figures with the appellations of the gods. The equilateral triangle they called Athena, born from the head and third-born, because it is divided by three perpendiculars drawn from its three angles. The number one they called Apollo Cf. the note on 354 f, supra . because of its rejection of plurality Cf. 393 b, infra . and because of the singleness of unity. The number two they called Strife, and Daring, and three they called Justice, for, although the doing of injustice and suffering from injustice are caused by deficiency and excess, Justice, by reason of its equality, intervenes between the two. The so-called sacred quaternion, the number thirtysix, was, so it is famed, the mightiest of oaths, and it has been given the name of World since it is made up of the first four even numbers and the first four odd numbers added together. 75. The crocodile, certainly, has acquired honour which is not devoid of a plausible reason, but he is declared to be a living representation of God, since he is the only creature without a tongue; for the Divine Word has no need of a voice, and through noiseless ways advancing, guides By Justice all affairs of mortal men. They say that the crocodile is the only animal living in the water which has a thin and transparent membrane extending down from his forehead to cover up his eyes, so that he can see without being seen; and this prerogative belongs also unto the First God. In whatever part of the land the female crocodile lays her eggs, well she knows that this is destined to mark the limit of the rise of the Nile; for the females, being unable to lay their eggs in the water and afraid to lay them far from it, have such an accurate perception of the future that they make use of the oncoming river as a guide in laying their eggs and in keeping them warm; and thus they preserve them dry and untouched by the water. They lay sixty eggs and hatch them in the same number of days, and those crocodiles that live longest live that number of years: the number sixty is the first of measures for such persons as concern themselves with the heavenly bodies. of the animals that are held in honour for both reasons, mention has already been made of the dog. The ibis, which kills the deadly creeping things, was the first to teach men the use of medicinal purgations when they observed her employing clysters and being purged by herself. The most strict of the priests take their lustral water for purification from a place where the ibis has drunk: for she does not drink water if it is unwholesome or tainted, nor will she approach it. By the spreading of her feet, in their relation to each other and to her bill, she makes an equilateral triangle. Moreover the variety and combination of her black feathers with her white picture the moon in its first quarter. There is no occasion for surprise that the Egyptians were so taken with such slight resemblances; for the Greeks in their painted and sculptured portrayals of the gods made use of many such. For example, in Crete there was a statue of Zeus having no ears; for it is not fitting for the Ruler and Lord of all to listen to anyone. Beside the statue of Athena Pheidias placed the serpent and in Elis beside the statue of Aphroditê the tortoise, to indicate that maidens need watching, and that for married women staying at home and silence is becoming. The trident of Poseidon is a symbol of the Third Region where the sea holds sway, for it has been assigned to a demesne of less importance than the heavens and the air. For this reason they thus named Amphitritê and the Tritons. The Pythagoreans embellished also numbers and figures with the appellations of the gods. The equilateral triangle they called Athena, born from the head and third-born, because it is divided by three perpendiculars drawn from its three angles. The number one they called Apollo because of its rejection of plurality and because of the singleness of unity. The number two they called "Strife," and "Daring," and three they called "Justice," for, although the doing of injustice and suffering from injustice are caused by deficiency and excess, Justice, by reason of its equality, intervenes between the two. The so‑called sacred quaternion, the number thirty-six, was, so it is famed, the mightiest of oaths, and it has been given the name of "World" since it is made up of the first four even numbers and the first four odd numbers added together.
27. Plutarch, Moralia, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

28. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.25. Eighteen Berachot (blessings) that the Sages have established [for the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh have been established] corresponding to eighteen mentionings [of God’s name] that are in [the chapter of Tehillim that begins with] “Ascribe to God, children of princes…” (Tehillim 29) And [a person] should include [the Beracha against] the heretics into [the Beracha] for the Rabbinical Jews, and [the Beracha] for the converts into [the Beracha] for the elders, and [the Beracha] for [King] David into [the Beracha] for [the rebuilding of] Jerusalem. But if he said each one of them separately he has fulfilled his obligation [of praying Shemoneh Esreh]."
29. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

30. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.18-2.19 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

31. Tosefta, Parah, 3.3, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

32. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

33. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 6.6, 8.7, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

34. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15, 15.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

35. Tosefta, Sotah, 15.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

36. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath."
37. Tosefta, Kippurim, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

38. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

39. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 3.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

40. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 14.7, 63.13 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

14.7. עָפָר, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בַּר סִימוֹן אוֹמֵר, עוֹפֶר עוֹלָם עַל מְלֵיאָתוֹ נִבְרָא. אָמַר רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר בַּר שִׁמְעוֹן אַף חַוָּה עַל מְלֵיאָתָהּ נִבְרֵאת. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָדָם וְחַוָּה כִּבְנֵי עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה נִבְרְאוּ. רַבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר עָפָר זָכָר, אֲדָמָה נְקֵבָה, הַיּוֹצֵר הַזֶּה מֵבִיא עָפָר זָכָר, וַאֲדָמָה נְקֵבָה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֵּלָיו בְּרִיאִין. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּאֶחָד בְּצִפּוֹרִי שֶׁמֵּת בְּנוֹ, אִית דְּאָמְרֵי מִינָאִי הֲוָה יָתִיב גַּבֵּיהּ, סְלֵק רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא לְמֶחֱמֵי לֵיהּ אַנְפִּין, חַמְתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וְשָׂחֵיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה אַתָּה שָׂחֵיק, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֲנַן רְחִיצָן בְּמָרֵי שְׁמַיָא, דְּאִתְחַמֵי לְאַפּוּיֵי לְעָלְמָא דְאָתֵי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָא מִסְתְּיֵיהּ לְהַהוּא גַבְרָא עָקְתֵיהּ אֶלָּא דַאֲתֵית מְעָקָא לֵיהּ, אִית חַסְפִּין מִתְדַּבְּקִין, לֹא כָּךְ כְּתִיב (תהלים ב, ט): כִּכְלִי יוֹצֵר תְּנַפְּצֵם, אֶתְמְהָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כְּלִי חֶרֶשׂ בְּרִיָּיתוֹ מִן הַמַּיִם וְהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בָּאוּר, כְּלִי זְכוּכִית בְּרִיָּיתוֹ מִן הָאוּר וְהֶכְשֵׁרוֹ בָּאוּר. זֶה נִשְׁבַּר וְיֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, וְזֶה נִשְׁבַּר וְאֵין לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, אֶתְמְהָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהוּא עָשׂוּי בִּנְפִיחָה. אָמַר לוֹ יִשְׁמְעוּ אָזְנֶיךָ מַה שֶּׁפִּיךָ אוֹמֵר, מָה אִם זֶה שֶׁעָשׂוּי בִּנְפִיחָתוֹ שֶׁל בָּשָׂר וָדָם יֵשׁ לוֹ תַּקָּנָה, בִּנְפִיחָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק כִּכְלִי חֶרֶס תְּנַפְּצֵם אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא כִּכְלִי יוֹצֵר תְּנַפְּצֵם, כְּלִי יוֹצֵר שֶׁלֹא הוּסְקוּ יְכוֹלִין הֵן לַחֲזֹר. 63.13. וַיֹּאמֶר יַעֲקֹב מִכְרָה כַיּוֹם (בראשית כה, לא), אָמַר לוֹ זַבֵּין לִי חַד יוֹם מִן דִּידָךְ, אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא כָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא יוֹדֵעַ לְחַשֵּׁב יְמֵי הַגָּלוּת, יִמְצָא שֶׁיּוֹם אֶחָד יָשַׁב יַעֲקֹב בְּשַׁלְוָה בְּצִלּוֹ שֶׁל עֵשָׂו. (בראשית כב, לב): וַיֹּאמֶר עֵשָׂו הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת, רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָמַר הִתְחִיל מְחָרֵף וּמְגַדֵּף, לָמָּה לִי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן, אֶלָּא (בראשית כב, לב): לָמָּה זֶּה לִי, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּפַר בְּזֶה אֵלִי (שמות טו, ב). דָּבָר אַחֵר, הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי הוֹלֵךְ לָמוּת, שֶׁהָיָה נִמְרוֹד מְבַקֵּשׁ לְהָמִית אוֹתוֹ בִּשְׁבִיל אוֹתוֹ הַבֶּגֶד שֶׁהָיָה לְאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, שֶׁבְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהָיָה לוֹבְשׁוֹ וְיוֹצֵא לַשָּׂדֶה הָיוּ בָּאִים כָּל חַיָּה וָעוֹף שֶׁבָּעוֹלָם וּמִתְקַבְּצִין אֶצְלוֹ. (בראשית כה, לג): וַיֹּאמֶר הִשְּׁבְעָה לִי, מָה רָאָה אָבִינוּ יַעֲקֹב שֶׁנָּתַן נַפְשׁוֹ עַל הַבְּכוֹרָה, דִּתְנֵינַן עַד שֶׁלֹא הוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן הָיוּ הַבָּמוֹת מֻתָּרוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּבְּכוֹרִים, מִשֶּׁהוּקַם הַמִּשְׁכָּן נֶאֶסְרוּ הַבָּמוֹת וַעֲבוֹדָה בַּכֹּהֲנִים, אָמַר יִהְיֶה רָשָׁע זֶה עוֹמֵד וּמַקְרִיב, לְפִיכָךְ נָתַן נַפְשׁוֹ עַל הַבְּכוֹרָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (יחזקאל לה, ו): כִּי לְדָם אֶעֶשְׂךָ וְדָם יִרְדֳּפֶךָ אִם לֹא דָם שָׂנֵאתָ וְדָם יִרְדֳּפֶךָ, וְעֵשָׂו הוּא שׂוֹנֵא אֶת הַדָּם. רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר זֶה דַּם בְּכוֹרָה וְקָרְבָּנוֹת. רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר זֶה דַּם שֶׁל מִילָה. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי שָׂנֵאתָ דָּמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם בְּגוּפוֹ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קט, יז): וַיֶּאֱהַב קְלָלָה וַתְּבוֹאֵהוּ. רַבִּי לֵוִי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָמָא אָמַר לֹא חָפֵץ בִּבְרָכָה וְלֹא חָפֵץ בְּכוֹרָה. רַבִּי הוּנָא אָמַר זֶה דַּם הַקָּרְבָּנוֹת שֶׁהוּא קָרוּי בְּרָכָה, הֵיךְ מָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (שמות כ, כד): מִזְבַּח אֲדָמָה תַּעֲשֶׂה לִי. 14.7. ... dirt from the ground / afar min ha’adamah,[ explains]: ‘Afar’—male, ‘adamah’—female..."
41. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 9.3, 13.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

9.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְשָׂם דֶּרֶךְ, אָמַר רַבִּי יַנַּאי וְשָׁם כְּתִיב דְּשָׁיֵם אָרְחֵיהּ, סַגֵּי שָׁוֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי שֶׁהָיָה מְהַלֵּךְ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וְרָאָה אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה מְשֻׁפַּע בְּיוֹתֵר, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַשְׁגַּח רַבִּי מִתְקַבְּלָא גַבָּן, אֲמַר לוֹ אִין, הִכְנִיסוֹ לְבֵיתוֹ הֶאֱכִילוֹ וְהִשְׁקָהוּ, בְּדָקוֹ בְּמִקְרָא וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ, בְּמִשְׁנָה וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ, בְּאַגָּדָה וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ, בְּתַלְמוּד וְלֹא מְצָאוֹ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ סַב בְּרִיךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ יְבָרֵךְ יַנַּאי בְּבֵיתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִית בָּךְ אֲמַר מַה דַּאֲנָא אֲמַר לָךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֱמֹר אָכוֹל כַּלְבָּא פִּיסְתְּיָא דְּיַנַּאי, קָם תַּפְסֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ יְרוּתָתִי גַבָּךְ דְּאַתְּ מוֹנֵעַ לִי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמַה יַרְתּוּתָךְ גַבִּי, אֲמַר לֵיהּ חַד זְמַן הֲוֵינָא עָבַר קַמֵּי בֵּית סִפְרָא, וּשְׁמָעִית קָלְהוֹן דְּמֵנִיקַיָא אָמְרִין (דברים לג, ד): תּוֹרָה צִוָּה לָנוּ משֶׁה מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב, מוֹרָשָׁה קְהִלַּת יַנַּאי אֵין כְּתִיב כָּאן אֶלָּא קְהִלַּת יַעֲקֹב. אֲמַר לֵיהּ לָמָּה זָכִיתָ לְמֵיכְלָא עַל פְּתוֹרִי, אֲמַר לוֹ מִיּוֹמַי לָא שְׁמָעִית מִילָא בִּישָׁא וְחִזַּרְתִּי לְמָרַהּ, וְלָא חָמֵית תְּרֵין דְּמִתְכַּתְּשִׁין דֵּין עִם דֵּין וְלָא יְהַבִית שְׁלָמָא בֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ כָּל הֲדָא דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ גַּבָּךְ וְקָרִיתָךְ כַּלְבָּא, קָרָא עֲלֵיהּ שָׁם דֶּרֶךְ, דְּשָׁיֵם אָרְחֵיהּ סַגֵּי שָׁוֵי, דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר רַב נַחְמָן עֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁשָּׁה דוֹרוֹת קָדְמָה דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית ג, כד): לִשְׁמֹר אֶת דֶּרֶךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, דֶּרֶךְ, זוֹ דֶּרֶךְ אֶרֶץ, וְאַחַר כָּךְ עֵץ הַחַיִּים, זוֹ תּוֹרָה. אַרְאֶנּוּ בְּיֵשַׁע אֱלֹהִים, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּהוּ זֶה אֶחָד מִן הַמִּקְרָאוֹת שֶׁיְשׁוּעָתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא יְשׁוּעָתָן שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל (תהלים פ, ג): וּלְכָה לִישֻׁעָתָה לָּנוּ. 13.5. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן כָּל הַנְּבִיאִים רָאוּ הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת בְּעִסּוּקָן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (בראשית ב, י): וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן לְהַשְׁקוֹת וגו', רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא וְאַמְרֵי לָהּ רַבִּי מְנַחֲמָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר עָתִיד הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְהַשְׁקוֹת כּוֹס הַתַּרְעֵלָה לְאֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם לֶעָתִיד לָבוֹא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וְנָהָר יֹצֵא מֵעֵדֶן, מָקוֹם שֶׁהַדִּין יוֹצֵא, (בראשית ב, י): וּמִשָּׁם יִפָּרֵד וְהָיָה לְאַרְבָּעָה רָאשִׁים, אֵלּוּ אַרְבָּעָה נְהָרוֹת, (בראשית ב, יא): שֵׁם הָאֶחָד פִּישׁוֹן, זֶה בָּבֶל, עַל שֵׁם (חבקוק א, ח): וּפָשׁוּ פָּרָשָׁיו. (בראשית ב, יא): הוּא הַסֹּבֵב אֵת כָּל אֶרֶץ הַחֲוִילָה, נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הָרָשָׁע שֶׁעָלָה וְהִקִּיף אֶת כָּל אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל שֶׁמְּיַחֶלֶת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים מב, ו): הוֹחִלִי לֵאלֹהִים. (בראשית ב, יא): אֲשֶׁר שָׁם הַזָּהָב, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים יט, יא): הַנֶּחֱמָדִים מִזָּהָב וּמִפָּז רָב. (בראשית ב, יב): וּזֲהַב הָאָרֶץ הַהִוא טוֹב, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁאֵין תּוֹרָה כְּתוֹרַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵין חָכְמָה כְּחָכְמַת אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, (בראשית ב, יב): שָׁם הַבְּדֹלַח וְאֶבֶן הַשֹּׁהַם, מִקְרָא מִשְׁנָה תַּלְמוּד הֲלָכוֹת וְאַגָּדוֹת. (בראשית ב, יג): וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשֵּׁנִי גִיחוֹן, זֶה מָדַי, שֶׁהֶעֱמִידָה אֶת הָמָן הָרָשָׁע שֶׁמָּשַׁךְ עִסָּה כַּנָּחָשׁ, עַל שׁוּם (בראשית ג, יד): עַל גְּחֹנְךָ תֵלֵךְ. (בראשית ב, יג): הוּא הַסּוֹבֵב אֶת כָּל אֶרֶץ כּוּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (אסתר א, א): מֵהוֹדוּ וְעַד כּוּשׁ. (בראשית ב, יד): וְשֵׁם הַנָּהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי חִדֶּקֶל, זוֹ יָוָן, שֶׁהִיא חַדָּה וְקַלָּה בִּגְזֵרוֹתֶיהָ עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאוֹמֵר לָהֶם כִּתְבוּ עַל קֶרֶן הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁאֵין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל חֵלֶק בֵּאלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. (בראשית ב, יד): הַהֹלֵךְ קִדְמַת אַשּׁוּר, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא כָּל הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת נִקְרְאוּ עַל שֵׁם אַשּׁוּר, שֶׁהָיוּ מְאַשְׁרִין עַצְמָן מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בְּרַבִּי חֲנִינָא, כָּל הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת נִקְרְאוּ עַל שֵׁם מִצְרַיִם, עַל שֵׁם שֶׁהָיוּ מְצֵירִין לְיִשְׂרָאֵל. (בראשית ב, יד): וְהַנָּהָר הָרְבִיעִי הוּא פְרָת, הוּא אֱדוֹם שֶׁפָּרָת וְרָבָת בִּתְפִלָּתוֹ שֶׁל זָקֵן. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁפָּרָת וְרָבָת וְהֵצֵירָה לְעוֹלָמוֹ שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁפָּרָת וְרָבָת וְהֵצֵירָה לִבְנוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁפָּרָת וְרָבָת וְהֵצֵירָה לְבֵיתוֹ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, פָּרָת עַל שׁוּם סוֹפָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה סג, ג): פּוּרָה דָרַכְתִּי לְבַדִּי. אַבְרָהָם רָאָה הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת בְּעִסּוּקָן (בראשית טו, יב): וְהִנֵּה אֵימָה, זוֹ בָּבֶל עַל שֵׁם (דניאל ג, יט): נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר הִתְמְלִי חֱמָא. (בראשית טו, יב): חֲשֵׁכָה, זוֹ מָדַי, שֶׁהֶחֱשִׁיכָה בִּגְזֵרוֹתֶיהָ אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (אסתר ג, יג): לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד. (בראשית טו, יב): גְּדֹלָה, זוֹ יָוָן, אָמַר רַב נַחְמָן מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיְתָה מַלְכוּת יָוָן מַעֲמֶדֶת מֵאָה וְשִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד אִפַּרְכִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים וְשִׁבְעָה אִסְטְרָטָלִיטוּן, וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרִין שִׁשִּׁים שִׁשִׁים, וְרַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חָנִין עַל הֲדָא דְרַבָּנָן (דברים ח, טו): הַמּוֹלִיכְךָ בַּמִּדְבָּר הַגָּדֹל וְהַנּוֹרָא נָחָשׁ שָׂרָף וְעַקְרָב, נָחָשׁ זֶה בָּבֶל. שָׂרָף, זֶה מָדַי. עַקְרָב, זֶה יָוָן, מָה עַקְרָב זֶה מַשְׁרֶצֶת שִׁשִּׁים שִׁשִּׁים, כָּךְ הָיְתָה מַלְכוּת יָוָן מַעֲמֶדֶת שִׁשִּׁים שִׁשִּׁים. (בראשית טו, יב): נֹפֶלֶת, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, עַל שֵׁם (ירמיה מט, כא): מִקּוֹל נִפְלָם רָעֲשָׁה הָאָרֶץ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים אֵימָה, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, עַל שֵׁם (דניאל ז, ז): דְּחִילָה וְאֵימְתָנִי. חֲשֵׁכָה, זוֹ יָוָן. גְּדֹלָה, זוֹ מָדַי, עַל שֵׁם (אסתר ג, א): גִּדַּל הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ. נֹפֶלֶת, זוֹ בָּבֶל, עַל שֵׁם (ישעיה כא, ט): נָפְלָה נָפְלָה בָּבֶל. רָאָה דָּנִיֵּאל אֶת הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת בְּעִסּוּקָן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דניאל ז, ב ג): חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוִי עִם לֵילְיָא וַאֲרוּ אַרְבַּע רוּחֵי שְׁמַיָא מְגִיחָן לְיַמָּא רַבָּא, וְאַרְבַּע חֵיוָן רַבְרְבָן סָלְקָן מִן יַמָּא, אִם זְכִיתֶם מִן יַמָּא וְאִם לָאו מִן חוֹרְשָׁא, הֲדָא חֵיוְתָא דְיַמָּא כִּי סָלְקָא מִן יַמָּא הִיא מִמַּכְיָא, סָלְקָא מִן חוֹרְשָׁא לֵית הִיא מִמַּכְיָא, דְכַוָּותָא (תהלים פ, יד): יְכַרְסְמֶנָּה חֲזִיר מִיָּעַר, עַיִ"ן תְּלוּיָה, אִם זְכִיתֶם מִן הַיְאוֹר וְאִם לָאו מִן הַיַּעַר, הֲדָא חֵיוְתָא כִּי סָלְקָא מִן נַהֲרָא הִיא מִמַּכְיָא, סָלְקָא מִן חוֹרְשָׁא לֵית הִיא מִמַּכְיָא, (דניאל ז, ג): שָׁנְיָן דָּא מִן דָּא, אַל תִּקְרֵי שָׁנְיָן אֶלָּא סָנְיָן דָּא מִן דָּא, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁכָּל אֻמָּה שֶׁשּׁוֹלֶטֶת בָּעוֹלָם הִיא שׂוֹנְאָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּמְשַׁעְבְּדָא בָּהֶן. (דניאל ז, ד): קַדְמָיְתָא כְאַרְיֵה, זוֹ בָּבֶל, יִרְמְיָה רָאָה אוֹתָהּ אֲרִי וְרָאָה אוֹתָהּ נֶשֶׁר, דִּכְתִיב (ירמיה ד, ז): עָלָה אַרְיֵה מִסֻּבְּכוֹ (ירמיה מט, כב): הִנֵּה כַנֶּשֶׁר יַעֲלֶה וְיִדְאֶה, אָמְרִין לְדָנִיֵּאל אַתּ מָה חָמֵית לְהוֹן, אָמַר לְהוֹן חָמֵיתִי אַפִּין כְּאַרְיֵה וְגַפִּין דִּי נְשַׁר, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דניאל ז, ד): קַדְמָיְתָא כְאַרְיֵה וְגַפִּין דִּי נְשַׁר לַהּ חָזֵה הֲוֵית עַד דִּי מְּרִיטוּ גַּפֵּיהּ וּנְטִילַת מִן אַרְעָא. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן, רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר אוֹמֵר כָּל אוֹתוֹ אֲרִי לָקָה וְלִבּוֹ לֹא לָקָה, דִּכְתִיב (דניאל ז, ד): וּלְבַב אֱנָשׁ יְהִיב לַהּ. וְרַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָן אָמַר אַף לִבּוֹ לָקָה, דִּכְתִיב (דניאל ד, יג): לִבְבֵהּ מִן אֲנָשָׁא יְשַׁנּוֹן. חָזֵה הֲוֵית (דניאל ז, ה): וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה אָחֳרֵי תִנְיָנָא דָמְיָא לְדֹב, לְדב כְּתִיב זֶה מָדַי, הוּא דַעְתֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יוֹחָנָן דְּאָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן (ירמיה ה, ו): עַל כֵּן הִכָּם אַרְיֵה מִיַּעַר, זוֹ בָּבֶל. (ירמיה ה, ו): זְאֵב עֲרָבוֹת יְשָׁדְדֵם, זוֹ מָדַי. (ירמיה ה, ו): נָמֵר שֹׁקֵד עַל עָרֵיהֶם, זוֹ יָוָן. (ירמיה ה, ו): כָּל הַיּוֹצֵא מֵהֵנָּה יִטָּרֵף, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, לָמָּה, (ירמיה ה, ו): כִּי רַבּוּ פִּשְׁעֵיהֶם עָצְמוּ מְשֻׁבוֹתֵיהֶם. (דניאל ז, ו): חָזֵה הֲוֵית וַאֲרוּ אָחֳרִי כִּנְמַר, זוֹ יָוָן, שֶׁהָיְתָה מַעֲמֶדֶת בִּגְזֵרוֹתֶיהָ וְאוֹמֶרֶת לְיִשְׂרָאֵל כִּתְבוּ עַל קֶרֶן הַשּׁוֹר שֶׁאֵין לָכֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. (דניאל ז, ז): בָּאתַר דְּנָא חָזֵה הֲוֵית בְּחֶזְוֵי לֵילְיָא וַאֲרוּ חֵיוָה רְבִיעָאָה דְּחִילָה וְאֵימְתָנִי וְתַקִּיפָא יַתִּירָה, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, דָּנִיֵּאל רָאָה שְׁלָשְׁתָּן בְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד וְלָזוֹ בְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד, לָמָּה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר שֶׁשְּׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר יַתִּירָה. מָתִיב רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ (יחזקאל כא, יט): בֶּן אָדָם הִנָּבֵא וְהַךְ כַּף אֶל כָּף, דָּא מָה עָבַד לָהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ (יחזקאל כא, יט): וְתִכָּפֵל. משֶׁה רָאָה אֶת הַמַּלְכֻיּוֹת בְּעִסּוּקָן, (ויקרא יא, ד): אֶת הַגָּמָל, זוֹ בָּבֶל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קלז, ח): אַשְׁרֵי שֶׁיְשַׁלֶּם לָךְ אֶת גְּמוּלֵךְ שֶׁגָּמַלְתְּ לָנוּ. (ויקרא יא, ה): אֶת הַשָּׁפָן, זוֹ מָדַי. רַבָּנָן וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן, רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי מַה הַשָּׁפָן הַזֶּה יֵשׁ בּוֹ סִימָנֵי טֻמְאָה וְסִימָנֵי טָהֳרָה, כָּךְ הָיְתָה מַלְכוּת מָדַי מַעֲמֶדֶת צַדִּיק וְרָשָׁע. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בְּרַבִּי סִימוֹן דָּרְיָוֶשׁ הָאַחֲרוֹן בְּנָהּ שֶׁל אֶסְתֵּר הָיָה, טָהוֹר מֵאִמּוֹ וְטָמֵא מֵאָבִיו. (ויקרא יא, ו): וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת, זוֹ יָוָן, אִמּוֹ שֶׁל תַּלְמַי אַרְנֶבֶת שְׁמָהּ. (ויקרא יא, ז): וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר, זוֹ פָּרַס, משֶׁה נָתַן שְׁלָשְׁתָּם בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד, וְלָזוֹ בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד, וְלָמָּה, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן וְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ, רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן אָמַר שֶׁשְּׁקוּלָה כְּנֶגֶד שְׁלָשְׁתָּן, רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר (דניאל ז, ז): יַתִּירָה. מָתִיב רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ בֶּן אָדָם הִנָּבֵא וְהַךְ כַּף אֶל כָּף, דָּא מָה עָבַד לֵיהּ רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ וְתִכָּפֵל. רַבִּי פִּנְחָס וְרַבִּי חִלְקִיָּה בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי סִימוֹן מִכָּל הַנְּבִיאִים לֹא פִּרְסְמוּהָ אֶלָּא שְׁנַיִם אָסָף וּמשֶׁה, אָסָף אָמַר (תהלים פ, יד): יְכַרְסְמֶנָּה חֲזִיר מִיָּעַר. משֶׁה אָמַר (ויקרא יא, ז): וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר כִּי מַפְרִיס פַּרְסָה, לָמָּה נִמְשְׁלָה לַחֲזִיר, לוֹמַר לָךְ מָה חֲזִיר בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁהוּא רוֹבֵץ מוֹצִיא טְלָפָיו וְאוֹמֵר רְאוּ שֶׁאֲנִי טָהוֹר, כָּךְ מַלְכוּת אֱדוֹם מִתְגָּאָה וְחוֹמֶסֶת וְגוֹזֶלֶת וְנִרְאֵית כְּאִלּוּ מַצַּעַת בִּימָה. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּשִׁלְטוֹן אֶחָד שֶׁהָיָה הוֹרֵג הַגַּנָּבִים וְהַמְנָאֲפִים וְהַמְכַשְּׁפִים, גָּחִין וְאָמַר לַסַּנְקְלִיטִין, שְׁלָשְׁתָּן עָשִׂיתִי בְּלַיְלָה אֶחָד. דָּבָר אַחֵר, (ויקרא יא, ד): אֶת הַגָּמָל, זוֹ בָּבֶל, (ויקרא יא, ד): כִּי מַעֲלֶה גֵרָה הוּא, שֶׁמְקַלֶּסֶת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רַבִּי בֶּרֶכְיָה וְרַבִּי חֶלְבּוֹ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בַּר נַחְמָן, כָּל מַה שֶּׁפָּרַט דָּוִד כָּלַל אוֹתוֹ רָשָׁע בְּפָסוּק אֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ד, לד): כְּעַן אֲנָה נְבֻכַדְנֶצַּר מְשַׁבַּח וּמְרוֹמֵם וּמְהַדַּר לְמֶלֶךְ שְׁמַיָא. מְשַׁבַּח (תהלים קמז, יב): שַׁבְּחִי יְרוּשָׁלַיִם אֶת ה'. וּמְרוֹמֵם (תהלים ל, ב): אֲרוֹמִמְךָ ה'. וּמְהַדַּר (תהלים קד, א): ה' אֱלֹהַי גָדַלְתָּ מְאֹד הוֹד וְהָדָר לָבָשְׁתָּ. (דניאל ד, לד): דִּי כָל מַעֲבָדוֹהִי קְשֹׁט (תהלים קלח, ב): עַל חַסְדְּךָ וְעַל אֲמִתֶּךָ. (דניאל ד, לד): וְאֹרְחָתֵהּ דִּין (תהלים צו, י): יָדִין עַמִּים בְּמֵישָׁרִים. (דניאל ד, לד): וְדִי מַהְלְכִין בְּגֵוָה (תהלים צג, א): ה' מָלָךְ גֵּאוּת לָבֵשׁ. (דניאל ד, לד): יָכִל לְהַשְׁפָּלָה (תהלים עה, יא): וְכָל קַרְנֵי רְשָׁעִים אֲגַדֵּעַ. (ויקרא יא, ה): וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן, זוֹ מָדַי, (ויקרא יא, ה): כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, שֶׁמְקַלֶּסֶת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (עזרא א, ב): כֹּה אָמַר כֹּרֶשׁ מֶלֶךְ פָּרַס. (ויקרא יא, ו): וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת, זוֹ יָוָן, (ויקרא יא, ו): כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא, שֶׁמְּקַלֶּסֶת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרוֹס מוֹקְדוֹן כַּד הֲוָה חָמֵי לְרַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק, אוֹמֵר בָּרוּךְ ה' אֱלֹהֵי שֶׁל שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק. (ויקרא יא, ז): וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר, זֶה אֱדוֹם, (ויקרא יא, ז): וְהוּא גֵרָה לֹא יִגָּר, שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקַלֶּסֶת לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְלֹא דַּיָּן שֶׁאֵינָהּ מְקַלֶּסֶת אֶלָּא מְחָרֶפֶת וּמְגַדֶּפֶת וְאוֹמֶרֶת (תהלים עג, כה): מִי לִי בַשָּׁמָיִם. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֶת הַגָּמָל, זוֹ בָּבֶל, כִּי מַעֲלֶה גֵרָה הוּא, שֶׁמְגַדֶּלֶת אֶת דָּנִיֵּאל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דניאל ב, מט): וְדָנִיֵּאל בִּתְרַע מַלְכָּא. וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן, זוֹ מָדַי, כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, שֶׁמְגַדֶּלֶת אֶת מָרְדְּכַי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (אסתר ב, יט): וּמָרְדֳּכַי ישֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ. וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת, זוֹ יָוָן, כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵּרָה הִוא, שֶׁמְגַדֶּלֶת הַצַּדִּיקִים. אֲלֶכְּסַנְדְּרוֹס כַּד הֲוָה חָמֵי לְשִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הֲוָה קָאֵים עַל רַגְלֵיהּ, אָמְרִין לֵיהּ מִינָאֵי, מִן קֳדָם יְהוּדָאי אַתְּ קָאֵים, אָמַר לָהֶם בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאֲנִי יוֹצֵא לְמִלְחָמָה דְּמוּתוֹ אֲנִי רוֹאֶה וְנוֹצֵחַ. וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, וְהוּא גֵרָה לֹא יִגָּר, שֶׁאֵינָה מְגַדֶּלֶת הַצַּדִּיקִים, וְלֹא דַי שֶׁאֵינָה מְגַדֶּלֶת אֶלָּא שֶׁהוֹרֶגֶת אוֹתָם. הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה מז, ו): קָצַפְתִּי עַל עַמִּי חִלַּלְתִּי נַחֲלָתִי וגו', נַחֲלָתִי רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא וַחֲבֵרָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, אֶת הַגָּמָל, זוֹ בָּבֶל, כִּי מַעֲלֶה גֵרָה, שֶׁגָּרְרָה מַלְכוּת אַחֲרֶיהָ. וְאֶת הַשָּׁפָן, זוֹ מָדַי כִּי מַעֲלֵה גֵרָה הוּא, שֶׁגָּרְרָה מַלְכוּת אַחֲרֶיהָ, וְאֶת הָאַרְנֶבֶת, זוֹ יָוָן, כִּי מַעֲלַת גֵרָה הִוא, שֶׁגָּרְרָה מַלְכוּת אַחֲרֶיהָ. וְאֶת הַחֲזִיר, זוֹ אֱדוֹם, וְהוּא גֵרָה לֹא יִגָּר, שֶׁאֵינָה גוֹרֶרֶת מַלְכוּת אַחֲרֶיהָ, וְלָמָּה נִקְרָא שְׁמָהּ חֲזִיר, שֶׁמַּחֲזֶרֶת עֲטָרָה לִבְעָלֶיהָ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (עובדיה א, כא): וְעָלוּ מוֹשִׁיעִים בְּהַר צִיּוֹן לִשְׁפֹּט אֶת הַר עֵשָׂו וְהָיְתָה לַה' הַמְּלוּכָה. 9.3. Another opinion regarding the verse (Ps. 50:23) “And there is a path, I will show him the salvation of God”- Rabbi Yanai said: the it is written the one who puts a path[with a sin and not a shin], meaning that two ways are similar [in bringing one to salvation] Rabbi Yannai was once walking along the road, and saw a man who was extremely well dressed. Rabbi Yannai said to him: Would you like to come over to my house? The man replied: Yes. Rabbi Yannai brought him into his home, and gave him food and drink. As they were eating and drinking together, he examined him in his knowledge of Bible, and found out that he had none; examined his knowledge of Mishnah, and realized that he had none; his knowledge of legends, and saw that he had none; his knowledge of Talmud and saw he had none. Rabbi Yannai then told him: Wash and recite grace. Said the guest: Let Yannai recite grace in his own home. Seeing that he could not even recite a blessing, Yannai told him: Can you at least repeat what I say? Said he: Yes. Said Rabbi Yannai: repeat the following: 'A dog has eaten Yannai's bread.' offended, the man stood up, and grabbed Rabbi Yannai by the coat! He then said: My inheritance is with you, and you are withholding it from me! Said Rabbi Yannai with puzzlement: What legacy of yours is there with me? He replied: Once I passed by a school, and I heard the voices of the little children saying: 'Moses gave us the Torah, the inheritance of the congregation of Jacob.' They did not say 'the inheritance of the congregation of Yannai,' but the 'congregation of Jacob.' Rabbi Yannai asked, “How then are you worthy to eat at my table?” The guest replied, “Never have I heard an evil word spoken against me and returned to argue with the person who spoke it. Never have I seen two people arguing without making peace between them.” Rabbi Yannai then said, “you have so much Derech Eretz and I called you a dog.” On him rabbi Yanai said the verse “And there is a path” – meaning not one, but two paths take you to salvation – since rabbi Ishmael son of rav Nachman said: Derech eretz precedes Torah by 26 generations, since it is written “and to guard the way to the Tree of Life” (Genesis 3). “Way” is the derech eretz, and only after that comes “Tree of Life” which is Torah. [Back to the verse in question, Ps 50:23] I will show him the salvation of God, said rabbi Abahu: this is one of the sources for the idea that God’s salvation is Israel’s salvation (Ps. 80:3) “and come and save us”"
42. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

43. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 26, 317, 320, 329, 331, 48, 218 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

44. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 143, 16, 102 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

45. Anon., Targum Onqelos, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

46. Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim, 3.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

47. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

16b. ללדת עולה לראש ההר כדי שיפול ממנה וימות ואני מזמין לה נשר שמקבלו בכנפיו ומניחו לפניה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מתאחר רגע אחד מיד מת בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לט, א) חולל אילות תשמור אילה זו רחמה צר בשעה שכורעת ללדת אני מזמין לה דרקון שמכישה בבית הרחם ומתרפה ממולדה ואלמלי מקדים רגע אחד או מאחר רגע אחד מיד מתה בין רגע לרגע לא נתחלף לי בין איוב לאויב נתחלף לי,(איוב לד, לה) [איוב] לא בדעת ידבר ודבריו לא בהשכל (וכתיב (איוב מב, ז) כי לא דברתם אלי נכונה כעבדי איוב) אמר רבא מכאן שאין אדם נתפס בשעת צערו,(איוב ב, יא) וישמעו שלשת רעי איוב את כל הרעה הזאת הבאה עליו ויבאו איש ממקומו אליפז התימני ובלדד השוחי וצופר הנעמתי ויועדו יחדו לבוא לנוד לו ולנחמו מאי ויועדו יחדו אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מלמד שנכנסו כולן בשער אחד ותנא בין כל אחד ואחד שלש מאות פרסי,מנא הוו ידעי איכא דאמרי כלילא הוה להו ואיכא דאמרי אילני הוה להו וכיון דכמשי הוו ידעי אמר רבא היינו דאמרי אינשי או חברא כחברי דאיוב או מיתותא,(בראשית ו, א) ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב על פני האדמה ובנות יולדו להם רבי יוחנן אמר רביה באה לעולם ריש לקיש אמר מריבה באה לעולם אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן לדידך דאמרת רבייה באה לעולם מפני מה לא נכפלו בנותיו של איוב,אמר לו נהי דלא נכפלו בשמות אבל נכפלו ביופי דכתיב (איוב מב, יג) ויהי לו שבענה בנים ושלוש בנות ויקרא שם האחת ימימה ושם השנית קציעה ושם השלישית קרן הפוך,ימימה שהיתה דומה ליום קציעה שהיה ריחה נודף כקציעה קרן הפוך אמרי דבי רבי שילא שדומה לקרנא דקרש מחייכו עלה במערבא קרנא דקרש לקותא היא אלא אמר רב חסדא ככורכמא דרישקא במיניה שנאמר (ירמיהו ד, ל) כי תקרעי בפוך,רבי שמעון ברבי איתילידא ליה ברתא הוה קא חלש דעתיה אמר ליה אבוה רביה באה לעולם אמר ליה בר קפרא תנחומין של הבל ניחמך אבוך [דתניא] אי אפשר לעולם בלא זכרים ובלא נקבות אלא אשרי למי שבניו זכרים אוי לו למי שבניו נקבות אי אפשר לעולם בלא בסם ובלא בורסי אשרי מי שאומנותו בוסמי אוי למי שאומנותו בורסי,כתנאי (בראשית כד, א) וה' ברך את אברהם בכל מאי בכל רבי מאיר אומר שלא היתה לו בת רבי יהודה אומר שהיתה לו בת אחרים אומרים בת היתה לו לאברהם ובכל שמה רבי אלעזר המודעי אומר איצטגנינות היתה בלבו של אברהם אבינו שכל מלכי מזרח ומערב משכימין לפתחו רבי שמעון בן יוחי אומר אבן טובה היתה תלויה בצוארו של אברהם אבינו שכל חולה הרואה אותו מיד מתרפא ובשעה שנפטר אברהם אבינו מן העולם תלאה הקדוש ברוך הוא בגלגל חמה אמר אביי היינו דאמרי אינשי אידלי יומא אידלי קצירא,דבר אחר שלא מרד עשו בימיו דבר אחר שעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו שלא מרד עשו בימיו מנלן דכתיב (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה והוא עיף ותנא אותו היום נפטר אברהם אבינו ועשה יעקב אבינו תבשיל של עדשים לנחם את יצחק אביו,[ומ"ש של עדשים] אמרי במערבא משמיה דרבה בר מרי מה עדשה זו אין לה פה אף אבל אין לו פה דבר אחר מה עדשה זו מגולגלת אף אבילות מגלגלת ומחזרת על באי העולם מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לנחומי בביעי,אמר רבי יוחנן חמש עבירות עבר אותו רשע באותו היום בא על נערה מאורסה והרג את הנפש וכפר בעיקר וכפר בתחיית המתים ושט את הבכורה,בא על נערה מאורסה כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, כט) ויבא עשו מן השדה וכתיב התם (דברים כב, כז) כי בשדה מצאה הרג את הנפש כתיב הכא עיף וכתיב התם (ירמיהו ד, לא) אוי נא לי כי עיפה נפשי להורגים וכפר בעיקר כתיב הכא (בראשית כה, לב) למה זה לי וכתיב התם (שמות טו, ב) זה אלי ואנוהו וכפר בתחיית המתים דכתיב (בראשית כה, לב) הנה אנכי הולך למות ושט את הבכורה דכתיב (בראשית כה, לד) ויבז עשו את הבכורה,ושעשה ישמעאל תשובה בימיו מנלן כי הא דרבינא ורב חמא בר בוזי הוו יתבי קמיה דרבא וקא מנמנם רבא א"ל רבינא לרב חמא בר בוזי ודאי דאמריתו כל מיתה שיש בה גויעה זו היא מיתתן של צדיקים אמר ליה אין והא דור המבול אמר ליה אנן גויעה ואסיפה קאמרינן,והא ישמעאל דכתיב ביה גויעה ואסיפה אדהכי איתער בהו רבא אמר להו דרדקי הכי א"ר יוחנן ישמעאל עשה תשובה בחיי אביו שנאמר (בראשית כה, ט) ויקברו אותו יצחק וישמעאל בניו,ודילמא דרך חכמתן קא חשיב להו אלא מעתה (בראשית לה, כט) ויקברו אותו עשו ויעקב בניו מאי טעמא לא חשיב להו דרך חכמתן אלא מדאקדמיה אדבורי אדבריה ומדאדבריה שמע מינה תשובה עבד בימיו,תנו רבנן שלשה הטעימן הקב"ה בעולם הזה 16b. bto give birth she ascends to the top of a mountain so thatthe kid bshould fall down from her and die. And I summon her an eagle that receives it with his wings and places it before her; and ifthe eagle breachedher bone moment early or was one moment late,the kid bwould immediately die.Now, if bI do not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse iIyovwith ioyev /i? /b,Similarly: b“Can you mark when the hinds do calve?”(Job 39:1). bThe womb of this hind is narrow,which makes for a difficult delivery. bWhen she squats to give birth, I summon her a snake [ iderakon /i] that bites her at the opening of the womb, whichthen bbecomes loose, and she gives birth, and ifthe snake breachedher bone moment early or was one moment late, she would immediately die.Now, if I bdo not confuse one moment with another moment, would I confuse iIyovwith ioyev /i? /b,The Gemara comments: On the one hand, the text states: b“Job has spoken without knowledge, and his words were without wisdom”(Job 34:35). bButon the other hand, bit is writtenwith regard to Job’s friends: b“You have not spoken of Me the thing that is right, like my servant Job”(Job 42:8). bRava said: From hereit may be inferred bthat a person is not held responsiblefor what he says bwhen he is in distress.Although Job uttered certain words that were wrong and inappropriate, he was not punished for them because he said them at a time of pain and hardship.,The verse states: b“And Job’s three friends heard of all this evil that was come upon him, they came every one from his own place, Eliphaz the Temanite, and Bildad the Shuhite, and Zophar the Naamathite; for they had made an appointment together to come to mourn with him and to comfort him”(Job 2:11). bWhatdoes b“they had made an appointment together”mean? bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: Thisphrase bteaches that they all enteredthrough bone gateat the same time. bAnda Sage btaughtin a ibaraita /i: There were bthree hundred parasangs between each and every oneof them, i.e., each one lived three hundred parasangs away from the other.,The Gemara asks: bHow did theyall bknowat the same time what had happened to Job so that the three of them came together? bThere arethose bwho saythat btheyeach bhad a crownwhich displayed certain signs when something happened to one of the others. bAnd there arethose bwho say theyeach bhad trees and whenthe trees bwithered they knewthat sorrow had visited one of them. bRava saidthat bthiscloseness between Job and his friends explains the adage bthat people say: Either a friend like the friends of Job or death.If a person lacks close friends, he is better off dead.,The Gemara cites another place where Job is mentioned. b“And it came to pass, when men began to multiply [ ilarov /i] on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them”(Genesis 6:1). bRabbi Yoḥa says: iLarovmeans that bpropagation [ ireviyya /i] came to the worldthrough these daughters. bReish Lakish says: Strife [ imeriva /i] came to the world.Once daughters were born, the men began to fight among themselves over them. bReish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: According to you who saythat due to the daughters bpropagation came to the world, for whatreason bwerethe number of bJob’s daughters not doubled,when at the end of the story God doubled everything that Job had lost (see Job 1:3, 42:12)?,Rabbi Yoḥa bsaid to him: Granted,the numbers of Job’s daughters bwere not doubled in name,meaning they did not become twice as many, bbut they were doubled in beauty, as it is written: “He had also seven sons and three daughters. And he called the name of the first Jemimah, and the name of the second was Keziah, and the name of the third one was Keren-happuch”(Job 42:13–14). All three names relate to the daughters’ beauty., bJemimah [ iYemima /i];in her beauty bshe was similar to the day [ iyom /i]. Keziah; her scent wafted likethe bcassia [ iketzia /i]tree. bKeren-happuch; in the school of Rav Sheila they say: She was similar to the horn [ ikeren /i] of a ikeresh /i,an animal whose horns are particularly beautiful. bThey laughed at this in the West,Eretz Yisrael, since it is considered ba blemishwhen a person resembles bthe horn of a ikeresh /i. Rather, Rav Ḥisda said:She was blike garden saffron [ ikekurkema derishka /i],which is the best bof its kind. iKerenrefers to a garden, and ipukhmeans ornament, bas it is stated: “Though you enlargeyour eyes bwith paint [ ipukh /i],you beautify yourself in vain” (Jeremiah 4:30).,It is reported that ba daughter was born to Rabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, and bhe was upsetthat he did not have a son. bHis father said to him: Propagation has come to the worldthrough the birth of a daughter. bBar Kappara said toRabbi Shimon: bYour father has consoled you with meaningless consolation, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe world cannot endure without males and females,as both are needed for the perpetuation of humanity. bBut fortunate is he whose children are males and woe to him whose children are females.Similarly, bthe world cannot endure without either a spice dealerwhose wares are sweet-smelling, bor a tanner [ ibursi /i],who is engaged in a foul-smelling occupation. bFortunate is he whose occupation is a spice seller,and bwoe to him whose occupation is a tanner. /b,The Gemara comments that this disagreement is bparallel toa dispute between itanna’im /i:The Torah states: b“And the Lord blessed Abraham with everything [ ibakkol /i]”(Genesis 24:1), and the Sages disagree about bwhat ibakkol /imeans. bRabbi Meir says:The blessing is bthat he did not have a daughter. Rabbi Yehuda says:On the contrary, the blessing was bthat he had a daughter. Others say: Abraham had a daughter and her name was Bakkol. Rabbi Elazar HaModa’i says: Abraham our forefather was so knowledgeable in astrology [ iitztagninut /i] that all the kings of the East and the West would come early to his doordue to his wisdom. This is the blessing of ibakkol /i, that he possessed knowledge that everybody needed. bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: A precious stone hung around the neck of Abraham our forefather; any sick person who looked at it would immediately be healed. When Abraham our forefather died, the Holy One, Blessed be He, hungthis stone bfrom the sphere of the sun,which from that point on brought healing to the sick. bAbaye said: Thisexplains the adage bthat people say: As the day progresses, sickness is lifted. /b, bAlternatively,what is the blessing of ibakkol /i? bThat Esau did not rebel inAbraham’s blifetime,that is to say, as long as Abraham lived Esau did not sin. bAlternatively,the blessing of ibakkolis bthat Ishmael repented inAbraham’s blifetime.The Gemara explains: bFrom where do wederive that bEsau did not rebel inAbraham’s blifetime? As it is written:“And Jacob was cooking a stew band Esau came in from the field and he was faint”(Genesis 25:29), banda ibaraita btaught: On that day Abraham our forefather passed away, and Jacob our forefather prepared a lentil stew to comfort Isaac, his father,as it was customary to serve mourners lentil stew.,The Gemara explains: bAnd what is different about lentilsthat they in particular are the fare customarily offered to mourners? bThey say in the West,Eretz Yisrael, bin the name of Rabba bar Mari: Just as this lentil has no mouth,i.e., it does not have a crack like other legumes, bso too a mourner has no mouth,that is, his anguish prevents him from speaking. bAlternatively, just as this lentil iscompletely bround, so too mourning comes around to the inhabitants of the world.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthe two explanations? The Gemara answers: bThere isa practical difference bbetween themwith regard to whether it is appropriate bto consolea mourner bwith eggs,which have no opening but are not completely round., bRabbi Yoḥa says: That wickedEsau bcommitted five transgressions on that daythat Abraham died: bHe engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden, he killed a person, he denied the principleof God’s existence, bhe denied resurrection of the dead, and he despised the birthright. /b,The Gemara cites proofs to support these charges. bHe engaged in sexual intercourse with a betrothed maiden,as bit is written here: “And Esau came in from the field”; and it is written therewith regard to rape of a betrothed maiden: b“For he found her in a field”(Deuteronomy 22:27). bHe killed a person,as bit is written here:“And he was bfaint”; and it is written there: “Woe is me, for my soul faints before the slayers”(Jeremiah 4:31). bAnd he denied the principleof God’s existence, as bit is written here: “What profit is this to me”(Genesis 25:32); band it is written there: “This is my God and I will glorify Him”(Exodus 15:2). When he questioned the profit of “this,” he was challenging the assertion that “this is my God.” bAnd he denied resurrection of the dead, as it is written: “Behold, I am at the point of death”(Genesis 25:32), indicating that he did not believe in resurrection after death. bAnd he despised the birthright, as it is written: “And Esau despised the birthright”(Genesis 25:34)., bAnd from where do wederive bthat Ishmael repented inAbraham’s blifetime? Fromthe incident involving bRavina and Rav Ḥama bar Buzi,who bwere sitting before Rava, and Rava was dozingwhile they were talking. bRavina said to Rav Ḥama bar Buzi: Is it true that you saythat bany death with regard to whichthe word igevia /i,expire, is mentioned bis the death of the righteous?Rav Ḥama bar Buzi bsaid to him: Yes.For example: “And Isaac expired [ ivayyigva /i], and died” (Genesis 35:29). Ravina objected: bButwith regard to bthe generation of the floodit states: “And all flesh expired [ ivayyigva /i]” (Genesis 7:21), and there they died for their wickedness. Rav Ḥama bar Buzi bsaid to him: We saythis only when both igeviaand iasifa /i,gathering, are used; when these two terms are mentioned together they indicate the death of a righteous person.,Ravina asked: bBut isn’t there Ishmael, about whom igeviaand iasifaare written,as it is stated: “And these are the years of the life of Yishmael…and he expired and died [ ivayyigva vayyamot /i]; and was gathered to his people” (Genesis 25:17)? bMeanwhile Rava,who had heard the discussion in his dozed state, fully bawokeand bsaid to them: Children [ idardekei /i], this is what Rabbi Yoḥa says: Ishmael repented in the lifetime of his father, as it is stated: “And Isaac and Ishmael, his sons, buried him”(Genesis 25:9). The fact that Ishmael allowed Isaac to precede him demonstrates that he had repented and accepted his authority.,The Gemara asks: bBut perhapsthe verse blisted them in the order of their wisdom;that is to say, perhaps in fact Ishmael preceded Isaac but the Torah did not list them in that order. The Gemara answers: bBut if that is so,consider that the verse states: b“And Esau and Jacob, his sons, buried him”(Genesis 35:29). bWhat is the reasonthat the verse there bdid not list them in the order of their wisdom? Rather, sinceIshmael ballowedIsaac bto precede him,it is clear that he bmadeIsaac bhis leader, and since he made him his leader, learn from it that he repented inAbraham’s blifetime. /b,Incidental to the discussion of the verse “And God blessed Abraham with everything” (Genesis 24:1), the Gemara states that bthe Sages taught:There were bthreepeople bto whom the Holy One, Blessed be He, gavealready bin this world /b
48. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

60b. לר' חנינא בר פפא מהו כיון דלא כתב בהו למינהו לא מיחייב או דילמא כיון דהסכים אידיהו כמאן דכתיב בהו למינהו דמיא תיקו:,רבי שמעון בן פזי רמי כתיב (בראשית א, טז) ויעש אלהים את שני המאורות הגדולים וכתיב את המאור הגדול ואת המאור הקטן אמרה ירח לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע אפשר לשני מלכים שישתמשו בכתר אחד אמר לה לכי ומעטי את עצמך,אמרה לפניו רבש"ע הואיל ואמרתי לפניך דבר הגון אמעיט את עצמי אמר לה לכי ומשול ביום ובלילה אמרה ליה מאי רבותיה דשרגא בטיהרא מאי אהני אמר לה זיל לימנו בך ישראל ימים ושנים אמרה ליה יומא נמי אי אפשר דלא מנו ביה תקופותא דכתיב (בראשית א, יד) והיו לאותות ולמועדים ולימים ושנים זיל ליקרו צדיקי בשמיך (עמוס ז, ב) יעקב הקטן שמואל הקטן (שמואל א יז, יד) דוד הקטן,חזייה דלא קא מיתבא דעתה אמר הקב"ה הביאו כפרה עלי שמיעטתי את הירח והיינו דאמר ר"ש בן לקיש מה נשתנה שעיר של ראש חדש שנאמר בו (במדבר כח, טו) לה' אמר הקב"ה שעיר זה יהא כפרה על שמיעטתי את הירח,רב אסי רמי כתיב (בראשית א, יב) ותוצא הארץ דשא בתלת בשבתא וכתיב (בראשית ב, ה) וכל שיח השדה טרם יהיה בארץ במעלי שבתא מלמד שיצאו דשאים ועמדו על פתח קרקע עד שבא אדם הראשון ובקש עליהם רחמים וירדו גשמים וצמחו ללמדך שהקב"ה מתאוה לתפלתן של צדיקים,רב נחמן בר פפא הויא ליה ההיא גינתא שדי ביה ביזרני ולא צמח בעא רחמי אתא מיטרא וצמח אמר היינו דרב אסי:,אמר רב חנן בר רבא (דברים יד, ז) השסועה בריה בפני עצמה היא שיש לה שני גבין ושני שדראות וכי משה רבינו קניגי היה או בליסטרי היה מכאן תשובה לאומר אין תורה מן השמים,א"ל רב חסדא לרב תחליפא בר אבינא זיל כתוב קניגי ובליסטרי באגדתיך ופרשה,(יהושע יג, ג) (ואת) חמשת סרני פלשתים העזתי והאשדודי האשקלוני הגתי והעקרוני והעוים אמר חמשה וחשיב שיתא אמר ר' יונתן ארונקי שלהן חמשה א"ל רב חסדא לר' תחליפא בר אבינא כתוב ארונקי באגדתיך ופרשה ופליגא דרב דאמר רב עוים מתימן באו,תניא נמי הכי עוים מתימן באו ולמה נקרא שמן עוים שעיותו את מקומן ד"א עוים שאיוו לאלהות הרבה ד"א עוים שכל הרואה אותם אוחזתו עוית א"ר יוסף ואית להו שיתסרי דרי שיני לכל חד וחד,אמר ר"ש בן לקיש הרבה מקראות שראויין לשרוף והן הן גופי תורה (דברים ב, כג) והעוים היושבים בחצרים עד עזה מאי נפקא לן מינה,מדאשבעיה אבימלך לאברהם (בראשית כא, כג) אם תשקור לי ולניני ולנכדי אמר הקב"ה ליתו כפתורים ליפקו מעוים דהיינו פלשתים וליתו ישראל ליפקו מכפתורים,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר כא, כו) כי חשבון עיר סיחון מלך האמורי היא והוא נלחם במלך מואב וגו' מאי נפקא מינה דאמר להו הקב"ה לישראל (דברים ב, ט) אל תצר את מואב אמר הקב"ה ליתי סיחון ליפוק ממואב וליתו ישראל וליפקו מסיחון והיינו דאמר רב פפא עמון ומואב טיהרו בסיחון,(דברים ג, ט) צידונים יקראו לחרמון שריון תנא שניר ושריון מהרי ארץ ישראל מלמד שכל אחד ואחד מאומות העולם הלך ובנה לו כרך גדול לעצמו והעלה לו על שם הרי ארץ ישראל ללמדך שאפילו הרי ארץ ישראל חביבין על האומות העולם,כיוצא בו (בראשית מז, כא) ואת העם העביר אותו לערים מאי נפקא מינה דלא ליקרו לאחיו גלוותא:,סימני העוף לא נאמרו: ולא והתניא (ויקרא יא, יג) נשר 60b. bwhat isthe ihalakha baccording to Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa?Shall one say that bsincethe phrase b“after its kind” is not writtenas a mitzva bwith regard to them,one is bnot liablefor transgressing the prohibition against mixing diverse kinds? bOr perhaps, sinceGod bagreed with themafter the fact, as the verse states: “Let the Lord rejoice in His works,” bit is as ifthe mitzva b“after its kind” is written with regard to them.The Gemara responds: The dilemma bshall standunresolved.,§ bRabbi Shimon ben Pazi raises a contradictionbetween two verses. It bis written: “And God made the two great lights”(Genesis 1:16), bandit bisalso bwrittenin the same verse: b“The greater lightto rule the day, band the lesser lightto rule the night,” indicating that only one was great. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi explains: When God first created the sun and the moon, they were equally bright. Then, bthe moon said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe,is it bpossible for two kings to serve with one crown?One of us must be subservient to the other. God therefore bsaid to her,i.e., the moon: If so, bgo and diminish yourself. /b, bShe said before Him: Master of the Universe, since I said a correctobservation bbefore You,must bI diminish myself?God bsaid to her:As compensation, bgo and ruleboth bduring the dayalong with the sun band during the night. She said to Him: What is the greatness ofshining alongside the sun? bWhat use is a candle in the middle of the day?God bsaid to her: Go; let the Jewish people count the days and years with you,and this will be your greatness. bShe said to Him: Butthe Jewish people will count with bthe sun as well,as bit is impossible that they will not count seasons with it, as it is written: “And let them be for signs, and for seasons, and for days and years”(Genesis 1:14). God said to her: bGo; let righteous men be named after you.Just as you are called the lesser [ ihakatan /i] light, there will be bYa’akov HaKatan,i.e., Jacob our forefather (see Amos 7:2), bShmuel HaKatanthe itanna /i, and bDavid HaKatan,i.e., King David (see I Samuel 17:14).,God bsaw thatthe moon bwas not comforted. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Bring atonement for me, since I diminished the moon.The Gemara notes: bAnd this is what Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: What is differentabout the bgoatoffering bofthe bNew Moon, thatit bis stated with regard to it: “For the Lord”(Numbers 28:15)? bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: This goat shall be an atonementfor Me bfor having diminishedthe size of bthe moon. /b,§ bRav Asi raises a contradictionbetween two verses. It bis written: “And the earth brought forth grass”(Genesis 1:12), bon the third day of the weekof Creation. bAndit bisalso bwritten: “No shrub of the field was yet in the earth”(Genesis 2:5), bon Shabbat eve,the sixth day of Creation, immediately before Adam was created. Rav Asi explains: This bteaches that the grasses emergedon the third day band stood at the opening of the ground,but they did not grow buntil Adam, the firstman, bcame and prayed for mercy upon them, and rain came, and they sprouted.And this is meant bto teach you that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous. /b,The Gemara recounts: bRav Naḥman bar Pappa had a certain garden. He planted seeds but they did not sprout. He prayed for mercy,and brain came, andthey bsprouted. He said: This iswhat is meant by the statement bof Rav Asi,that the Holy One, Blessed be He, desires the prayers of the righteous.,§ In one of the passages discussing kosher and non-kosher animals, the Torah states: “Nevertheless, these you shall not eat of them that only chew the cud, or of them that have split hooves that are cloven [ ihashesua /i]: The camel, and the hare, and the hyrax” (Deuteronomy 14:7). bRav Ḥa bar Rava said: “ iHashesua /i”is not a redundant description of the split hooves but ba distinct creature, which has two backs and two spinesand therefore looks like an entirely cloven animal. One might ask: bBut was Moses our teacher a hunter, or was he an archer,who was familiar with the most exotic animals? Rather, bfrom herethere is ba refutation to those who say that the Torah is not from Heaven,since Moses could not have known of the existence of such an animal save by divine revelation., bRav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Go writethis statement about the bhunter [ ikinnigi /i] andthe barcher [ iballisteri /i] in yourbook of iaggada /i, and explainthose two words, since some are unfamiliar with them.,The Gemara relates another statement. The verse states: b“The five lords of the Philistines: The Gazite, and the Ashdodite, the Ashkelonite, the Gittite, and the Ekronite; also the Avvim”(Joshua 13:3). The verse is difficult, since it first bsaidthere are bfivelords of the Philistines, bbut itthen blists six. Rabbi Yonatan said:There were in fact six lords, but bthe greatest of themwere only bfive. Rav Ḥisda said to Rav Taḥlifa bar Avina: Writethis statement about bthe greatest [ iarunekei /i] in yourbook of iaggada /i, and explainthat word. The Gemara notes: bAndthis statement bdisagreeswith the opinion bof Rav, as Rav says:The bAvvimwere not Philistines; rather, they bcame from Teiman. /b, bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: The bAvvim came from Teiman. And why were they called Avvimand not Teimanim? bBecause they corrupted [ iivvetu /i]and destroyed btheir placeof origin when they left. bAlternatively,they were called bAvvim since they desired [ iivvu /i] many deities. Alternatively,they were called bAvvim sincethey were so fearsome that ball who saw them were seized by convulsions [ iavit /i]. Rav Yosef said: And each one of them has sixteen rows of teeth. /b,The Gemara cites another statement related to the Avvim: bRabbi Shimon ben Lakish says:There are bmany verses thatare seemingly bfit to be burned as books of the heretics,since they appear redundant or frivolous, bandyet bthey are themselves the essence of Torah.For example, the verse states: b“And the Avvim, that dwelt in villages as far as Gaza,the Caphtorim, that came forth out of Caphtor, destroyed them, and dwelt in their stead” (Deuteronomy 2:23). bWhatpractical bdifferencedoes this make bfor us? /b,The verse teaches the following: bSince Abimelech,king of the Philistines, badministered an oath to Abraham: “That you will not deal falsely with me, nor with my son, nor with my grandson”(Genesis 21:23), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of the Philistines until four generations had passed. Therefore, bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Letthe bCaphtorim comeand bremovethe land bfromthe bAvvim, who arethe same as the bPhilistines, and let Israel comeand bremoveit bfrom the Caphtorim,circumventing the prohibition., bSimilarly, you saywith regard to another apparently unnecessary verse, describing a city that the Israelites conquered: b“For Heshbon was the city of Sihon, the king of the Amorites, who had fought against theformer bking of Moab,and taken all his land out of his hand” (Numbers 21:26). bWhat is thepractical bdifferencein knowing this information? It teaches bthatsince bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Israel: “Be not at enmity with Moab”(Deuteronomy 2:9), the Jewish people were prohibited from conquering the land of Moab. Therefore, bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Let Sihon comeand bremovethe land bfrom Moab, and let Israel comeand bremoveit bfrom Sihon.The Gemara notes: bAnd this is what Rav Pappa says:The lands of bAmmon and Moab were purified by Sihon,i.e., rendered permitted for conquest.,The Gemara cites another seemingly superfluous verse, describing Mount Hermon: b“Which Hermon the Sidonians call Sirion,and the Amorites call it Senir” (Deuteronomy 3:9). A Sage btaught: Senir and Sirion are mountains of Eretz Yisrael.The verse bteaches that every one of the nations of the world went and built itself a great cityon Mount Hermon, band named it afterone of bthe mountains of Eretz Yisrael, teaching you that even the mountains of Eretz Yisrael are beloved by the nations of the world. /b, bSimilarly,a difficult verse describes Joseph’s treatment of the Egyptians: b“And as for the people, he removed them city by city”(Genesis 47:21). bWhat is thepractical bdifferenceof this information? It teaches Joseph’s love for his brothers, as he transferred the entire Egyptian population bso that they would not call his brothers exiles. /b,§ The mishna states: bThe signs of thekosher bbird were notexplicitly bstatedin the Torah. The Gemara asks: bAndis it true that they were bnotstated in the Torah? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: b“The inesher /i”(Leviticus 11:13) is a non-kosher bird.
49. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

7b. הכי קאמר מגדף מביא קרבן הואיל ובא בו כרת במקום קרבן דברי ר"ע קסבר מיגו דבעי מכתב כרת בעלמא וכתיב כרת במקום קרבן שמע מינה מייתי קרבן,ואומר (במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא אתא לרבנן והכי קאמר ר"ע לרבנן אמריתו מגדף לית ביה מעשה מהו מגדף מברך את השם אלא כרת דכתיב למאי אתא,אמרי ליה ליתן כרת למקלל דכתיב במקלל ((במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא האיש ההוא) וכתיב בפסח שני (במדבר ט, יג) חטאו ישא מה להלן כרת אף כאן כרת,ת"ר (במדבר טו, ל) את ה' מגדף איסי בן יהודה אומר כאדם האומר לחבירו גירפתה הקערה וחיסרתה קסבר מגדף מברך את השם הוא,ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כאדם האומר לחבירו גירפתה הקערה ולא חיסרתה קסבר מגדף היינו עובד ע"ז,תניא אידך את ה' רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר בעובד ע"ז הכתוב מדבר וחכמים אומרים לא בא הכתוב אלא ליתן כרת למברך השם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big יש מביאות קרבן ונאכל ויש מביאות קרבן ואינו נאכל ויש שאינם מביאות,מביאות קרבן ונאכל המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף דר"מ וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם,המפלת סנדל או שיליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך וכן שפחה שהפילה מביאה קרבן ונאכל,ואלו מביאות ואינן נאכלות המפלת ואין יודע מה הפילה ושתי נשים שהפילו אחת ממין פטור ואחת ממין חובה א"ר יוסי אימתי בזמן שהלכו זה למזרח וזה למערב אבל אם היו שתיהן עומדות שתיהן מביאות קרבן ונאכל,אלו שאין מביאות המפלת שפיר מלא מים מלא דם מלא גנינים המפלת כמין דגים וחגבים ושקצים ורמשים המפלת יום ארבעים ויוצא דופן ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big שפחה מנלן דת"ר (ויקרא יב, ב) בני ישראל אין לי אלא בני ישראל גיורת ושפחה מנין ת"ל (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה,מאי וכן שפחה ס"ד אמינא כי אמרינן כל מצות שהאשה חייבת בה עבד חייב בה ה"מ בדבר ששוה בין איש ובין אשה אבל יולדת דבנשים איתא באנשים ליתא אימא לא תחייב שפחה אהכי תנא שפחה:,אלו מביאין קרבן כו': מאי עבדין מייתין תרוייהו חד קרבן ודאי וחטאת עוף ספק ומתני,ומי אית ליה לר' יוסי תנאה והתנן רבי שמעון אומר מביאות שניהן חטאת אחת רבי יוסי אומר אין שניהן מביאות חטאת אחת אלמא לר' יוסי לית ליה תנאה,אמר רבא מודה ר' יוסי במחוסר כפרה וכן כי אתא רבין אמר ר' יוחנן מודה רבי יוסי במחוסר כפרה,מ"ט התם בעי גברא ידיעה דכתיב (ויקרא ד, כג) או הודע אליו חטאתו הילכך לא מתיין ומתני אבל הכא כי מתיין נשים קרבן לאישתרויי באכילת קדשים,כדתני סיפא דההיא רבי יוסי אומר כל חטאת שהיא באה על חטא אין שתים מביאות אותה:,אלו שאין מביאות כו' ר' שמעון מחייב ביוצא דופן: מ"ט דר"ש אמר ר"ל אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ה) ואם נקבה תלד לרבות לידה אחרת מאי היא יוצא דופן,ורבנן מ"ט א"ר מני בר פטיש (ויקרא יב, ב) אשה כי תזריע וילדה עד שתלד ממקום שמזרעת:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המפלת לאור שמונים ואחד ב"ש פוטרין מן הקרבן וב"ה מחייבין,אמרו ב"ה לב"ש מ"ש אור שמונים ואחד מיום שמונים ואחד אם שיוה לו לטומאה לא ישוה לו לקרבן,אמרו להם ב"ש לא אם אמרתם במפלת יום שמונים ואחד שכן יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בה קרבן תאמר במפלת לאור שמונים ואחד שלא יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בה קרבן,אמרו להן ב"ה והלא המפלת יום שמונים ואחד שחל להיות בשבת תוכיח שלא יצאה לשעה שהיא ראויה להביא בהו קרבן וחייבת קרבן,אמרו להן ב"ש לא אם אמרתם יום שמונים ואחד שחל להיות בשבת שאף על פי שאינן ראוי לקרבן יחיד ראוי לקרבן ציבור תאמר במפלת לאור שמונים (יום) ואחד שאין הלילה ראוי לא לקרבן יחיד ולא לקרבן ציבור,והדמים אינן מוכיחים שהמפלת בתוך מלאת דמיה טמאים ופטורה מן הקרבן: 7b. The Gemara answers that bthisis what Rabbi Akiva bis saying:One who unwittingly bblasphemes brings an offering, since itspunishment of ikaretcomes,i.e., is written, bin a placewhere the Torah discusses ban offering,i.e., ikaretis mentioned in a passage that discusses a sin offering (see Numbers 15:27–31). This is bthe statement of Rabbi Akiva,as bhe maintains: Sincethe verse bshould have written ikaretin general,i.e., without connecting it to bringing an offering, bandyet this ikaretis written in a placewhere the Torah discusses ban offering, conclude from itthat the unwitting blasphemer bbrings an offeringfor his transgression.,The Gemara analyzes the next clause of the ibaraita /i: bAndthe verse bstates:“Whoever curses his God bshall bear his sin”(Leviticus 24:15). The Gemara explains: Here we barrive atthe opinion of bthe Rabbis, and thisis what bRabbi Akiva is saying to the Rabbis: You saythat the transgression of one who bblasphemes does not involve an action,as bwhat isthe case of one who bblasphemes?It is one who bblesses,i.e., curses, bthe Name,i.e., God. bButif so, then concerning the punishment of ikaretthat is written:“That person blasphemes the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off [ ivenikhreta /i] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), bfor whatpurpose bdoes it come,if not to render him liable to bring an offering?,The Rabbis bsay to him:It comes bto givethe punishment of ikaretto one who cursesGod, in order to teach that the phrase: “Shall bear his sin,” written in the verse: “Whoever curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), is referring to ikaret /i, so that one can derive by verbal analogy that an individual who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the second iPesaḥand did not do so is likewise liable to receive ikaret /i. bAs it is written with regard to one who cursesGod: “Whoever curses his God bshall bear his sin,” and it is written with regard toone who was obligated to bring a Paschal offering for the bsecond iPesaḥ /iand did not do so: “That man bshall bear his sin”(Numbers 9:13). bJust as there,with regard to one who curses God it is referring to the punishment of ikaret /i, so too here,with regard to the Paschal offering it is referring to the punishment of ikaret /i. /b,With regard to one who blasphemes, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: “That person bblasphemes [ imegaddef] the Lord”(Numbers 15:30). bIsi ben Yehuda says:This is blike a person who says to another: You cleaned [ igeirafta /i] the bowl and rendered it lacking,i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is so severe that it is compared to one who does actual damage to God. Isi ben Yehuda bmaintainsthat the case of the bblasphemer isidentical to that of one who bblesses,i.e., curses, bthe Name,i.e., God, which is a particularly severe transgression., bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya saysthat this is blike a person who says to another: You cleaned the bowland removed its contents, bbut did not render it lacking,i.e., the transgression of blasphemy is not compared to one who does actual damage to God. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya bmaintainsthat the case of the bblasphemer isthe same as that of ban idol worshipper,which is a less severe transgression.,This dispute as to the nature of the transgression of the blasphemer bis taughtin banother ibaraita /i: “That person blasphemes bthe Lord”(Numbers 15:30), and bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The verse is speaking of an idol worshipper. And the Rabbis say: The verse comes only to givethe punishment of ikaretto one who blesses,i.e., curses, bthe Name,i.e., God., strongMISHNA: /strong bThere aresome women who bbringa sin bofferingof a woman after childbirth bandthe offering bis eatenby the priests. bAnd there aresome women who bbringa sin boffering but it is not eaten. Andthere are bsomewomen who bdo not bringa sin offering at all.,The mishna elaborates: The following women bbringa sin boffering and it is eatenby the priests: bOne who miscarriesa fetus with a form bsimilar to a domesticated animal,one who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to ban undomesticated animal, orone who miscarries a fetus with a form similar to ba bird;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:She does not bring a sin offering bunlessthe fetus bhas the form of a person. /b,With regard to a woman bwho miscarries a sandalfetus, i.e., one that has the form of a flat fish; borif she miscarries the bplacenta; or an amniotic sacin which btissue developed; ora fetus bthat emerged cut,i.e., in pieces; band likewisea Canaanite bmaidservant,owned by a Jew, bwho miscarried;in all these cases bshe bringsa sin boffering and it is eatenby the priests., bAnd thesewomen bbringsin offerings bbuttheir sin offerings bare not eaten: One who miscarries and does not knowthe nature of bwhat she miscarried; and two women who miscarried,in a case where bonemiscarried a fetus bof a typefor which a woman is bexemptfrom bringing an offering bandthe other bonemiscarried a fetus bof a typefor which a woman is bliableto bring an offering, and they do not know which miscarried which type. bRabbi Yosei said: Whenis their sin offering not eaten? It is bwhenboth women bwentto different places within the Temple to bring their offerings, e.g., bthiswoman went bto the east and thatwoman went bto the west. But if both of them were standingtogether, bboth of themtogether bbringone sin boffering, and it is eaten. /b, bThesewomen bdo not bringa sin offering: A woman bwho miscarries an amniotic sac full of water,or one bfull of blood,or one bfull ofdifferent bcolors;and likewise a woman bwho miscarriesa fetus with a form bsimilar to fish, or grasshoppers, or repugt creatures, or creeping animals;and a woman bwho miscarrieson the bfortieth dayof her pregcy; banda woman who gives birth by bcaesarean section. Rabbi Shimon deemsa woman bliableto bring a sin offering binthe case where she gives birth by bcaesarean section. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bFrom where do wederive that in the case of a Canaanite bmaidservant,owned by a Jew, who miscarried, she brings a sin offering and it is eaten? bAs the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The passage discussing the ihalakhotof a woman following childbirth begins with the verse: “Speak to bthe children of Israel,saying: If a woman conceives and gives birth to a male” (Leviticus 12:2). From this verse bI havederived bonlythat the full-fledged bchildren of Israelare included in these ihalakhot /i; bfrom wheredo I derive that ba convert anda Canaanite bmaidservantare also included in these ihalakhot /i? bThe verse states “a woman,”which includes other women.,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the special emphasis in the mishna: bAnd likewisea Canaanite bmaidservant?Why does the mishna deem it necessary to write this ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: It might benter your mind to saythat bwhen we say:With regard to bany mitzva in which a woman is obligateda Canaanite bslave isalso bobligated in thatmitzva, bthis statementapplies bwith regard to a matter that is the same for a man and for a woman. Butwith regard to the offerings of ba woman after childbirth, which isa category that applies bto womenbut bdoes notapply bto men,one might bsaya Canaanite bmaidservant is not obligatedto bring these offerings. It is bfor thisreason the mishna btaughtthe case of a Canaanite bmaidservant. /b,§ The mishna teaches: bThesewomen bbringa sin bofferingbut their sin offerings are not eaten. It then teaches that in a case where one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is exempt from bringing an offering and the other one miscarried a fetus of a type for which a woman is obligated to bring an offering, Rabbi Yosei maintains that if both are standing together they bring one offering together. The Gemara asks: bWhatexactly bdo they do? The two of them bring one definiteburnt boffering, and a sin offering of a birddue to buncertainty, and theyeach bstipulatethat if she is obligated to bring the sin offering the animal is hers, and if not then it belongs to the other woman.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is Rabbi Yosei ofthe opinion that ba stipulationis effective in the case of a sin offering? bBut didn’t we learnin a mishna (23a): With regard to a situation where one of two women unwittingly ate a piece of forbidden fat and is obligated to bring a sin offering, but it is unknown which woman, bRabbi Shimon says: They both bring one sin offeringtogether, and bRabbi Yosei says: They do not both bring one sin offeringtogether. bEvidently, Rabbi Yosei is not ofthe opinion that ba stipulationis effective with regard to a sin offering., bRava said: Rabbi Yosei concedesthat a stipulation is effective bwith regard to one who has not yetbrought ban atonementoffering to complete the purification process, as is the case concerning a woman after childbirth. bAnd likewise, when Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia he said that bRabbi Yoḥa says: Rabbi Yosei concedes with regard to one who has not yetbrought ban atonementoffering that a stipulation is effective.,The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonfor this difference between the sin offering of one who has not yet brought an atonement offering and standard sin offerings? The Gemara answers: bThere,with regard to a sin offering brought for a transgression, bthe man requiresdefinite bawarenessof his transgression for him to be obligated to bring a sin offering, bas it is written: “If his sin,which he has sinned, bbe known to him”(Leviticus 4:28). bTherefore,in the case where one of two women ate forbidden fat, bthey do not bringa sin offering together band stipulatethat it should be for whichever of them ate the forbidden fat. bBut here,with regard to a woman after a miscarriage, bwhenthese bwomen bringtheir sin offering they do so only in order bto become permitted in the consumption of sacrificialfood, and therefore the stipulation is effective.,The Gemara cites a proof that this distinction is in fact the opinion of Rabbi Yosei: bAs it is taught in the latter clause of thatmishna that bRabbi Yosei says:With regard to bany sin offering that comesas atonement bfor a sin, twopeople bdo not bring ittogether. This indicates that if a sin offering does not atone for a sin, two people can bring it together.,§ The mishna teaches: And bthesewomen bdo not bringa sin offering, and among them are a woman who gives birth by caesarean section. bRabbi Shimon deemsa woman bliableto bring an offering bina case where she gives birth by bcaesarean section.The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Shimon? Reish Lakish saidthat bthe verse states: “But if she bears a girl”(Leviticus 12:5). The term “she bears” is superfluous in the context of the passage, and it serves bto include anothertype of bbirth,and bwhatis bit?This is a birth by bcaesarean section. /b,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bthe Rabbis, what istheir breasoning? Rabbi Mani bar Pattish saidthat their ruling is derived from the verse: b“If a woman conceives [ itazria /i] and gives birth to a male”(Leviticus 12:2). The word itazrialiterally means to receive seed, indicating that all the ihalakhotmentioned in that passage do not apply bunless she gives birth through the place where she receives seed,not through any other place, such as in the case of a caesarean section., strongMISHNA: /strong A woman who gives birth to a daughter counts fourteen days during which she is ritually impure. That is followed by sixty-six days during which she remains ritually pure even if she experiences a flow of blood. The Torah obligates a woman to bring her offering on the eighty-first day (see Leviticus 12:1–6). If the woman miscarries another fetus before that day, she is not required to bring an additional offering. In the case of a woman bwho miscarriesa fetus bon the night of,i.e., preceding, bthe eighty-firstday, bBeit Shammai deemher bexempt frombringing a second boffering and Beit Hillel deemher bliableto bring a second offering., bBeit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: What is differentbetween the bnight of the eighty-first andthe bday of the eighty-first? If they are equal with regard tothe ihalakhotof britual impurity,i.e., the blood flow of this woman on the eighty-first night renders her ritually impure and all the standard strictures of ritual impurity apply to her, bwillthe two time periods bnot be equal with regard toliability to bring an additional bofferingas well?, bBeit Shammai said toBeit Hillel: bNo,there is a difference between that night and the following day. bIf you said with regard toa woman bwho miscarrieson the beighty-first daythat she is obligated to bring an additional offering, this is logical, bas she emerged into a period that is fitfor bher to bringher boffering.Would you bsaythe same bwith regard toa woman bwho miscarries on the night ofthe beighty-firstday, bwhere she did not emerge into a period that is fitfor bher to bringher boffering,as offerings are not sacrificed at night?, bBeit Hillel said toBeit Shammai: bBut letthe case of a woman bwho miscarries onthe beighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat provethat this distinction is incorrect, bas she did not emerge into a period that is fitfor bher to bringher bofferingbecause individual offerings are not sacrificed on Shabbat, bandnevertheless bshe is obligated to bringan additional boffering. /b, bBeit Shammai said toBeit Hillel: bNo,there is a difference between these cases. bIf you saidthis ruling with regard to a woman bwho miscarries onthe beighty-first day that occurs on Shabbat,the reason is bthat althoughShabbat bis unfit forthe sacrifice of ban individual offering,it is bfit forthe sacrifice of ba communal offeringwhose time is fixed, e.g., the daily offering. Would you bsaythe same bwith regard toa woman bwho miscarries on the night ofthe beighty-firstday, bas the night is completely unfit,since bneither an individual offering nor a communal offeringis sacrificed at night?,Beit Shammai add: bAndas for the ritual impurity status of bthe blood,i.e., Beit Hillel’s opinion that the two time periods are equal with regard to the ihalakhotof ritual impurity, this bdoes not provewhat the ihalakhashould be with regard to offerings, baswith regard to a woman bwho miscarriesbefore the bcompletionof the term of eighty days, bher blood is impurelike the blood of a woman after childbirth, and nevertheless bshe is exempt frombringing bthe offering. /b
50. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

31b. ראש חדש אב שחל להיות בשבת מפטירין (ישעיהו א, יד) חדשיכם ומועדיכם שנאה נפשי היו עלי לטורח מאי היו עלי לטורח אמר הקב"ה לא דיין להם לישראל שחוטאין לפני אלא שמטריחין אותי לידע איזו גזירה קשה אביא עליהם,בתשעה באב גופיה מאי מפטרינן אמר רב (ישעיהו א, כא) איכה היתה לזונה מקרא מאי תניא אחרים אומרים (ויקרא כו, יד) ואם לא תשמעו לי ר' נתן בר יוסף אומר (במדבר יד, יא) עד אנה ינאצוני העם הזה ויש אומרים (במדבר יד, כז) עד מתי לעדה הרעה הזאת אמר אביי האידנא נהוג עלמא למיקרי (דברים ד, כה) כי תוליד בנים ומפטירין (ירמיהו ח, יג) אסוף אסיפם:,[במעמדות] במעשה בראשית וכו': מנהני מילי א"ר אמי אלמלא מעמדות לא נתקיימו שמים וארץ שנאמר (ירמיהו לג, כה) אם לא בריתי יומם ולילה חוקות שמים וארץ לא שמתי,וכתיב (בראשית טו, ב) ויאמר ה' אלהים במה אדע כי אירשנה אמר אברהם לפני הקב"ה רבש"ע שמא ח"ו ישראל חוטאים לפניך ואתה עושה להם כדור המבול וכדור הפלגה אמר לו לאו,אמר לפניו רבש"ע במה אדע אמר לו קחה לי עגלה משולשת וגו' אמר לפניו רבש"ע תינח בזמן שבית המקדש קיים בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מה תהא עליהם אמר לו כבר תקנתי להם סדר קרבנות כל זמן שקוראין בהן מעלה אני עליהן כאילו מקריבין לפני קרבן ומוחל אני על כל עונותיהם:,בתעניות ברכות וקללות ואין מפסיקין בקללות: מה"מ אמר ר' חייא בר גמדא אמר רבי אסי דאמר קרא (משלי ג, יא) מוסר ה' בני אל תמאס,ריש לקיש אמר לפי שאין אומרים ברכה על הפורענות אלא היכי עביד תנא כשהוא מתחיל מתחיל בפסוק שלפניהם וכשהוא מסיים מסיים בפסוק שלאחריהן,אמר אביי לא שנו אלא בקללות שבתורת כהנים אבל קללות שבמשנה תורה פוסק מאי טעמא הללו בלשון רבים אמורות ומשה מפי הגבורה אמרן והללו בלשון יחיד אמורות ומשה מפי עצמו אמרן,לוי בר בוטי הוה קרי וקא מגמגם קמיה דרב הונא בארורי אמר לו אכנפשך לא שנו אלא קללות שבתורת כהנים אבל שבמשנה תורה פוסק,תניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר עזרא תיקן להן לישראל שיהו קורין קללות שבתורת כהנים קודם עצרת ושבמשנה תורה קודם ר"ה מאי טעמא אמר אביי ואיתימא ריש לקיש כדי שתכלה השנה וקללותיה,בשלמא שבמשנה תורה איכא כדי שתכלה שנה וקללותיה אלא שבתורת כהנים אטו עצרת ראש השנה היא אין עצרת נמי ראש השנה היא דתנן ובעצרת על פירות האילן,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר אם יאמרו לך זקנים סתור וילדים בנה סתור ואל תבנה מפני שסתירת זקנים בנין ובנין נערים סתירה וסימן לדבר (מלכים א יב, כא) רחבעם בן שלמה,ת"ר מקום שמפסיקין בשבת שחרית שם קורין במנחה במנחה שם קורין בשני בשני שם קורין בחמישי בחמישי שם קורין לשבת הבאה דברי ר' מאיר ר' יהודה אומר מקום שמפסיקין בשבת שחרית שם קורין במנחה ובשני ובחמישי ולשבת הבאה,אמר רבי זירא הלכה מקום שמפסיקין בשבת שחרית שם קורין במנחה ובשני ובחמישי ולשבת הבאה ולימא הלכה כרבי יהודה 31b. When the bNew Moon of Av occurs on Shabbat, they read as the ihaftara /ithe portion that includes the verse b“Your New Moons and your Festivals, My soul hated; they were a burden to Me”(Isaiah 1:14). The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe meaning of: b“They were a burden to Me”?The Gemara explains: bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: It is not enough for the Jewish people that they sin before Me, butin addition, bthey burden Me to reconsider what harsh decree I shall bring upon them,for they are petitioning Me to annul those decrees.,The Gemara asks: bOnthe bNinth of Av itself, what do we read as the ihaftara /i? Rav said:The portion containing the verse b“Howdid the faithful city bbecome a harlot?”(Isaiah 1:21). The Gemara asks: bWhat Torah portiondo they read? bIt is taughtin a ibaraitathat bothers say:They read the portion containing the verse b“But if you will not hearken to me”(Leviticus 26:14). bRabbi Natan bar Yosef said:They read the portion containing the verse: b“How long will this people provoke me?”(Numbers 14:11). bAnd some say:They read the portion containing the verse: b“How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?”(Numbers 14:27). The Gemara comments that bAbaye said: Nowadays, everyone is accustomed to readthe portion of b“When you shall beget children”(Deuteronomy 4:25–40), band they read as the ihaftara /ithe portion of b“I will utterly consume them”(Jeremiah 8:13–9:23).,§ The mishna states: bIn thenon-priestly bwatchesthey read bthe act of Creation.The Gemara asks: bFrom where are these mattersderived, i.e., why do they read the account of Creation? bRabbi Ami said:To allude to the fact that bwere it not forthe non-priestly bwatches, heaven and earth would not endure, as it is stated: “Were it not for My covet day and night, I would not have set the statutes of heaven and earth”(Jeremiah 33:25). God’s covet is referring to the offerings sacrificed in the Temple, which sustain the world., bAndwith regard to Abraham bit is written: “And he said, O Lord God, by what shall I know that I shall inherit it?”(Genesis 15:8). bAbraham said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, perhaps, Heaven forbid, the Jewish people will sin before You, and You will do to them asYou did to the bgeneration of the Flood and asYou did to the bgeneration of the Dispersion,i.e., You will completely destroy them? God bsaid to him: No,I will not do that.,Abraham then bsaid before Him: Master of the Universe: “By what shall I know this?”God bsaid to him: “Take Me a heifer of three years old”(Genesis 15:9). With this, God intimated to Abraham that even if his descendants will sin, they will be able to achieve atonement through sacrificing offerings. Abraham bsaid before Him: Master of the Universe,this bworks out well when the Temple is standingand offerings can be brought to achieve atonement, but bwhen the Temple will nolonger bbe standing, what will become of them?God bsaid to him: I have already established for them the order of offerings,i.e., the verses of the Torah pertaining to the ihalakhotof the offerings. bWhenever they read thoseportions, bI will deem it as if they sacrificed an offering before Me, and I will pardon them for all of their iniquities. /b,§ The mishna states: bOn fast daysthe congregation reads the portion of bblessings and curses(Leviticus, chapter 16), band one may not interruptthe reading of the bcursesby having two different people read them. Rather, one person reads all of them. The Gemara asks: bFrom where are these mattersderived? Why does one not interrupt the reading of the curses? bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda saidthat bRabbi Asi said: For the verse states: “My son, do not despise the chastening of the Lord,nor be weary of His correction” (Proverbs 3:11). If one makes a break in the middle of the curses, it appears as if he loathes rebuke., bReish Lakish saida different answer: It is bbecause one does not say a blessing over a calamity.If a second person were to begin to read in the middle of the portion of the curses, the blessing upon his reading would be considered a blessing over a calamity. bRather,what bdoes one do?It is btaughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhen one beginsthe reading, bone begins with the verse beforethe curses, band when one concludesthe reading, bone concludes with the verse after them.In this way, neither the blessing before the reading nor after it relates directly to verses of calamity., bAbaye said: They taughtthis bonly with regard to the curses that arerecorded bin Leviticus, but with regard to the curses that arerecorded bin Deuteronomy, one may interruptthem by having two different people read them. bWhat is the reasonfor this distinction? bThesecurses in Leviticus bare stated in the plural, and Moses pronounced them from the mouth of the Almighty.As such, they are more severe. However, bthesecurses in Deuteronomy bare stated in the singular, and Moses said them on his own,like the rest of the book of Deuteronomy. They are therefore less harsh and may be interrupted.,It was related that bLevi bar Buti wasonce breading theportion of the bcurses before Rav Huna, and he was stammeringin his reading, as it was difficult for him to utter such harsh pronouncements. Rav Huna bsaid to him: If you wish,you may stop where you are and a different reader will continue, for bthey taughtone may not have two people read the curses bonly with regard to the curses that arerecorded bin Leviticus. But with regard to the curses that arerecorded bin Deuteronomy, one may interruptthem by having two different people read them., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar said: Ezra enacted for the Jewish people that they should readthe portion of bthe curses that arerecorded bin Leviticus before iShavuotandthe portion of the curses bthat arerecorded bin Deuteronomy before Rosh HaShana.The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonfor this? bAbaye said, and some saythat it was bReish Lakishwho said: bIn order that the year may concludetogether with bits curses,and the new year may begin without the ominous reading of the curses.,The Gemara asks: bGranted,with regard to the curses bthat arerecorded bin Deuteronomy, there isrelevance to the reason: bIn order that the year may concludetogether with bits curses,for Rosh HaShana is clearly the beginning of a new year. bHowever,with regard to the curses bthat arerecorded bin Leviticus,what relevance does that reason have? bIs that to say iShavuotis a new year?The Gemara answers: bYes,indeed, iShavuotis also a new year, as we learnedin a mishna ( iRosh HaShana16a): bAnd on iShavuot /i,divine judgment is made bconcerning the fruit of the trees,which indicates that iShavuotalso has the status of a new year., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: If old men say to you: Demolish, and childrensay to you: bBuild,then bdemolish and do not build, because the demolishing of old men isultimately as constructive as bbuilding,despite the fact that it appears destructive, band the building of children isas destructive as bdemolishing. An indication of this matteris bRehoboam, son of Solomon.He ignored the advice of the Elders and did not lower himself before his people, which ultimately led to the people rebelling against him., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bthe placein the Torah bwherethe congregation bconcludesthe reading bon Shabbat morning,it is from btherethat btheycontinue to bread in the afternoonservice on Shabbat. Where they conclude bin the afternoonservice on Shabbat, from bthere theycontinue to bread on Mondaymorning. Where they conclude bon Monday,from bthere theycontinue to bread on Thursdaymorning. Where they conclude bon Thursday,from bthere theycontinue to bread on the coming Shabbat.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda says:With regard to bthe placein the Torah bwhere they concludethe reading bon Shabbat morning,it is from btherethat btheycontinue to bread in the afternoonservice on Shabbat. bAndfrom that same place btheycontinue to bread on Mondaymorning, band on Thursdaymorning, band on the coming Shabbat. /b,The Gemara notes that bRabbi Zeira said: The ihalakha /iis that with regard to bthe place where they concludethe reading bon Shabbat morning,it is from btherethat btheycontinue to bread in the afternoonservice on Shabbat. bAndfrom that same place btheycontinue to bread on Mondaymorning, band on Thursdaymorning, band on the coming Shabbat.The Gemara asks: If so, blet himsimply bsay: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda.Why did he have to explicitly state the whole ihalakha /i?
51. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

29b. had the bleg ofthe letter ihehinthe term: b“The nation [ iha’am /i]”(Exodus 13:3), written in his phylacteries, bsevered by a perforation. He came beforehis son-in-law bRabbi Abbato clarify the ihalakha /i. Rabbi Abba bsaid to him: If there remains inthe leg that is attached to the roof of the letter bthe equivalent of the measure of a small letter,i.e., the letter iyod /i, it is bfit. But if not,it is bunfit. /b,The Gemara relates: bRami bar Tamrei, whowas bthe father-in-law of Rami bar Dikkulei,had the bleg ofthe letter ivavinthe term: b“Andthe Lord bslew [ ivayaharog /i]all the firstborn” (Exodus 13:15), written in his phylacteries, bsevered by a perforation. He came before Rabbi Zeirato clarify the ihalakha /i. Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him: Go bring a child who is neither wise nor stupid,but of average intelligence; bif he readsthe term as b“Andthe Lord bslew [ ivayaharog /i]”then it is bfit,as despite the perforation the letter is still seen as a ivav /i. But bif not,then it is as though the term bwere: Will be slain [ iyehareg /i],written without the letter ivav /i, bandit is bunfit. /b,§ bRav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: When Moses ascended on High, he found the Holy One, Blessed be He, sitting and tying crowns on the lettersof the Torah. Moses bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe, who is preventing Youfrom giving the Torah without these additions? God bsaid to him: There is a man who is destined to beborn bafter several generations, and Akiva ben Yosefis bhis name; he is destined to derive from each and every thornof these crowns bmoundsupon bmounds of ihalakhot /i.It is for his sake that the crowns must be added to the letters of the Torah.,Moses bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe, show him to me.God bsaid to him: Return behind you.Moses bwent and sat at the end of the eighth rowin Rabbi Akiva’s study hall band did not understand what they were saying.Moses’ bstrength waned,as he thought his Torah knowledge was deficient. bWhenRabbi Akiva barrived atthe discussion of bone matter, his students said to him: My teacher, from where do youderive this? Rabbi Akiva bsaid to them:It is ba ihalakha /itransmitted bto Moses from Sinai.When Moses heard this, bhis mind was put at ease,as this too was part of the Torah that he was to receive.,Moses breturned and came before the Holy One, Blessed be He,and bsaid before Him: Master of the Universe, You have a manas great bas this andyet bYoustill choose to bgive the Torah through me.Why? God bsaid to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me.Moses bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe, You have shown meRabbi Akiva’s bTorah,now bshow me his reward.God bsaid to him: Returnto where you were. Moses bwent backand bsaw that they were weighingRabbi Akiva’s bflesh in a butcher shop [ ibemakkulin /i],as Rabbi Akiva was tortured to death by the Romans. Moses bsaid before Him: Master of the Universe, this is Torah and this is its reward?God bsaid to him: Be silent; this intention arose before Me. /b,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of the crowns on letters of the Torah: bRava says: Seven letters require three crowns [ iziyyunin /i], and they arethe letters ishin /i, iayin /i, itet /i, inun /i, izayin /i; igimmel /iand itzadi /i. Rav Ashi says: I have seen that the exacting scribes of the study hall of Rav would put a hump-like stroke on the roof ofthe letter iḥetand they would suspend theleft bleg ofthe letter iheh /i,i.e., they would ensure that it is not joined to the roof of the letter.,Rava explains: bThey would put a hump-like stroke on the roof ofthe letter iḥetas if tothereby bsay:The Holy One, Blessed be bHe, lives [ iḥai /i] in the heights of the universe. And they would suspend theleft bleg ofthe letter iheh /i, as Rabbi Yehuda Nesia asked Rabbi Ami: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “Trust in the Lord forever, for in the Lord [ ibeYah /i] is God, an everlasting [ iolamim /i] Rock”(Isaiah 26:4)? Rabbi Ami bsaid to him: Anyone who puts their trust in the Holy One, Blessed be He,will have Him as bhis refuge in this world and in the World-to-Come.This is alluded to in the word “ iolamim /i,” which can also mean: Worlds.,Rabbi Yehuda Nesia bsaid toRabbi Ami: I was not asking about the literal meaning of the verse; bthis iswhat poses ba difficulty for me: What is differentabout that bwhich is written:“For bin the Lord [ ibeYah /i],” and it is not written:For bthe Lord [ iYah /i]? /b,Rav Ashi responded: It is bas Rabbi Yehuda bar Rabbi Elai taught:The verse “For in the Lord [ ibeYah /i] is God, an everlasting Rock [ iTzur olamim /i]” is understood as follows: The term “ iTzur olamim /i” can also mean Creator of worlds. bTheseletters iyodand ihehthat constitute the word iyahare referring to the btwo worlds that the Holy One, Blessed be He, created; one with [ ibe /i]the letter ihehand one with [ ibe /i]the letter iyod /i. And I do not know whether the World-to-Comewas created bwiththe letter iyodand this worldwas created bwiththe letter iheh /i,or bwhether this worldwas created bwiththe letter iyodand the World-to-Comewas created bwiththe letter iheh /i. /b, bWhenthe verse bstates: “These are the generations of the heaven and of the earth when they were created [ ibehibare’am /i]”(Genesis 2:4), bdo not readit as ibehibare’am /i,meaning: When they were created; brather,read it as ibeheh bera’am /i,meaning: He created them with the letter iheh /i. This verse demonstrates that the heaven and the earth, i.e., this world, were created with the letter iheh /i, and therefore the World-to-Come must have been created with the letter iyod /i., bAnd for whatreason bwas this world createdspecifically bwiththe letter iheh /i?It is bbecausethe letter iheh /i, bwhichis open on its bottom, has ba similarappearance bto a portico,which is open on one side. And it alludes to this world, bwhere anyone who wishes to leave may leave,i.e., every person has the ability to choose to do evil. bAnd what is the reasonthat the left bleg ofthe letter iheh bis suspended,i.e., is not joined to the roof of the letter? It is bbecause if one repents, he is broughtback binthrough the opening at the top.,The Gemara asks: bButwhy not blet him enter through thatsame way that he left? The Gemara answers: That would bnot be effective,since one requires assistance from Heaven in order to repent, bin accordance withthe statement bof Reish Lakish. As Reish Lakish says: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “If it concerns the scorners, He scorns them, but to the humble He gives grace”(Proverbs 3:34)? Concerning one who bcomesin order bto become pure, he is assistedfrom Heaven, as it is written: “But to the humble He gives grace.” Concerning one who bcomes to become impure, he is provided with an openingto do so. The Gemara asks: bAnd what is the reasonthat the letter iheh bhas a crownon its roof? The Gemara answers: bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, says: Ifa sinner breturns,repenting for his sin, bI tiea crown bfor himfrom above.,The Gemara asks: bFor whatreason bwas the World-to-Come createdspecifically bwiththe letter iyod /i,the smallest letter in the Hebrew alphabet? The Gemara answers: It is bbecause the righteous ofthe world bareso bfew. And for whatreason is the left side of bthe top ofthe letter iyod bbentdownward? It is bbecause the righteous who are inthe World-to-Come bhang their headsin shame, bsince the actions of one are not similar to those of another.In the World-to-Come some of the righteous will be shown to be of greater stature than others.,§ bRav Yosef says: Rav states these two matters with regard to scrolls, andin each case a statement bis taughtin a ibaraitathat constitutes ba refutation of hisruling. bOneis bthat which Rav says: A Torah scroll that contains two errors on each and every column may be corrected,but if there are bthreeerrors on each and every column then it bshall be interred. /b, bAnda statement bis taughtin a ibaraitathat constitutes ba refutation of hisruling: A Torah scroll that contains bthreeerrors on every column bmay be corrected,but if there are bfourerrors on every column then it bshall be interred.A itanna btaughtin a ibaraita /i: bIfthe Torah scroll bcontains one complete columnwith no errors, bit saves the entireTorah scroll, and it is permitted to correct the scroll rather than interring it. bRabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta says in the name of Rav: And thisis the ihalakhaonly bwhen the majority of the scroll is written properlyand is not full of errors., bAbaye said to Rav Yosef: If that column contained three errors, whatis the ihalakha /i? Rav Yosef bsaid to him: Sincethe column itself bmay be corrected,it benables the correctionof the entire scroll. The Gemara adds: bAndwith regard to the ihalakhathat a Torah scroll may not be fixed if it is full of errors, bthis statementapplies when letters bare missingand must be added in the space between the lines. bButif there were bextraneousletters, bwe have noproblem bwith it,since they can easily be erased. The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonthat a scroll with letters bmissingmay bnotbe corrected? bRav Kahana said: Because it would look speckledif one adds all of the missing letters in the spaces between the lines.,The Gemara relates: bAgra, the father-in-law of Rabbi Abba, hadmany bextraneousletters bin his scroll. He came before Rabbi Abbato clarify the ihalakha /i. Rabbi Abba bsaid to him: We saidthat one may not correct the scroll bonly ina case where the letters are bmissing. /b
52. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

93b. קסבר מגדף היינו מברך השם וכתיב במברך את השם (ויקרא כד, טו) ונשא חטאו,וגמר האי חטאו דהכא מחטאו דהתם מה להלן כרת אף כאן נמי כרת,ור' נתן סבר (במדבר ט, יג) וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה דהאי כי לשון דהא הוא וה"ק רחמנא דהא קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בראשון,האי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה קסבר מגדף לאו היינו מברך את השם וגמר האי חטאו דהתם מהאי חטאו דהכא מה הכא כרת אף התם כרת,ור' חנניא בן עקביא סבר וחדל לעשות הפסח ונכרתה אי קרבן ה' לא הקריב במועדו בשני,והאי חטאו ישא מאי עביד ליה כדאמרן,הלכך הזיד בזה ובזה דברי הכל חייב שגג בזה ובזה דברי הכל פטור,הזיד בראשון ושגג בשני לרבי ולר' נתן מחייבי לרבי חנניא בן עקביא פטור,שגג בראשון והזיד בשני לרבי חייב לר' נתן ולר' חנניא בן עקביא פטור:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big איזו היא דרך רחוקה מן המודיעים ולחוץ וכמדתה לכל רוח דברי רבי עקיבא ר"א אומר מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ אמר ליה רבי יוסי לפיכך נקוד על (במדבר ט, י) ה' לומר לא מפני שרחוק ודאי אלא מאיסקופת העזרה ולחוץ:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר עולא מן המודיעים לירושלים חמשה עשר מילין הויא סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כמה מהלך אדם ביום עשרה פרסאות מעלות השחר ועד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין משקיעת החמה ועד צאת הכוכבים חמשת מילין פשו לה תלתין חמיסר מצפרא לפלגא דיומא וחמיסר מפלגא דיומא לאורתא,עולא לטעמיה דאמר עולא אי זה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה,אמר מר מעלות השחר עד הנץ החמה חמשת מילין מנא לן דכתיב (בראשית יט, טו) וכמו השחר עלה ויאיצו המלאכים וגו' וכתיב (בראשית יט, כג) השמש יצא על הארץ ולוט בא צוערה ואמר רבי חנינא לדידי חזי לי ההוא אתרא והויא חמשה מילין,גופא אמר עולא איזה הוא דרך רחוקה כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה ורב יהודה אמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה,אמר ליה רבה לעולא לדידך קשיא ולרב יהודה קשיא לדידך קשיא דאמרת כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה והא טמא שרץ דאין יכול ליכנס בשעת שחיטה וקאמרת שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ,ולרב יהודה קשיא דאמר כל שאין יכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה והא טמא שרץ דיכול ליכנס בשעת אכילה וקאמר אין שוחטין וזורקין על טמא שרץ,אמר ליה לא לדידי קשיא ולא לרב יהודה קשיא לדידי ל"ק דרך רחוקה לטהור ואין דרך רחוקה לטמא 93b. bHe holdsthat with regard to the case of the bblasphemermentioned in the verse: “That person blasphemes the Lord and that soul shall be cut off [ ikaret /i] from among his people” (Numbers 15:30), bthis isidentical to the case of bone who blesses the nameof God, a euphemism for cursing God’s name. bAnd it is written with regard to one who blesses the nameof God: “Whoever curses his God bshall bear his sin”(Leviticus 24:15). Therefore, the punishment of ikaretapplies to a sin about which the Torah states: Shall bear his sin., bAndRabbi Yehuda HaNasi blearnedthe meaning of bthisphrase: “And he shall bear bhis sin,”stated bhere,with regard to one who did not sacrifice the Paschal lamb, by way of a verbal analogy bfromthe phrase: “Shall bear bhis sin”stated bthere,with regard to the blasphemer. bJust as later,with regard to the blasphemer, it is referring to the punishment of ikaret /i, so too here,with regard to the Paschal lamb, it is referring to the punishment of ikaret /i.This concludes the Gemara’s explanation of the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi., bAnd Rabbi Natan holdsthat the verse should be understood differently. In the verse: b“And refrains from offering the Paschal lamb,that soul bshall be cut offfrom his people; because [ iki /i] he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season” (Numbers 9:13), bthisword iki /ihas the bmeaning of: Because. And this iswhat bthe Torah is saying: “Because he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,”referring to participating in the Paschal lamb on bthe first iPesaḥ /i, he is liable to receive ikaret /i.,The Gemara asks: If so, bthatpart of the verse which says: bHe shall bear his sin, what doesRabbi Natan bdo with it?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan bholdsthat bthecase of the bblasphemer is notidentical with the case of one who bblesses the nameof God; blasphemy refers instead to one who sings praises to false gods. Thus, the Torah does not specify the punishment of one who curses God. bHe learnedthe meaning of bthatphrase b“his sin,” there,with regard to one who curses God, by way of a verbal analogy bfrom thisphrase b“his sin” here,in the case of one who did not offer the Paschal lamb. bJust as here,with regard to the Paschal lamb, the punishment is ikaret /i, so too there,with regard to one who curses God, the phrase: He shall bear his sin, is a reference to the punishment of ikaret /i. /b, bAnd Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya holdsthat the word ikiin the verse should be rendered: If, as Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi interpreted it, but the verse should be understood as follows: b“And refrained from participatingin the offering of bthe Paschal lamb,that soul bshall be cut offfrom his people bif he did not bring the offering of the Lord in its appointed season,”which is bon the second iPesaḥ /i.,The Gemara asks: bAndwith regard to bthatphrase: b“He shall bear his sin,” what doesRabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya bdo with it?The Gemara answers: He uses it in the same way as Rabbi Natan, bas we saidabove, to derive the punishment for one who curses God., bTherefore,if one bintentionallyrefrained from offering the Paschal lamb bon boththe first and second iPesaḥ /i, ball agreethat he is bliableto receive ikaret /i. If one bunwittinglyforgot bon boththe first and second iPesaḥ /i, ball agreethat he is bexemptfrom ikaret /i.,If one bintentionallyrefrained from offering the Paschal lamb bon the first iPesaḥ band unwittinglyforgot bon the second,according btothe opinions of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi band Rabbi Natan heis bliableto receive ikaret /i, because he intentionally refrained from offering the sacrifice on the first iPesaḥand did not rectify his mistake on the second iPesaḥ /i; however, according btothe opinion of bRabbi Ḥaya ben Akavyahe is bexempt,because he holds that one is liable only if he intentionally refrained both times from offering the Paschal lamb.,If one bunwittinglyforgot bon the first iPesaḥ band intentionallyrefrained from bringing the offering bon the second iPesaḥ /i, according btothe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bhe is liable,because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi considers the second iPesaḥan independent Festival that is mandatory for all those who did not offer the Paschal lamb on the first iPesaḥ /i. According btothe opinions of bRabbi Natan and Rabbi Ḥaya ben Akavya,who hold that the second iPesaḥis a chance to redress the sin of the first iPesaḥ /i, since he did not intentionally fail to offer the Paschal lamb on the first iPesaḥ /i, he is bexemptfrom the punishment of ikareteven if he intentionally failed to offer the Paschal lamb on the second iPesaḥ /i., strongMISHNA: /strong bWhat is thedefinition of ba distant journeythat exempts one from observing the first iPesaḥ /i? Anywhere bfrom thecity of bModi’im and beyond, andfrom anywhere located an equal bdistancefrom Jerusalem and beyond bin every direction;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the threshold of theTemple bcourtyard and beyondis considered a distant journey; therefore, anyone located outside the courtyard at the time that the Paschal lamb is slaughtered is exempt from observing the first iPesaḥ /i. bRabbi Yosei said to him: Therefore,the word is bdotted over theletter iheh /iin the word “distant [ ireḥoka /i]” bto saythat the meaning of the word should be qualified: It should be understood that bit is not because he is really distant; rather,it includes anyone located bfrom the threshold of theTemple bcourtyard and beyond. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bUlla said:The distance bfrom thecity of bModi’im to Jerusalem is fifteen imil /i. He held like thisfollowing opinion bthat Rabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: Howfar bcan anaverage bperson walk on anaverage bday?One can walk bten parasangs [ iparsaot /i],which are forty imil /i. This is divided in the following way: bFrom dawn until sunriseone can walk a distance of bfive imil /i,and bfrom sunset until the emergence of the starsone can walk another bfive imil /i.There are bthirty imil bremainingthat one can walk in a day: bFifteen from the morning until midday, and fifteen from midday until evening. /b,The Gemara explains that bUllaconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoningbelow, bas Ulla said: What isthe definition of ba distant journey?It is banydistance from which bone is unable toreach Jerusalem and benterthe Temple bby theearliest btime of the slaughterof the Paschal lamb. The obligation to slaughter the Paschal lamb begins at noon; therefore, if one is a distance of fifteen imilfrom the Temple in the morning, he will not be able to arrive there before the time that the offering may be slaughtered.,The Gemara addresses the previously mentioned discussion: bThe Master saidthat bfrom dawn until sunriseone can walk a distance of bfive imil /i. From where do wederive this? bAs it is written: “And when the morning arose, the angels hastened Lot,saying: Arise, take your wife and your two daughters that are here, lest you be swept away in the iniquity of the city” (Genesis 19:15), band it is written: “The sun was risen upon the earth when Lot came to Zoar”(Genesis 19:23). Therefore, the distance between Sodom and Zoar is the distance one can walk between dawn and sunrise, band Rabbi Ḥanina said: I myself saw that place, and it isa distance of bfive imil /i.This serves as a biblical proof that one can walk five imilbetween dawn and sunrise.,The Gemara discusses bthe matterof the above statement bitself. Ulla said: What isthe definition of ba distant journey; anyjourney of a distance from which bone is unable toreach Jerusalem and benterthe Temple bby theearliest btime of the slaughterof the Paschal lamb. bAnd Rav Yehuda said: Anyjourney of a distance from which bone is unable toreach Jerusalem, where the Paschal lamb is eaten, and benter during the time of the eating,the following night., bRabba said to Ulla:According bto youropinion it is bdifficult, andaccording bto Rav Yehuda’sopinion it is bdifficult.According bto youropinion it is bdifficult, as you saidthat banyjourney of a distance from which bone is unable toreach Jerusalem and benterthe Temple courtyard bby the time of the slaughterof the Paschal lamb is considered a distant journey. bYetwith regard to bone who is ritually impuredue to contact with a dead bcreeping animal, who is unable to enterthe Temple courtyard bat the time of the slaughterdue to his impurity, byou said: Onemay bslaughterthe Paschal lamb band sprinkleits blood bonbehalf of bone who is ritually impuredue to contact with a dead bcreeping animal,even though he will only become pure after nightfall, when the Paschal lamb is eaten., bAndaccording bto Rav Yehuda’sopinion it is bdifficult, as he saidthat banyjourney of a distance from which bone is unable to enterJerusalem bduring the time of the eatingis considered a distant journey; byetwith regard to bone who is ritually impuredue to contact with a dead bcreeping animal, whois able to benterJerusalem and participate in consuming the offering bat the time of the eating, he saidthe opposite: bOnemay bnot slaughterthe Paschal lamb band sprinkleits blood bonbehalf of bone who is ritually impuredue to contact with a dead bcreeping animal,even though he will be able to immerse and become ritually pure by nightfall, when the offering is to be eaten.,Ulla bsaid to him: According to myopinion it is bnot difficult, and according to Rav Yehuda’sopinion it is bnot difficult. According to myopinion it is bnot difficultbecause I hold that the concept of ba distant journeyapplies only bto one who is ritually pure, and theprinciple of a bdistant journeydoes bnotapply bto one who is ritually impure.If one is ritually impure at the time of the slaughter, his obligation is immediately deferred to the second iPesaḥregardless of the fact that he will become ritually pure in time to eat the offering at nightfall.
53. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

34a. מאי טעמא דר' יוסי בר יהודה דאמר קרא (במדבר לה, ל) עד אחד לא יענה בנפש למות למות הוא דאינו עונה אבל לזכות עונה ורבנן אמר ריש לקיש משום דמיחזי כנוגע בעדותו,ורבנן האי למות מאי דרשי ביה מוקמי ליה באחד מן התלמידים כדתניא אמר אחד מן העדים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות מניין שאין שומעין לו ת"ל עד אחד לא יענה מניין לאחד מן התלמידים שאמר יש לי ללמד עליו חובה מניין שאין שומעין לו ת"ל אחד לא יענה בנפש למות:,דיני נפשות המלמד כו': אמר רב לא שנו אלא בשעת משא ומתן אבל בשעת גמר דין מלמד זכות חוזר ומלמד חובה,מיתיבי למחרת משכימין ובאין המזכה אומר אני המזכה ומזכה אני במקומי המחייב אומר אני המחייב ומחייב אני במקומי המלמד חובה מלמד זכות אבל המלמד זכות אינו יכול לחזור וללמד חובה,והא למחרת גמר דין הוא וליטעמיך למחרת משא ומתן מי ליכא כי קתני בשעת משא ומתן,ת"ש דנין אלו כנגד אלו עד שיראה אחד מן המחייבין דברי המזכין ואם איתא ליתני נמי איפכא תנא אזכות קא מהדר אחובה לא קא מהדר,ת"ש דאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו ואמאי נימא אילו הוה קיים הדר ביה השתא מיהא לא הדר ביה,והא שלחו מתם לדברי ר' יוסי בר חנינא מוצא מכלל רבינו אין מוצא איתמר,תא שמע שני סופרי הדיינין עומדין לפניהן אחד מן הימין ואחד מן השמאל וכותבין דברי המזכין ודברי המחייבין,בשלמא דברי המחייבין למחר חזו טעמא אחרינא ובעו למעבד הלנת דין אלא דברי המזכין מאי טעמא לאו משום דאי חזו טעמא אחרינא לחובה לא משגחינן בהו,לא כדי שלא יאמרו שנים טעם אחד משני מקראות כדבעא מיניה רבי אסי מרבי יוחנן אמרו שנים טעם אחד משני מקראות מהו אמר ליה אין מונין להן אלא אחד,מנהני מילי אמר אביי דאמר קרא (תהלים סב, יב) אחת דבר אלהים שתים זו שמעתי כי עז לאלהים מקרא אחד יוצא לכמה טעמים ואין טעם אחד יוצא מכמה מקראות דבי ר' ישמעאל תנא (ירמיהו כג, כט) וכפטיש יפוצץ סלע מה פטיש זה מתחלק לכמה ניצוצות אף מקרא אחד יוצא לכמה טעמים,היכי דמי טעם אחד משני מקראות אמר רב זביד כדתנן מזבח מקדש את הראוי לו,רבי יהושע אומר כל הראוי לאשים אם עלה לא ירד שנאמר (ויקרא ו, ב) העולה על מוקדה מה עולה שהיא ראויה לאשים אם עלתה לא תרד אף כל שהוא ראוי לאשים אם עלה לא ירד,רבן גמליאל אומר כל הראוי למזבח אם עלה לא ירד שנאמר היא העולה על מוקדה על המזבח מה עולה שהיא ראויה לגבי מזבח אם עלתה לא תרד אף כל שהוא ראוי למזבח אם עלה לא ירד,ותרוייהו מאי קמרבו פסולין מר מייתי לה ממוקדה ומר מייתי לה ממזבח,והא התם מיפלג פליגי דקתני סיפא אין בין דברי רבן גמליאל לדברי ר' יהושע אלא הדם והנסכים שר"ג אומר לא ירדו ור' יהושע אומר ירדו,אלא אמר רב פפא כדתניא ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר מתוך שנאמר 34a. The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? As the verse states: “But one witness shall not testify against any person that he die.”One can infer: bThat he die isthe matter concerning bwhich he does not testify, but he does testify to acquit.The Gemara asks: bAndwhat is the reasoning of bthe Rabbis? Reish Lakish says:A witness cannot offer any statements beyond his testimony bbecause it appears as though he is biased in his testimony.If the court finds the accused liable based on the witness’s testimony, the witness could later be accused of being a conspiring witness. Therefore, it is to his advantage to have the court acquit the accused.,The Gemara asks: bAndas for bthe Rabbis,in bwhatmanner do bthey interpret thisterm: b“That he die”?The Gemara answers: bThey establish itas teaching the ihalakha bwith regard to one of the students. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: If bone of the witnesses said: I havethe ability bto teacha reason to bacquit him, from whereis it derived bthatthe court bdoes not listen to him? The verse states: “One witness shall not testify.” From whereis it derived bthatif there is bone of the students who said: I havethe ability bto teacha reason to deem bhim liable, from whereis it derived bthatthe court bdoes not listen to him? The verse states:“But bonewitness bshall not testify against any person that he die.” /b,§ The mishna teaches: In cases of bcapital law, one whoinitially bteachesa reason to deem the accused liable may then teach a reason to acquit, but one who initially teaches a reason to acquit him may not return and teach a reason to deem him liable. bRav says: They taughtthis ihalakha bonly with regard to the time ofthe bdeliberationsof the court, bbut at the time ofthe bverdict,one who initially bteachesa reason to bacquit may return and teacha reason to deem him bliable. /b,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom a mishna (40a): bThe following day,i.e., the day after the initial deliberations, the judges would barise early and cometo court. bOne whoyesterday was of the opinion to bacquit says: Isaid to bacquit, and I acquit in my place,i.e., I stand by my statement to acquit. bAnd one whoyesterday was of the opinion to bdeemhim bliable says: Isaid to bdeemhim bliable, and I deemhim bliable in my place. One whoyesterday btaughta reason to deem him bliable maythen bteacha reason to bacquit, but one whoyesterday btaughta reason to bacquit may notthen bteacha reason to deem him bliable. /b,The Gemara explains the objection: bBut the following day isat the time of bthe verdict,and the mishna rules that a judge who had said to acquit may not change his opinion. The Gemara questions this reading of the mishna: bAnd according to your reasoning, are there no deliberations on the following day?The deliberations may resume on the next day. Therefore, one can say that bwhenthe mishna bteachesthat the judge may not change his opinion, it is bwith regard to the time ofthe bdeliberations. /b,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from the continuation of that mishna, which teaches that if the number of judges who deem him liable is one more than the number of judges who acquit, btheycontinue to bdeliberatethe matter, bthesejudges bagainst thosejudges, buntil one of those who deemshim bliable seesthe validity of bthe statements of those who acquitand changes his position, as the court does not condemn someone to death by a majority of one judge. The Gemara states its proof: bAnd if it is sothat one who initially bteachesa reason bto acquit may return and teacha reason to deem him bliable, letthe mishna balso teach the oppositepossibility. The Gemara explains: bThe itannais searching forscenarios of bacquittal,he bis not searching forscenarios of bliability.It may be that the ihalakhais the same in the opposite case, but the itannaprefers to employ an example of acquittal.,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from a ibaraita /i: bAs Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says:In a case where there was bone of the students whoargued to bacquit andthen bdied,the court bviews him as ifhe were balive and standing in his placeand voting to acquit. The Gemara asks: bBut why?According to the opinion of Rav, that a judge may change his opinion at the time of the verdict, blet us say:Perhaps bifthat student bwere alive,he would bretracthis opinion and find the accused liable. The Gemara explains: bNow, in any event,he bdid not retract fromhis opinion. The assumption is that he would not have changed his opinion, although one can do so.,The Gemara questions this explanation: bButthe Sages bsenta statement bfrom there,Eretz Yisrael: bAccording tothis version of bthe statement of Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina,he engages in ba dispute with our teacher,i.e., Rav. Apparently, the previous explanation, which reconciles their opinions, is incorrect. The Gemara answers: That tradition was not accurate, and it bwas statedthat he does bnotengage in ba disputewith Rav.,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from a ibaraita /i: After the initial deliberations, btwo judges’ scribes stand beforethe court, bone on the right, and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who acquitthe accused band the statements of those who findhim bliable. /b,The Gemara explains the proof: bGranted,they write the bstatements of those who findthe accused bliableeven though they may not change their opinions, as bon the following day theymay bsee another reasonto find the accused liable, not the reason they gave the day before. bAndonce this new reason is given, the court bis required to perform a suspension of the trialuntil the following day, as they may not issue a verdict in cases of capital law on the same day as the deliberations. bBut what is the reasonthe scribes write bthe statements of those who acquitthe accused? Is it bnot becausethe ihalakhais that bifthe judges would bsee another reason tofind the accused bliable, we do not pay heed to them,and in order to ensure that the judges do not change their opinions, the scribes write their statements?,The Gemara answers: bNo,the reason they write their statements is bso that twoof the judges bshould not say one explanationto acquit bfrom twodifferent bverses.If two judges each say the same reason to acquit, but derive their reason from different verses, they are not counted as two votes. bAs Rabbi Asi asked of Rabbi Yoḥa:If btwoof the judges bsay one explanationto acquit bfrom twodifferent bverses, what isthe ihalakha /i? bRabbi Yoḥa said to him: We count them only as one,as it is clear that one of the derivations is in error.,§ The Gemara discusses the ruling of Rabbi Yoḥa: bFrom where is this matterderived? bAbaye says: As the verse states: “God has spoken once, twice I have heard this; that strength belongs to God”(Psalms 62:12). Abaye explains: bOne verseis stated by God and from it bemerge several explanations, but one explanation does not emerge from several verses.Alternatively, bthe school of Rabbi Yishmael taughtthat the verse states: “Is not My word like as fire? says the Lord; band like a hammer that breaks the rock in pieces”(Jeremiah 23:29). bJust as this hammer breaksa stone binto several fragments, so too, one verseis stated by God bandfrom it bemerge several explanations. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWhat is considered one explanation from twodifferent bverses? Rav Zevid says: As we learnedin a mishna ( iZevaḥim83a): With regard to certain items that are disqualified from being sacrificed iab initio /i, once they have been placed on the altar they are nevertheless sacrificed, but bthe altar sanctifiesonly items bthat are suited for it,as the Gemara will explain. The itanna’imdisagree as to what is considered suited for the altar., bRabbi Yehoshua says: Anyitem bthat is suited tobe consumed by bthe fireon the altar, e.g., burnt-offerings and the portions of other offerings burned on the altar, bif it ascendedupon the altar, even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed iab initio /i, bit shall not descend.Since it was sanctified by its ascent upon the altar, it is sacrificed upon it, bas it is stated:“It is bthe burnt-offering on the pyreupon the altar” (Leviticus 6:2), from which it is derived: bJust aswith regard to ba burnt-offering that is suited tobe consumed by bthe fireon the altar, bif it ascended, it shall not descend, so toowith regard to banyitem bthat is suited tobe consumed by bthe fireon the altar, bif it ascended, it shall not descend. /b, bRabban Gamliel says:With regard to banyitem bthat is suited toascend upon bthe altar,even if it is not typically consumed, bif it ascended, it shall not descend,even if it is disqualified from being sacrificed iab initio /i, bas it is stated: “It is the burnt-offering on the pyre upon the altar,”from which it is derived: bJust as a burnt-offering that is fit for the altar, if it ascended, it shall not descend, so too anyitem bthat is fit for the altar, if it ascended, it shall not descend. /b,Rav Zevid explains: bAnd what do the two of them includeby means of these explanations? bDisqualifiedofferings, teaching that if they ascend they do not descend. One bSage,Rabbi Yehoshua, bbringsproof for bthis ihalakha bfromthe term b“on the pyre,” andone bSage,Rabban Gamliel, bbringsproof to bthis ihalakha bfromthe term “upon the baltar.”This is an example of one explanation from two different verses.,The Gemara questions this example: bBut there,Rabbi Yehoshua and Rabban Gamliel bdisagree,and their explanations cannot therefore be identical. bAs the latter clauseof that mishna bteaches: The difference between the statement of Rabban Gamliel and the statement of Rabbi Yehoshua is onlywith regard to disqualified bblood and libations,which are not consumed by the fire, but do ascend onto the altar, bas Rabban Gamliel says: They shall not descend,as they are fit to ascend on the altar, band Rabbi Yehoshua says: They shall descend,as they are not burned on the altar., bRather, Rav Pappa says:An example of one explanation from two different verses is bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: From the fact that it is stated: /b
54. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

75a. שכן יריעה שנפל בה דרנא קורעין בה ותופרין אותה,אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב המותח חוט של תפירה בשבת חייב חטאת והלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה והיודע לחשב תקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב אסור לספר הימנו,מגושתא רב ושמואל חד אמר חרשי וחד אמר גדופי תסתיים דרב דאמר גדופי דאמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב הלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה דאי ס"ד חרשי הכתיב (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות תסתיים,אר"ש בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא כל היודע לחשב בתקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו ה, יב) ואת פועל ה' לא יביטו ומעשה ידיו לא ראו א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן מנין שמצוה על האדם לחשב תקופות ומזלות שנאמר (דברים ד, ו) ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים איזו חכמה ובינה שהיא לעיני העמים הוי אומר זה חישוב תקופות ומזלות:,הצד צבי וכו': ת"ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת רבי יהודה אומר חייב שתים שהיה ר' יהודה אומר פציעה בכלל דישה אמרו לו אין פציעה בכלל דישה אמר רבא מ"ט דרבנן קסברי אין דישה אלא לגדולי קרקע וליחייב נמי משום נטילת נשמה אמר רבי יוחנן שפצעו מת,רבא אמר אפילו תימא שפצעו חי מתעסק הוא אצל נטילת נשמה והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שאני הכא דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה:,השוחטו: שוחט משום מאי חייב רב אמר משום צובע ושמואל אמר משום נטילת נשמה 75a. bAs, when a curtain had a wormwhich made a tear bin it, they would tearthe curtain further to lengthen the tear, bandthat enabled them to then bsew itin a manner that obscured the tear., bRav Zutra bar Toviya saidthat bRav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable tobring ba sin-offering.If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional ihalakhotcited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. bAnd one who learnseven bone matter from a imagosh /i,a Persian priest, bis liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty. bAnd one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons andthe movement of bconstellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with himbecause his actions are improper.,The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional ihalakhotcited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the imagosh /i, Rav and Shmueldisagreed. bOne saidthat they are bsorcerers, while the other saidthey are bheretics.The Gemara adds: bConclude that Ravis the one bwho saidthat they are bheretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya saidthat bRavsaid: bOne who learns one matter from the imagoshis liable toreceive the bdeathpenalty. bAs, if it should enter your mindthat they are bsorcerers, wasn’t it written:“When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, byou shall not learn to doafter the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, bbut youmay blearn to understand and to teachthe topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a imagosh /i, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, bconcludethat Rav is the one who said that they are heretics., bRabbi Shimon ben Pazi saidthat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons andthe movement of bconstellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: “They do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork”(Isaiah 5:12). And bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: From whereis it derived bthatthere is ba mitzvaincumbent bupon a person to calculate astronomical seasons andthe movement of bconstellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations”(Deuteronomy 4:6). bWhat wisdom and understandingis there in the Torah bthat is in the eyes of the nations,i.e., appreciated and recognized by all? bYou must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons andthe movement of bconstellations,as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.,We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: bOne who traps a deeror any other living creature. bThe Sages taughtin a iTosefta /i: bOne who traps a iḥilazonand breaks itsshell to remove its blood for the dye bis liable tobring bonly onesin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. bRabbi Yehuda says: He is liable tobring btwo,for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, bas Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a iḥilazonis includedin the primary category of bthreshing,as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis bsaid to him: Breakingthe shell bis not includedin the primary category of bthreshing. Rava said: What is the rationalefor the opinion bof the Rabbis? They hold: Threshingapplies bonly toproduce bthat growsfrom bthe ground.One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, blet him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥa said:This is referring to a case bwhere he broke itsshell after it was bdead. /b, bRava said: Evenif you bsay that he broke itwhen it was balive,he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the iḥilazon /i, he is considered as one who bis acting unawares with regard to taking a life.The Gemara raises a difficulty: bDidn’t Abaye and Rava both saythat bRabbi Shimon,who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, bagreesthat bina case of: bCut off its head and will it not die,one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a iḥilazoninevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: bHere it is different, as the longerthe iḥilazon blives, the betterit is bforthe trapper, bso that its dye will become clear.Dye extracted from a live iḥilazonis a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the iḥilazonremain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.,We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: bAnd one who slaughtersan animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, bone who slaughtersan animal, bdue to whatprohibited labor is he bliable? Rav said:He is liable bdue to dyeing,as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. bAnd Shmuel said:He is liable bdue to taking a life. /b
55. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

16a. למתבייש מאחרים והיכא מנח להו אמר רבי יצחק במקום תפילין שנאמר (ישעיהו סא, ג) לשום לאבילי ציון לתת להם פאר תחת אפר:,רחוב תיבה ושקים אפר אפר קבורה ומוריה סימן: למה יוצאין לרחוב ר' חייא בר אבא אמר לומר זעקנו בצנעא ולא נענינו נבזה עצמנו בפרהסיא,ריש לקיש אמר גלינו גלותינו מכפרת עלינו מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דגלי מבי כנישתא לבי כנישתא,ולמה מוציאין את התיבה לרחובה של עיר אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי לומר כלי צנוע היה לנו ונתבזה בעוונינו,ולמה מתכסין בשקים אמר ר' חייא בר אבא לומר הרי אנו חשובין כבהמה ולמה נותנין אפר מקלה על גבי תיבה אמר רבי יהודה בן פזי כלומר (תהלים צא, טו) עמו אנכי בצרה ריש לקיש אמר (ישעיהו סג, ט) בכל צרתם לו צר אמר ר' זירא מריש כי הוה חזינא להו לרבנן דיהבי אפר מקלה על גבי תיבה מזדעזע לי כוליה גופאי,ולמה נותנין אפר בראש כל אחד ואחד פליגי בה ר' לוי בר חמא ור' חנינא חד אמר הרי אנו חשובין לפניך כאפר וחד אמר כדי שיזכור לנו אפרו של יצחק מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו עפר סתם,למה יוצאין לבית הקברות פליגי בה ר' לוי בר חמא ור' חנינא חד אמר הרי אנו חשובין לפניך כמתים וחד אמר כדי שיבקשו עלינו מתים רחמים מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו קברי עכו"ם,מאי (דברי הימים ב ג, א) הר המוריה פליגי בה ר' לוי בר חמא ור' חנינא חד אמר הר שיצא ממנו הוראה לישראל וחד אמר הר שיצא ממנו מורא לעובדי כוכבים:,הזקן שבהן אומר לפניהן דברי כבושין: ת"ר אם יש זקן אומר זקן ואם לאו אומר חכם ואם לאו אומר אדם של צורה אטו זקן דקאמרי אף על גב דלאו חכם הוא אמר אביי הכי קאמר אם יש זקן והוא חכם אומר זקן והוא חכם ואם לאו אומר חכם ואם לאו אומר אדם של צורה,אחינו לא שק ותענית גורמים אלא תשובה ומעשים טובים גורמים שכן מצינו באנשי נינוה שלא נאמר בהם וירא האלהים את שקם ואת תעניתם אלא (יונה ג, י) וירא האלהים את מעשיהם כי שבו מדרכם הרעה,(יונה ג, ח) ויתכסו שקים האדם והבהמה מאי הוו עבדי אסרא הבהמות לחוד ואת הוולדות לחוד אמרו לפניו רבונו של עולם אם אין אתה מרחם עלינו אין אנו מרחמים על אלו,(יונה ג, ח) ויקראו אל אלהים בחזקה מאי אמור אמרו לפניו רבונו של עולם עלוב ושאינו עלוב צדיק ורשע מי נדחה מפני מי,(יונה ג, ח) וישובו איש מדרכו הרעה ומן החמס אשר בכפיהם מאי ומן החמס אשר בכפיהם אמר שמואל אפילו גזל מריש ובנאו בבירה מקעקע כל הבירה כולה ומחזיר מריש לבעליו,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אדם שיש בידו עבירה ומתודה ואינו חוזר בה למה הוא דומה לאדם שתופס שרץ בידו שאפי' טובל בכל מימות שבעולם לא עלתה לו טבילה זרקו מידו כיון שטבל בארבעים סאה מיד עלתה לו טבילה,שנאמר (משלי כח, יג) ומודה ועוזב ירוחם ואומר (איכה ג, מא) נשא לבבינו אל כפים אל אל בשמים:,עמדו בתפלה מורידין לפני התיבה זקן כו': תנו רבנן עמדו בתפלה אע"פ שיש שם זקן וחכם אין מורידין לפני התיבה אלא אדם הרגיל (איזהו רגיל) ר' יהודה אומר מטופל ואין לו ויש לו יגיעה בשדה וביתו ריקם,ופרקו נאה ושפל ברך ומרוצה לעם ויש לו נעימה וקולו ערב ובקי לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים ולשנות במדרש בהלכות ובאגדות ובקי בכל הברכות כולן ויהבו ביה רבנן עינייהו בר' יצחק בר אמי 16a. bone who is humiliated by others.Accordingly, ashes are placed on the heads of the leaders of the community by others, to increase the appearance of their suffering. The Gemara asks: bAnd whereexactly barethe ashes bplacedupon their heads? bRabbi Yitzḥak said: On the placeof the bphylacteriesof the head, bas it is stated: “To appoint to those who mourn in Zion, to give to them an ornament [ ipe’er /i] instead of ashes”(Isaiah 61:3). This verse likens the placement of ashes on one’s head to an ornament, and the term ipe’eris traditionally interpreted as a reference to phylacteries.,§ The Gemara provides ba mnemonicdevice for the forthcoming statements. bSquare; ark; and sackcloth; ashes; ashes; cemetery; and Moriah.The Gemara asks: bWhy do they go out to the square? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said:This is a symbolic action, as though bto say: We cried out in privateinside the synagogue band we were not answered. We willtherefore bdisgrace ourselves in public,so that our prayers will be heard., bReish Lakish saidthat the move into the square symbolizes exile, as though they are saying: bWe have been exiled; may our exile atone for us.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthese two explanations? The Gemara answers that the practical difference between bthemis in a case bwhere they are exiled,i.e., they move, bfromone bsynagogue toanother bsynagogue.According to the opinion of Reish Lakish, they have exiled themselves, and therefore this ceremony is adequate. Conversely, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba maintains that as the ritual is performed in private, it is insufficient.,The Gemara asks another question concerning the meaning of the ritual. bAnd why do they remove the ark to the city square? Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:This is done as though bto say: We had a modest vessel,which was always kept concealed, bbut it has beenpublicly bexposed due to our transgressions. /b,The Gemara further asks: bAnd why do they cover themselves in sackcloth? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said:This is as though bto say: We are consideredbefore You blike animals,which are likewise covered with hide. bAnd why do they place burnt ashes on top of the ark? Rabbi Yehuda ben Pazi said:This is bas though to sayin God’s name: b“I will be with him in trouble”(Psalms 91:15). bReish Lakish saidthat the same idea can be derived from a different verse: b“In all their affliction, He was afflicted”(Isaiah 63:9). By placing burnt ash on the ark, which is the symbol of the Divine Presence, it is as though God Himself joins the Jews in their pain. bRabbi Zeira said: At first, when I saw the Sages place burnt ashes upon the ark, my entire body trembledfrom the intensity of the event., bAnd why do they place ashes upon the head of each and everyindividual? bRabbi Levi bar Ḥama and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree with regard to thismatter. bOne saidthat this is as though to say: bWe are considered like ashes before You. And one saidthat these ashes are placed bin order to remindGod of bthe ashes ofour forefather bIsaac, on our behalf.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthese two explanations? The Gemara answers that the practical difference bbetween themis in a case where one placed bordinary earthupon the heads of the individuals instead of ashes. Although earth does symbolize self-nullification and may be used according to the first explanation, it has no connection to the sacrifice of Isaac, and therefore it does not satisfy the second explanation.,The Gemara further asks: bAnd why do they go out to the cemeteryon a fast day? Again, bRabbi Levi bar Ḥama and Rabbi Ḥanina disagree with regard to thismatter. bOne saidthis is as though to say: bWe are like the dead before You. And one saidthat one goes out to the cemetery bin order thatthe deceased will brequest mercy on our behalf.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetween them?The Gemara answers that the practical difference bbetween themconcerns bgraves of gentiles.If the purpose of going to graves is to say that they stand before God like the dead, graves of gentiles would suffice. However, if they go to the cemetery for the deceased to ask for mercy on their behalf, they should visit specifically Jewish graves.,§ Apropos disputes between Rabbi Levi bar Ḥama and Rabbi Ḥanina, the Gemara mentions another dispute between them. bWhatis the meaning of the name bMount [ iHar /i] Moriah,the Temple Mount? bRabbi Levi bar Ḥama and Rabbi Ḥanina disagreewith regard to bthismatter. bOne saidthat the name alludes to the Great Sanhedrin that convened there, as it is the bmountain from which instruction [ ihora’a /i] went out to the Jewish people. And one saidthat it is the bmountain from which fear [ imora /i] went out to the nations of the world,as this place signifies God’s choice of the Jewish people.,§ The mishna taught: bThe eldest ofthe community bsays to them statements of reproof. The Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIf there is an elder,then bthe elder saysthe admonition, band if not, a Sage saysthe admonition. bAnd if not, a person ofimposing bappearance saysit. The Gemara asks: bIs that to saythat the belderof whom bwe spokeis preferred to a scholar simply by virtue of his age, beven though he is not a scholar? Abaye saidthat bthis is whatthe mishna bis saying: If there is an elder, and he isalso ba scholar,this belder scholar saysthe admonition. bAnd if not,even a young bscholar saysthe reproof. bAnd ifthere is bnoscholar of any kind available, ba person ofimposing bappearance saysit.,What does he say? bOur brothers,it is bnot sackcloth and fastingthat bcauseatonement for our sins. bRather, repentance and good deedswill bcauseour atonement. This is bas we find with regard to the people of Nineveh, that it is not stated about them: And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting. Rather,the verse states: b“And God saw their deeds, that they had turned from their evil way”(Jonah 3:10).,§ Apropos the repentance of the inhabitants of Nineveh, the Gemara discusses their behavior further. The verse states: b“But let them be covered with sackcloth, both man and beast”(Jonah 3:8). bWhat did they do? They confined thefemale banimals alone, andtheir byoung alone,in a different place. bTheythen bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe, if You do not have mercy on us, we will not have mercy on theseanimals. Even if we are not worthy of Your mercy, these animals have not sinned.,It is further stated with regard to the people of Nineveh: b“And let them cry mightily to God”(Jonah 3:8). The Gemara asks: bWhat did they saythat could be described as calling out “mightily”? The Gemara explains that bthey said beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe,if there is a dispute between ba submissive one and an intractable one,or between ba righteous one and a wicked one, who must yield before whom?Certainly the righteous forgives the wicked. Likewise, You must have mercy on us.,The verse states: b“And let them turn, every one from his evil way, and from the violence that is in their hands”(Jonah 3:8). bWhat isthe meaning of the phrase b“and from the violence that is in their hands”? Shmuel saidthat the king of Nineveh proclaimed: bEvenif bone stole a beam and built it intohis bbuilding,he must btear down the entire building and return the beam to its owner.Although the Sages decreed that one need only pay ficial compensation in a case of this kind, these people wanted to repent completely by removing any remt of stolen property from their possession.,§ Similarly, bRav Adda bar Ahava said: A person who has a transgression in his hand, and he confesses but does not repent forhis sin, bto what is he comparable? To a person who holds in his handa dead bcreeping animal,which renders one ritually impure by contact. bAsin this situation, beven if he immerses in all the waters of the world, his immersion is ineffective for him,as long as the source of ritual impurity remains in his hand. However, if he has bthrownthe animal bfrom his hand, once he has immersed ina ritual bath of bforty ise’a /i, the immersion is immediately effective for him. /b, bAs it is stated:“He who covers his transgressions shall not prosper, bbut whoever confesses and forsakes them shall obtain mercy”(Proverbs 28:13). That is, confession alone is futile, but one who also abandons his transgressions will receive mercy. bAnd it stateselsewhere: b“Let us lift up our heart with our hands to God in Heaven”(Lamentations 3:41), which likewise indicates that it is not enough to lift one’s hands in prayer; rather, one must also raise his heart and return to God.,§ The mishna teaches: bThey stood for prayer,and the congregation appoints ban elder. The Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThey stood for prayer,and beven if there isa man bthere who is elderly and a scholar, theyappoint bto descend before the arkas prayer leader bonly a person who is accustomedto lead in prayer. Who is considered an accustomed prayer leader in this sense? bRabbi Yehuda says:One who has ficially bdependentchildren bbut he does not havethe means to support them, band he hasno choice but to btoil in the field, and whose house is empty,and who will therefore pray for rain with great devotion.,Rabbi Yehuda continues with his depiction of the worthy prayer leader. bAnd his youth was becoming, andhe is bhumble and accepted by the people,as he is likable. bAndfurthermore, he must be bfamiliar with songs and his voice pleasant, andhe is bexpert in reading the Torah, the Prophets, and the Writings, andhe knows how bto study midrash, ihalakha /i, and iaggada /i. Andfinally, he must be bexpert in all of the blessings.Clearly, it is hard to find someone with all these qualities. bAndthe Gemara relates that when this worthy person was described, those bSagespresent bturned their eyes toward Rav Yitzḥak bar Ami,who possessed all of these virtues.
56. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

14b. ולא תיסמי מנחת נסכים ממתני' ולא קשיא כאן בנסכים הבאין עם הזבח כאן בנסכים הבאין בפני עצמן,ואי הוה ליה איגרתא מי אפשר למישלחא והא אמר רבי אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כותבי הלכות כשורף התורה והלמד מהן אינו נוטל שכר,דרש ר' יהודה בר נחמני מתורגמניה דר"ל כתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כתוב לך את הדברים האלה וכתוב אחד אומר (שמות לד, כז) כי על פי הדברים האלה לומר לך דברים שעל פה אי אתה רשאי לאומרן בכתב ושבכתב אי אתה רשאי לאומרן על פה,ותנא דבי רבי ישמעאל כתוב לך את הדברים האלה אלה אתה כותב אבל אין אתה כותב הלכות,אמרי דלמא מילתא חדתא שאני דהא רבי יוחנן ור"ל מעייני בסיפרא דאגדתא בשבתא ודרשי הכי (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך אמרי מוטב תיעקר תורה ואל תשתכח תורה מישראל,אמר רב פפא השתא דאמרת נסכים הבאין בפני עצמן קריבין אפי' בלילה נזדמנו נסכים בלילה מקדישין בלילה ומקריבין,אמר ליה רב יוסף בריה דרב שמעיה לרב פפא תניא דמסייע לך זה הכלל כל הקרב ביום אינו קדוש אלא ביום וכל הקרב בלילה קדוש (בין ביום בין) בלילה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה ועלות השחר פוסלת בהן כאברין,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק (במדבר כט, לט) אלה תעשו לה' במועדיכם אלו חובות הבאות חובה ברגל,לבד מנדריכם ונדבותיכם לימד על נדרים ונדבות שקרבין בחולו של מועד,ולעולותיכם במה הכתוב מדבר אי בעולת נדר הרי כבר אמור נדריכם ואי בעולת נדבה הרי כבר אמור ונדבותיכם הא אינו מדבר אלא בעולת יולדת ועולת מצורע,ולמנחותיכם במה הכתוב מדבר אי במנחת נדר הרי כבר אמור אי במנחת נדבה הרי כבר אמור הא אינו מדבר אלא במנחת סוטה ובמנחת קנאות,ולנסכיכם ולשלמיכם מקיש נסכים לשלמים מה שלמים ביום אף נסכים ביום ולשלמיכם לרבות שלמי נזיר,א"ל אביי ולימא מר שלמי פסח דאי שלמי נזיר נידר ונידב הוא,דהתניא זה הכלל כל שהוא נידב ונידר קרב בבמת יחיד ושאינו נידב ונידר אינו קרב בבמת יחיד,ותנן המנחות והנזירות קריבין בבמת יחיד דברי ר"מ סמי מכאן נזירות,מי איכא למ"ד דנזיר לאו נידר ונידב הוא והכתיב (שמואל ב טו, ז) מקץ ארבעים שנה ויאמר אבשלום אל המלך אלכה נא ואשלם את נדרי אשר נדרתי לה' בחברון כי נדר נדר עבדך וגו' מאי לאו אקרבן,לא אעיקר נדרו אמר עיקר נדרו בחברון הוה והלא בגשור הוה,אמר רב אחא ואיתימא רבה בר רב חנן לא הלך אבשלום אלא להביא כבשים מחברון ה"נ מסתברא דאי תימא לאקרובי הוא דאזיל שביק ירושלים ואזיל ומקריב בחברון,ואלא מאי להביא כבשים מחברון האי אשר נדרתי לה' בחברון מחברון מיבעי ליה,אלא לעולם לאקרובי ודקא קשיא לך אמאי שבק ירושלים ומקריב בחברון תיקשי לך גבעון דמקום קדוש הוא אלא כיון שהותרו הבמות כל היכא דבעי מקריב,ארבעים שנה למאן תניא רבי נהוראי אומר משום רבי יהושע מקץ ארבעים שנה ששאלו להם מלך דתניא אותה שנה ששאלו להם מלך אותה שנה עשירית של שמואל היתה 14b. bandin light of this ruling bhe will not deletethe phrase: bThe meal offeringthat accompanies bthe libations, from the ibaraita /i. Andinstead, the apparent contradiction between the ibaraitotcan be explained as follows: It is bnot difficult; here,the ibaraitathat states that meal offerings accompanying libations are sacrificed only in the day is referring bto libations that come withan animal boffering,whereas bthere,the ibaraitathat permits sacrificing a meal offering that accompanies the libations at night is referring bto libations that cometo be sacrificed bby themselves,i.e., which do not accompany the sacrifice of an offering.,The Gemara raises a difficulty with regard to Rav Dimi’s suggestion to write this opinion in a letter. bAndeven bif he hadsomeone to write ba letterfor him, bwouldit have been bpossible to send it? But didn’t Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, saythat bRabbi Yoḥa said:Those bwho write ihalakhotareconsidered blikethose who bburn the Torah, and one who learns fromwritten ihalakhot bdoes not receivethe brewardof studying Torah. Evidently, it is prohibited to send ihalakhotin letters.,Before resolving the difficulty, the Gemara further discusses the prohibition of writing down the Torah: bRabbi Yehuda bar Naḥmani, the disseminator for Reish Lakish, expoundedas follows: bOne verse says: “Write you these words,” and one verse says,i.e., it states later in that same verse: b“For by the mouth of these words”(Exodus 34:27). These phrases serve bto say to you: Words that weretaught borally you may not recite in writing, andwords bthat are written you may not recite orally,i.e., by heart., bAndfurthermore, bthe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught:The word “these” in the command b“write you these words”serves to emphasize that bthesewords, i.e., those recorded in the Written Law, byou may write, but you may not write ihalakhot /i,i.e., the imishnayotand the rest of the Oral Law., bThey saidin response to the question of how Rav Dimi could propose writing down the ihalakhain a letter: bPerhapswith regard to ba new matterit bis different,i.e., it might be permitted to write down new material so that it not be forgotten. One proof for this suggestion is bthat Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakishwould bread from a scroll of iaggada /i,containing the words of the Sages, bon Shabbat. Andthey did so because bthey taught as follows:Since one cannot remember the Oral Law without writing it down, it is permitted to violate the ihalakha /i, as derived from the verse: b“It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void your Torah”(Psalms 119:126). bThey said it is better to uproota single ihalakhaof the bTorah,i.e., the prohibition of writing down the Oral Torah, bandthereby ensure bthat the Torah is not forgotten from the Jewish peopleentirely.,§ With regard to Rav Dimi’s differentiation between libations that come with an animal offering and libations that are sacrificed by themselves, bRav Pappa said: Now that you have saidthat blibations that come by themselves are sacrificed even at night,if one bhappenedto have blibationsof this kind bat night,they may be bconsecratedby placing them in a service vessel bat night andthey may be bsacrificedat night., bRav Yosef, son of Rav Shemaya, said to Rav Pappa:A ibaraita bis taught that supports youropinion. bThis is the principle: Anyoffering bthat is sacrificed in the day is consecratedby being placed in a service vessel bonly in the day; but anyoffering bthat is sacrificed at night is consecrated both in the day and at night. /b,With regard to the topic of libations sacrificed by themselves, bRav Adda bar Ahava says: And dawn disqualifies them, likethe ihalakhaof blimbsof offerings that have had their blood sprinkled during the day. Such limbs are left to burn on the altar all night long, but at dawn they are disqualified and may no longer be placed on the altar.,§ The Gemara returns to discuss the verse: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons, beside your vows, and your voluntary offerings, and your burnt offerings, and your meal offerings, and your libations, and your peace offerings” (Numbers 29:39). bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak: “These you shall offer to the Lord in your appointed seasons,”i.e., btheseare the bobligatoryofferings bthat cometo be sacrificed as bobligatoryofferings bon the pilgrimage Festival,e.g., the burnt offerings of appearance, the Festival offerings, and the additional offerings.,The verse continues: b“Beside your vows and your voluntary offerings.”This bteaches with regard to vows and voluntary offerings that they are sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival. /b,The verse further states: b“And your burnt offerings.”The Gemara inquires: bWith regard to whatcase bis the verse speaking? Ifit is referring bto a vow burnt offering,the verse balready said: “Your vows.” And ifit is referring bto a voluntary burnt offering,the verse balready said: “Your voluntary offerings.” Consequently, it is speaking of nothing other than a burnt offering of a woman who gave birth,i.e., the lamb that she sacrifices on the forty-first day after giving birth to a son or the eighty-first day after giving birth to a daughter, band a burnt offering of a leper,which is the lamb that is sacrificed after a leper is purified. The verse teaches that these obligatory offerings may be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.,The verse continues: b“And your meal offerings.”The Gemara again asks: bWith regard to whatcase bis the verse speaking? Ifit is referring bto a meal offeringbrought in fulfillment of ba vow,the verse balready said:“Your vows.” bIfit is referring bto a voluntary meal offering,the verse balready said:“Your voluntary offerings.” bConsequently, it is speaking of nothing other thanthe bmeal offering of a isota /i, and thatis the bmeal offering of jealousy. /b,The verse further states: b“And your libations and your peace offerings.”The Torah here bjuxtaposes libations to peace offerings: Just as peace offeringsare sacrificed only bduring the day,not at night, bso too, libationsare sacrificed only bduring the day,not at night. Finally, the verse states: b“And your peace offerings.”This serves bto include the peace offering of a nazirite,which he brings at the completion of his term of naziriteship. This offering may also be sacrificed on the intermediate days of a Festival.,With regard to the last ihalakha /i, bAbaye said toRav Dimi, when he cited this statement in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: bBut let the Master saythat the phrase “and your peace offerings” serves to include the bpeace offeringthat is brought together with ba Paschal offering.This offering is sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan by a large group of people when they will not receive enough meat from their Paschal offering to feed them all. The suggested derivation from the verse is that if a peace offering separated for this purpose was not sacrificed on the fourteenth of Nisan, it may be brought during the intermediate days of the Festival. Abaye further adds: It is more reasonable to include this peace offering, bas, ifthe verse is referring to bthe peace offering of a nazirite, it isalready included by the verse in the categories of offerings that are bvowed or contributedvoluntarily.,Abaye elaborates: bAs isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThis is the principle: Anyoffering bthat is vowed or contributedvoluntarily, e.g., a burnt offering or a peace offering, bis sacrificed on a private altar. Andany offering bthat is not vowed or contributedvoluntarily bmay not be sacrificed on a private altar. /b, bAnd we learnedin another ibaraita /i: bThe meal offerings and theofferings of ba nazirite are sacrificed on a private altar; this is the statement of Rabbi Meir.It is clear from these ibaraitotthat the peace offering of a nazirite belongs in the category of offerings that are vowed or contributed voluntarily. If so, there is no need for it to be included separately by the verse. Rav Dimi replied to Abaye: bDeletethe phrase: offering of ba nazirite from here,i.e., from the ibaraitathat considers it an offering that is vowed or contributed voluntarily. Only the nazirite vow itself is classified as voluntary; once the vow has been uttered, the ensuing offerings are obligatory.,The Gemara asks: bIs there one who said thatthe offering of ba nazirite is not vowed or contributedvoluntarily? bBut isn’t it written: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: Please let me go and pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron. For your servant vowed a vowwhile I dwelled at Geshur in Aram, saying: If the Lord shall indeed bring me back to Jerusalem, then I will serve the Lord” (II Samuel 15:7–8). The Gemara explains the difficulty: bWhat, is it notthe case that Absalom asked his father for permission for him to go to Hebron btosacrifice ban offeringon a private altar?,The Gemara answers: bNo,Absalom did not go to Hebron to sacrifice his nazirite offerings. Rather, Absalom actually bsaid thathe undertook bthe principal vowto be a nazirite when he was in Hebron. The Gemara asks: bWas his principal vowto be a nazirite in fact uttered bin Hebron? But wasn’tthe vow made when Absalom was bin Geshur?After all, the verse states explicitly: “For your servant vowed a vow while I dwelled at Geshur.”, bRav Aḥa said, and some saythat it was bRabba bar Rav Ḥawho said: The verse means that bAbsalom went to Hebron onlyin order bto bring sheepspecifically from there. The Gemara adds that bthis also stands to reason, as, if you say thatAbsalom bwentto Hebron bto sacrificehis offering, would he have babandoned Jerusalem and gone to sacrifice in Hebron? /b,The Gemara rejects Rabba bar Rav Ḥa’s answer: bBut rather, whatis our explanation of the verse? That Absalom went bto bring sheep from Hebron?If so, bthisverse that states: “Please let me go and pay my vow, bwhich I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron”(II Samuel 15:7), bshouldinstead bhavestated: Which I have vowed to the Lord bfrom Hebron. /b, bRather,the Gemara explains that bactuallyAbsalom did go to Hebron bto sacrificehis peace offering as a nazirite. bAnd thatwhich is bdifficult for you,i.e., bwhyAbsalom babandoned Jerusalem and sacrificedhis offering bin Hebron,should not pose a difficulty for you; rather, it is the question of why Absalom did not sacrifice his offering in bGibeonthat bshould pose a difficulty for you, asat that time the Tabernacle and the communal altar were in Gibeon, and bit was a sanctified place.Why, then, did Absalom go to Hebron rather than Gibeon? bRather, since theprivate baltars were permitted,he was permitted to bsacrifice wherever he wished,and he chose to go to Hebron. There was no reason for him to choose to go to Gibeon rather than any private altar.,The verse states that Absalom submitted his request to his father “at the end of forty years.” The Gemara asks: bForty years, according to whosecounting, i.e., forty years from when? It bis taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Nehorai says in the name of Rabbi Yehoshua:The verse is referring bto the end of forty yearsfrom bwhenthe Jewish people brequested for themselves a king,in the days of Samuel (see I Samuel, chapter 8). bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bthat year when they requested for themselves a king, that year was the tenthyear of the leadership bof Samuel. /b
57. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

71a. המרת דת פוסלת ואין המרת דת פוסלת במעשר,כל ערל לא יאכל בו למה לי בו אינו אוכל אבל אוכל הוא במצה ומרור,ואיצטריך למכתב ערל ואיצטריך למכתב כל בן נכר דאי כתב רחמנא ערל משום דמאיס אבל בן נכר דלא מאיס אימא לא ואי כתב רחמנא כל בן נכר משום דאין לבו לשמים אבל ערל דלבו לשמים אימא לא צריכא,(שמות יב, ט) ממנו ממנו למה לי לכדרבה א"ר יצחק,אמר מר ר"ע אומר אינו צריך הרי הוא אומר (ויקרא כב, ד) איש איש לרבות את הערל ואימא לרבות את האונן א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אמר קרא (ויקרא כב, י) וכל זר זרות אמרתי לך ולא אנינות,אימא ולא ערלות הא כתיב איש איש,ומה ראית מסתברא ערלות הוה ליה לרבויי שכן מעשי"ם כרותי"ם בדב"ר העב"ד מחוסר מעשה ומעשה בגופו וענוש כרת וישנו לפני הדבור ומילת זכריו ועבדיו מעכבת,אדרבה אנינות הוה ליה לרבויי שכן ישנה בכל שעה ונוהגת באנשים ונשים ואין בידו לתקן עצמו,הנך נפישן רבא אמר בלא הנך נפישן נמי לא מצית אמרת אמר קרא איש איש איזהו דבר שישנו באיש ואינו באשה הוי אומר זה ערלות,ורבי עקיבא האי תושב ושכיר מאי עביד ליה אמר רב שמעיא לאתויי ערבי מהול וגבעוני מהול,והני מולין נינהו והא תנן קונם שאני נהנה לערלים מותר בערלי ישראל ואסור במולי עובדי כוכבים קונם שאני נהנה למולין מותר במולי עובדי כוכבים ואסור בערלי ישראל,אלא לאתויי גר שמל ולא טבל וקטן שנולד כשהוא מהול וקסבר צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית,ור' אליעזר לטעמיה דאמר גר שמל ולא טבל גר מעליא הוא וקסבר קטן כשנולד מהול אין צריך להטיף ממנו דם ברית,ור' אליעזר האי איש איש מאי עביד ליה דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,בעי רב חמא בר עוקבא קטן ערל מהו לסוכו בשמן של תרומה ערלות שלא בזמנה מעכבא או לא מעכבא,א"ר זירא ת"ש אין לי אלא מילת זכריו בשעת עשיה ועבדיו בשעת אכילה מנין ליתן את האמור של זה בזה ואת האמור של זה בזה ת"ל (שמות יב, מח) אז אז לגזירה שוה,בשלמא עבדיו משכחת לה דאיתנהו בשעת אכילה וליתנהו בשעת עשיה כגון דזבנינהו ביני ביני,אלא זכריו דאיתנהו בשעת אכילה וליתנהו בשעת עשיה היכי משכחת לה לאו דאתילוד בין עשיה לאכילה ש"מ ערלות שלא בזמנה הויא ערלות,אמר רבא ותסברא (שמות יב, מח) המול לו כל זכר אמר רחמנא ואז יקרב לעשותו והאי לאו בר מהילא הוא אלא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שחלצתו חמה,וניתוב ליה כל שבעה (דאמר שמואל חלצתו חמה נותנין לו כל שבעה) דיהבינן ליה כל שבעה ונימהליה מצפרא בעינן 71a. that bapostasy [ imeshumadut /i] disqualifies,as the term “stranger” in this context is understood to refer to a Jew whose conduct makes him estranged from God, and he is disqualified from eating the Paschal lamb, bbut apostasy does not disqualifyone from eating btithe. /b,The Gemara asks further: If so, with regard to the phrase “from it” in the verse b“No uncircumcised person shall eat from it”(Exodus 12:48), which again emphasizes “from it” and not from another item, bwhy do Ineed it? The Gemara answers: This teaches that only bfrom it,the Paschal lamb, one who is uncircumcised bmay not eat, but he eats imatzaand bitter herbs.One who is uncircumcised is obligated to eat imatzaand bitter herbs on Passover, just like any other Jew.,The Gemara continues: bAnd it was necessaryfor the Torah bto writethe prohibition with regard to ban uncircumcisedman, band it was necessaryfor the Torah bto writea separate prohibition with regard to bany stranger. As, if the Merciful One had writtenonly about ban uncircumcisedman, one might have thought that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb bbecausethe foreskin bis repulsive, butwith regard to ba stranger,who bis not repulsive, saythat it is bnotprohibited. bAnd if the Merciful One had writtenonly about bany stranger,one might have concluded that only for him is it prohibited to eat from the Paschal lamb bbecause his heart is notdirected btoward Heavendue to his apostasy, bbutwith regard to ban uncircumcisedman, bwhose heart isdirected btoward Heaven,and it is only on account of unavoidable circumstances that he has not undergone circumcision, bsaythat there is bnoprohibition against his eating the Paschal lamb. Therefore, bit is necessaryto teach both cases.,The Gemara asks: With regard to the phrase b“of it”in the verse “Do not eat of it raw, nor boiled in water, but roasted in fire” (Exodus 12:9), and the phrase b“of it”in the verse “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning” (Exodus 12:10), both of which are terms of exclusion, bwhy do Ineed them? The Gemara answers that they are necessary bfor that which Rabba saidthat bRabbi Yitzḥak said,as will be explained later (74a)., bThe Master saidabove in the ibaraita /i: bRabbi Akiva saysthat it bis not necessaryto derive by way of a verbal analogy the ihalakhathat an uncircumcised priest may not eat iteruma /i, basthe verse bsays: “Any man [ iish ish /i]from the seed of Aaron who is a leper or a izavshall not eat of the holy things” (Leviticus 22:4). The repetition of the word iishcomes bto include an uncircumcisedman and indicate that he too may not partake of consecrated food. The Gemara asks: bBut saythat the verse comes bto include an acute mournerin the prohibition against eating iteruma /i. bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: The verse states: “No foreignermay eat of the holy thing” (Leviticus 22:10), which indicates: A disqualification stemming from bforeignness I told youprevents one from eating iteruma /i, bbut nota disqualification based on bacute mourning. /b,The Gemara asks: bSaythat the verse comes to teach that a disqualification stemming from foreignness prevents one from eating iteruma /i, bbut nota disqualification based on the priest’s black of circumcision,and so it should be permitted for an uncircumcised priest to partake of iteruma /i. The Gemara answers: bIsn’t it written: “Any man [ iish ish /i],”where the repetition of the word iishcomes to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition?,The Gemara asks: bAnd what did you seethat led you to include an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition against eating iterumaand exclude an acute mourner? The Gemara answers: bIt stands to reasonthat black of circumcision should be includedand should preclude a priest’s eating iteruma /i, basthe ihalakhotgoverning an uncircumcised man are stringent in several respects, as alluded to by the following mnemonic of key words: bActs; ikaretim /i; thedivine bword; the slave.The Gemara explains: An uncircumcised man blacksthe bactof circumcision, bandthis bactis performed bon his body;the failure to perform circumcision is bpunishable by ikaret /i;circumcision bexisted before thedivine bwordwas spoken at Mount Sinai, as the mitzva of circumcision had already been given to Abraham; band thelack of bcircumcision of one’s malechildren band slaves precludesone’s eating the Paschal lamb.,The Gemara counters: bOn the contrary, acute mourning should be includedand it should prevent a priest from eating iteruma /i, basacute mourning bisrelevant bat any time, it applies toboth bmen and women, and it is not inthe mourner’s bpower to render himself fituntil after the deceased is buried.,The Gemara answers: bThesearguments for including an uncircumcised priest in the prohibition baremore bnumerous. Rava said:Even bwithoutthe rationale that bthesearguments baremore bnumerous, you still cannot saythat an acute mourner should be included and an uncircumcised priest should be excluded, as bthe verse states: “Any man [ iish ish /i],”emphasizing maleness. Now, bwhat matter applies to a man and not to a woman? You must saythat bit is lack of circumcision,and therefore it cannot be that the phrase comes to include acute mourning in the prohibition.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what does Rabbi Akiva dowith bthisphrase: b“A sojourner and a hired servant,”as it is not needed for the Paschal lamb? bRav Shemaya said:It serves bto include a circumcised Arab and a circumcised Gibeonitein the prohibition against the eating of the Paschal lamb. Although they have been circumcised, it is prohibited for them to partake of the offering.,The Gemara poses a question: bAnd are theseconsidered bcircumcised? But didn’t we learnin a mishna ( iNedarim31b): If one vowed: bThe benefit that Imight gain bfrom the uncircumcised is ikonam /ito me, i.e., forbidden to me like consecrated property, then it bis permittedfor him to derive benefit bfrom uncircumcised Jews, andit bis prohibitedfor him to derive benefit bfrom the circumcised of the nations of the world,as gentiles are considered uncircumcised even if they have their foreskins removed. And conversely, if he vowed: bThe benefit that Imight gain bfrom the circumcised is ikonam /ito me, it is bpermittedfor him to derive benefit bfrom the circumcised of the nations of the world,as they are not considered circumcised, bandit bis prohibitedfor him to derive benefit bfrom uncircumcised Jews.This indicates that the circumcision of gentiles is disregarded., bRather,the phrase “a sojourner and a hired servant” comes bto includein the prohibition against eating of the Paschal lamb ba convertto Judaism bwho was circumcised but did notyet bimmersein a ritual bath, band a child who was born circumcised,i.e., without a foreskin. Although he does not have a foreskin, he is still seen as lacking the act of circumcision. bAnd he,Rabbi Akiva, bmaintainsthat bit is necessary to drip covetal blood from him,in lieu of circumcision, in order to usher him into the covet of Abraham, even though he has no foreskin that can be removed., bAnd Rabbi Eliezer,who uses the words “a sojourner and a hired servant” for a verbal analogy, conforms bto hisstandard line of breasoning, as he said: A convert who was circumcised but did notyet bimmerse is a proper convertin every way. Therefore, the verse cannot come to exclude such an individual. bAnd he maintainsthat in the case of ba child who was born circumcised, it is not necessary to drip covetal blood from him.Since he was born without a foreskin, no additional procedure is necessary.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what does Rabbi Eliezer dowith bthisinclusive phrase b“any man [ iish ish /i]”?The Gemara answers: He maintains that bthe Torah spoke in the language of men,meaning that no special ihalakhais derived from this expression, as it is common biblical vernacular., bRav Ḥama bar Ukva raises a dilemma:With regard to ban uncircumcised childwho is less than eight days old and not yet fit for circumcision, bwhat isthe ihalakhawith respect bto anointing him with oil of iteruma /i?The Gemara explains the two sides of the question: Does black of circumcision not at itsappointed btime,meaning before the obligation of circumcision goes into effect, bprecludethe infant’s benefiting from iteruma /i, as he has the status of an one who is uncircumcised, borperhaps it bdoes not precludehis benefiting from iteruma /i, as he is not considered uncircumcised until the mitzva of circumcision is applicable?, bRabbi Zeira said: Comeand bheara proof from the following ibaraita /i: bI havederived bonlythe ihalakhaconcerning bthe circumcision of one’s malechildren bat the time of the preparation,i.e., the slaughter, of the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “Let all his males be circumcised, and then let him come near and keep it” (Exodus 12:48), bandthe ihalakhaconcerning the circumcision of bone’s slaves at the time of the eatingof the Paschal lamb, as it is stated: “But every man’s servant…when you have circumcised him, then shall he eat from it” (Exodus 12:44). bFrom wheredo I derive that it is proper bto applythe prohibition bthat was stated about thiscase bto thatcase, bandthe prohibition bthat was said about thatcase bto thiscase, i.e., that the circumcision of both one’s male children and one’s slaves is indispensable both at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb and at the time of its consumption? The itannaanswers that bthe verse statesthe term b“then”with regard to male children and the term b“then”with regard to slaves bas a verbal analogy. /b,The Gemara comments: bGranted,with regard to bone’s slaves you finda case bwhere they are present at the time of eating but they were not present at the time of preparation; for example, if he purchased them in the meantime,i.e., they did not belong to him when the Paschal lamb was slaughtered but he bought them immediately afterward, before it was time to eat it., bHowever,with regard to bhis malechildren, bhow can you finda case bwhere they are present at the time of eating, but they were not present at the time of preparation?Does it bnotinvolve a situation bwhere they were born betweenthe time of the Paschal lamb’s bpreparation andthe time of its beating? Learn from thisthat black of circumcision,even bnot at,i.e., before, bitsappointed btime, isnevertheless considered black of circumcisionthat prevents the father from partaking of the offering., bRava said: Andhow can byou understandit that way? How can you think that the lack of circumcision of a newborn child precludes his father’s eating from the Paschal lamb? Doesn’t bthe Merciful One state: “Let all his males be circumcised,”followed by b“and then let him come near and keep it”(Exodus 12:48), bandas bthisinfant bis notyet bfit for circumcisionhe cannot possibly preclude the father’s partaking of the offering? bRather, with whatcase bare we dealing here?With the case, bfor example,of a baby who was exempt from circumcision at the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb because he was sick with a high fever, and subsequently bthe fever left himand he recovered. In such a case, failure to immediately circumcise his son precludes the father’s eating from the Paschal lamb.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If the case is one of a child recovering from an illness, blet us give him the full sevendays that he needs to recuperate properly. bAs Shmuel said:In the case of a baby that was sick with a high fever, and subsequently bthe fever left him, one gives him a full seven daysto heal and only then is he circumcised, but not before. The Gemara answers: The case is in fact one where bwealready bgave him a full sevendays to heal, but they culminated on the eve of Passover. The Gemara asks: bButif the seven-day recovery period ended on the eve of Passover, why did the father wait until the time of eating the Paschal lamb, i.e., the first night of Passover? bHe should have circumcised himalready bin the morning,before the time of the preparation of the Paschal lamb. The Gemara answers: bWe require /b
58. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said:
59. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 34, 2 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)

60. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 3 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)

61. Anon., Esther Rabbah, 7.13

7.13. אִם עַל הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִכָּתֵב לְאַבְּדָם (אסתר ג, ט), אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁאָמַר הָמָן הָרָשָׁע לַאֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ בּוֹא וּנְאַבֵּד אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם, אָמַר לוֹ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, לָא יָכֹלְתָּ לְהוֹן, בְּדִיל דֶּאֱלָהֲהוֹן לָא שָׁבֵיק לוֹן כָּל עִקָּר, תָּא חֲזֵי מָה עֲבֵיד לוֹן לְמַלְכִין קַמָּאֵי דַּהֲווֹן קוֹמֵינָן דַּהֲווֹן פָּשְׁטִין יְדֵיהוֹן עֲלֵיהוֹן, דַּהֲווֹן מַלְכַיָא רַבְרְבַיָא וְגוּבְרַיָא טְפֵי מִינָּן, וְכָל מַאן דְּאָתֵי עֲלֵיהוֹן לְמֵבְדִּינְהוּ מִן עָלְמָא וּדְיָעַץ עֲלֵיהוֹן, מִיבַּטֵּל מִן עָלְמָא וַהֲוֵי לִמְתָל לְכָל דָּרֵי עָלְמָא, וַאֲנַן דְּלָא מַעֲלֵינַן כְּוָתַיְהוּ עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, שְׁבֵיק לָךְ מִלְמַלָּלָא, תּוּב בְּפִתְגָּמָא דְּנָא. וְאַף עַל פִּי כֵן הָיָה הָמָן הָרָשָׁע מְטָרֵד עַל אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַל פִּתְגָּמָא דְּנָא כָּל שַׁעְתָּא וְשַׁעְתָּא וּמְיָעֲצוֹ עֵצוֹת רָעוֹת עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לוֹ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הוֹאִיל וְכָךְ נִמָּלֵךְ בַּחֲכָמִים וּבַחַרְטֻמִּים. מִיָּד שָׁלַח וְקִבֵּץ אֶת כָּל חַכְמֵי אֻמּוֹת הָעוֹלָם, בָּאוּ כֻלָּן לְפָנָיו, אָמַר לָהֶם אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, רְצוֹנְכֶם שֶׁנְּאַבֵּד אֻמָּה זוֹ מִן הָעוֹלָם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ כֻּלָּן בְּבַת אַחַת מִי הוּא זֶה וְאֵיזֶה הוּא אֲשֶׁר מְלָאוֹ לִבּוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת כֵּן וְרוֹצֶה לְהַשְׁלִיךְ בְּדָבָר זֶה, שֶׁאִם אַתָּה מְאַבֵּד יִשְׂרָאֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם אֵין הָעוֹלָם מִתְקַיֵּם אֶלָּא בִּשְׁבִיל הַתּוֹרָה שֶׁנִּתְּנָה לָהֶם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ירמיה לג, כה): אִם לֹא בְרִיתִי יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה חֻקּוֹת שָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ לֹא שָׂמְתִּי. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁכָּל הָעוֹבְדֵי גִּלּוּלִים נִקְרְאוּ נָכְרִים לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, [וישראל נקראים קרובים], הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (מלכים א ח, מא): וְגַם אֶל הַנָּכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא מֵעַמְךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל הוּא. וְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִקְרְאוּ קְרוֹבִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קמח, יד): לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל עַם קְרֹבוֹ. וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁנִּקְרְאוּ בָּנִים, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות ד, כב): בְּנִי בְכֹרִי יִשְׂרָאֵל, (דברים יד, א): בָּנִים אַתֶּם לַה' אֱלֹהֵיכֶם. וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא נִקְרָא קָרוֹב לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (תהלים קמה, יח): קָרוֹב ה' לְכָל קֹרְאָיו לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִקְרָאֻהוּ בֶאֱמֶת. וְאֵין אֻמָּה קְרוֹבָה לְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ד, ז): כַּה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכָל קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו, וְאָדָם שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בִּקְרוֹבָיו וּבְבָנָיו שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֵיךְ יִמָּלֵט, לְפִי שֶׁהוּא שַׁלִּיט בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים וְתַחְתּוֹנִים, וְנֶפֶשׁ כָּל חַי, בְּיָדוֹ לְהַגְבִּיהַּ וּלְהַשְׁפִּיל, לְהָמִית וּלְהַחֲיּוֹת. לֵךְ הִתְבּוֹנֵן בַּמְלָכִים הָרִאשׁוֹנִים שֶׁעָבְרוּ עַל שֶׁפָּשְׁטוּ יְדֵיהֶם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, מָה עָלְתָה בָּהֶם, כְּמוֹ פַּרְעֹה וְסַנְחֵרִיב. מִיָּד אָמַר לוֹן הָמָן, אֱלוֹהַּ שֶׁטִּבַּע פַּרְעֹה בַּיָּם וְעָשָׂה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל נִסִּים וּגְבוּרוֹת שֶׁשְּׁמַעְתֶּם, כְּבָר הוּא זָקֵן וְאֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּלוּם, שֶׁכְּבָר עָלָה נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר וְהֶחֱרִיב בֵּיתוֹ, וְשָׂרַף אֶת הֵיכָלוֹ, וְהִגְלָה אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל וּפִזְרָן בֵּין הָאֻמּוֹת, וְהֵיכָן כֹּחוֹ וּגְבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁכְּבָר הִזְקִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים צד, ז): וַיֹּאמְרוּ לֹא יִרְאֶה יָהּ וְלֹא יָבִין אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב. כֵּיוָן שֶׁאָמַר לָהֶם כֵּן כָּעִנְיָן הַזֶּה, מִיָּד קִבְּלוּ דְבָרָיו וְהִסְכִּימָה דַעְתָּם לְכַלּוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְכָתְבוּ אִגְרוֹת וְחָתְמוּ. וְכֵן כָּתְבוּ בְּאוֹתָן אִגְרוֹת, שָׁלוֹם לָכֶם עַד אֵין חֵקֶר, יִוָּדַע לָכֶם שֶׁאָדָם יֵשׁ בֵּינֵינוּ, וְלֹא מִמְקוֹמֵנוּ הוּא אֶלָּא מִזֶּרַע הַמְלוּכָה הוּא, וּמִזַּרְעוֹ שֶׁל עֲמָלֵק וּמִגְּדוֹלֵי הַדּוֹר הוּא, וְהָמָן שְׁמוֹ, וְשָׁאַל מִמֶּנּוּ שְׁאֵלָה קְטַנָּה וְקַלָּה עַל עַם אֶחָד אֲשֶׁר יֵשׁ בֵּינֵינוּ, נִבְזֶה מִכָּל הָעַמִּים, וְדַעְתָּם גַּסָּה עֲלֵיהֶם, חֲפֵצִים בְּרָעָתֵנוּ וְקִלְּלַת הַמֶּלֶךְ שְׁגוּרָה בְּפִיהֶם, וּמַהוּ קְלָלָה שֶׁמְקַלְּלִין אוֹתָנוּ (תהלים י, טז): ה' מֶלֶךְ עוֹלָם וָעֶד אָבְדוּ גוֹיִם מֵאַרְצוֹ. וְעוֹד אוֹמְרִים (תהלים קמט, ז): לַעֲשׂוֹת נְקָמָה בַּגּוֹיִם תּוֹכֵחוֹת בַּלְאֻמִּים. וְכוֹפְרִים בְּמִי שֶׁעָשָׂה לָהֶם טוֹבָה, בּוֹאוּ וּרְאוּ מֵאוֹתוֹ עָנִי פַּרְעֹה מֶה עָשׂוּ, כְּשֶׁיָּרְדוּ לְמִצְרַיִם קִבְּלָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת, וְהוֹשִׁיבָם בְּמֵיטַב הָאָרֶץ, וְזָן אוֹתָן בִּשְׁנֵי רְעָבוֹן, וְהֶאֱכִילָם כָּל טוּב שֶׁבְּאַרְצוֹ, פַּלְטֵרִים הָיוּ לוֹ לִבְנוֹת וְהָיוּ בּוֹנִין שָׁם, בְּכָל זֹאת לֹא הָיָה יָכוֹל לָהֶם, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁבָּאוּ בַּעֲלִילָה וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ (שמות ה, ג): לִזְבֹּחַ לַה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ נֵלֵךְ דֶּרֶךְ שְׁלשֶׁת יָמִים, אַחַר כָּךְ נָשׁוּב, אִם רְצוֹנְךָ הַשְׁאִילֵנוּ כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וכְלֵי זָהָב וּשְׂמָלוֹת, וְהִשְׁאִילוּם כַּסְפָּם וּזְהָבָם וְכָל הַבְּגָדִים הַטּוֹבִים שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְטָעֲנוּ כָּל אֶחָד כַּמָּה חֲמוֹרִים שֶׁלָּהֶם לְאֵין מִסְפָּר, עַד שֶׁנִּצְּלוּ אֶת מִצְרַיִם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות יב, לו): וַיְנַצְּלוּ אֶת מִצְרָיִם, וּבָרְחוּ לָהֶם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע פַּרְעֹה שֶׁהָיוּ בּוֹרְחִים, הָלַךְ אַחֲרֵיהֶם לְהָשִׁיב אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ, מֶה עָשׂוּ לוֹ, הָיָה עִמָּהֶם אָדָם אֶחָד וּשְׁמוֹ משֶׁה בֶּן עַמְרָם, וּבִכְשָׁפָיו נָטַל מַקֵּל אֶחָד וְלָחַשׁ עָלָיו וְהִכָּה בּוֹ אֶת הַיָּם עַד שֶׁנֶּחֱרַב, וְנִכְנְסוּ כֻּלָּם בַּיַּבָּשָׁה בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם וְעָבְרוּ כֻלָּם, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה עָבְרוּ, וּבַמֶּה יִבְּשׁוּ הַמַּיִם. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה פַּרְעֹה נִכְנַס אַחֲרֵיהֶם לְהַחֲזִיר אֶת מָמוֹנוֹ, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה דְּחָפוּהוּ בְּתוֹךְ הַיָּם, וְנִטְבַּע הוּא וְכָל חֵילוֹ בַּיָּם, וְלֹא זָכְרוּ הַטּוֹבָה שֶׁעָשָׂה לָהֶם, הֲלֹא תִשְׁמְעוּ שֶׁהֵם כְּפוּיֵי טוֹבָה. וְעוֹד מֶה עָשׂוּ לַעֲמָלֵק אֲבִי אַבָּא, בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶם לַמִּלְחָמָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות יז, ח): וַיָּבֹא עֲמָלֵק וַיִּלָּחֶם עִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בִּרְפִידִים, וּמֵהֵיכָן בָּא עֲמָלֵק, אָמַר רַבִּי כְּרוּסְפְּדָאי בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן שֶׁבָּא מֵאֵצֶל בִּלְעָם הָרָשָׁע, שֶׁבָּא לִטֹּל עֵצָה מִמֶּנּוּ, וְאָמַר לוֹ יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁבַּעַל עֵצָה אַתָּה וְגַם בַּעַל מַחְשָׁבוֹת רָעוֹת, וְכָל הַנּוֹטֵל עֵצָה מִמְךָ אֵינוֹ נִכְשָׁל. אָמַר לוֹ רְאֵה מֶה עָשׂוּ אֻמָּה זוֹ לְמִצְרַיִם, שֶׁעָשׂוּ לָהֶם כַּמָּה טוֹבוֹת, וּמַה לְּמִצְרַיִם שֶׁעָשׂוּ לָהֶם כַּמָּה טוֹבוֹת עָשׂוּ לָהֶם כָּךְ, לִשְׁאָר אֻמּוֹת עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה, הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹעֲצֵנִי, אָמַר לוֹ בִּלְעָם, לֵךְ וַעֲשֵׂה עִמָּהֶם מִלְחָמָה, וְאִם אֵין אַתָּה עוֹשֶׂה עִמָּהֶם מִלְחָמָה אֵין אַתָּה יָכוֹל לָהֶם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהֵן תְּלוּיִין בִּזְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אֲבִיהֶם, וְאַף אַתָּה שֶׁהוּא בֶּן בְּנוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם, תָּלוּי בִּזְכוּתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם. מִיָּד בָּא עֲלֵיהֶם לַמִּלְחָמָה. מֶה עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ משֶׁה פַּרְנָס שֶׁלָּהֶם, הָיָה לוֹ תַּלְמִיד אֶחָד יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בִּן נוּן שְׁמוֹ, וְהָיָה אַכְזָרִי עַד מְאֹד וְלֹא הָיָה לוֹ רַחֲמִים, אָמַר לוֹ אוֹתוֹ משֶׁה (שמות יז, ט): בְּחַר לָנוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְצֵא הִלָּחֵם בַּעֲמָלֵק, אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ אוֹתָן אֲנָשִׁים שֶׁבָּחַר אִם בַּעֲלֵי כְשָׁפִים הֵם, אוֹ אִם גִּבּוֹרֵי מִלְחָמָה, מֶה עָשָׂה אוֹתוֹ משֶׁה נָטַל מַקֵּל בְּיָדוֹ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה עָשָׂה בוֹ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁבָּא עֲלֵיהֶם אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מַה לָּחַשׁ עֲלֵיהֶם וְרָפוּ יְדֵיהֶם וְנָפְלוּ לִפְנֵיהֶם, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמות יז, יג): וַיַּחֲלשׁ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אֶת עֲמָלֵק וְאֶת עַמּוֹ לְפִי חָרֶב. בָּאוּ עַל סִיחוֹן וְעוֹג גִּבּוֹרֵי אַרְצֵנוּ, שֶׁאֵין כָּל בְּרִיָּה הָיְתָה יְכוֹלָה לַעֲמֹד בִּפְנֵיהֶם, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה הֲרָגוּם. בָּאוּ עֲלֵיהֶם מַלְכֵי מִדְיָן, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה הֲרָגָן. וְעוֹד מֶה עָשָׂה תַּלְמִיד שֶׁל אוֹתוֹ הָאִישׁ משֶׁה, הִכְנִיס אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְאֶרֶץ כְּנַעַן, וְלֹא דַי שֶׁנָּטַל אֶת אַרְצָם, אֶלָּא שֶׁהָרַג מֵהֶם שְׁלשִׁים וְאֶחָד מְלָכִים, וְחִלֵּק אֶת אַרְצָם לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא חָמַל עֲלֵיהֶן, וְאוֹתָן שֶׁלֹא בִּקֵּשׁ לַהֲרֹג הָיוּ לוֹ לַעֲבָדִים. בָּאוּ עֲלֵיהֶם סִיסְרָא וַהֲמוֹנוֹ וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה עָשׂוּ לוֹ לְנַחַל קִישׁוֹן שֶׁגְּרָפָם וּשְׁטָפָם וְהִשְׁלִיכָם לַיָּם הַגָּדוֹל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שופטים ה, כא): נַחַל קִישׁוֹן גְּרָפָם. וְהָיָה לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ רִאשׁוֹן שָׁאוּל שְׁמוֹ, וְהָלַךְ וְנִלְחַם בְּאֶרֶץ אֲבִי אַבָּא עֲמָלֵק, וְהָרַג מֵהֶם מֵאָה אֲלָפִים פָּרָשִׁים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, וְגַם לֹא חָמַל עַל אִישׁ וְעַל אִשָּׁה וְלֹא עַל עוֹלֵל וְיוֹנֵק, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה הֲרָגָם. וְעוֹד מֶה עָשָׂה לַאֲגַג זְקֵנִי שֶׁחָמְלוּ עָלָיו תְּחִלָּה, לַסּוֹף בָּא אָדָם מֵהֶם וּשְׁמוֹ שְׁמוּאֵל, חֲתָכוֹ וְנָתַן בְּשָׂרוֹ מַאֲכָל לְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם, כְּדִכְתִיב (שמואל א טו, לג): וַיְשַׁסֵּף שְׁמוּאֵל אֶת אֲגָג, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ בַּמֶּה הֲרָגוֹ מִיתָה מְשֻׁנָּה כָּזֹאת שֶׁשְּׁמַעְתֶּם. וְאַחַר זֹאת הָיָה לָהֶם מֶלֶךְ אֶחָד דָּוִד בֶּן יִשַּׁי שְׁמוֹ, וְהָיָה מַשְׁחִית וּמְכַלֶּה אֶת כָּל הַמַּמְלָכוֹת וְלֹא הָיָה חוֹמֵל עֲלֵיהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל א כז, יא): אִישׁ וְאִשָּׁה לֹא יְחַיֶּה דָּוִד. וְעָמַד אַחֲרָיו שְׁלֹמֹה בְּנוֹ וּבָנָה לָהֶן לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בַּיִת אֶחָד וְקָרָא לוֹ בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, וְאֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ מֶה הָיָה לָהֶם בְּתוֹכוֹ, כְּשֶׁבָּאִין לְמִלְחָמָה נִכְנָסִין בְּתוֹכוֹ וּמְכַשְׁפִים בְּתוֹכוֹ, וּכְשֶׁהֵן יוֹצְאִים מִמֶּנּוּ הוֹרְגִים וּמַחֲרִיבִים אֶת הָעוֹלָם. וּמֵרֹב טוֹבָה שֶׁהָיָה לָהֶם מָרְדוּ בֵּאלֹהֵיהֶם, וְעוֹד שֶׁהִזְקִין אוֹתוֹ אֱלוֹהַּ שֶׁלָּהֶם, וּבָא נְבוּכַדְנֶצַּר וְשָׂרַף אוֹתוֹ בַּיִת שֶׁלָּהֶם, וְהִגְלָם מֵעַל אַדְמָתָם וְהֵבִיאָם בֵּינֵינוּ, וַעֲדַיִּן לֹא שִׁנּוּ מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם הַמְכֹעָרִין. וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁהֵם בַּגָּלוּת בֵּינֵינוּ, מַלְעִיגִין אוֹתָנוּ וְאֶת אֱמוּנַת אֱלֹהֵינוּ, וְעַכְשָׁיו הִסְכַּמְנוּ כֻּלָּנוּ לְדֵעָה אַחַת, וְהִפַּלְנוּ גוֹרָלוֹת לְאַבְּדָן מִן הָעוֹלָם, וּבְאֵיזֶה זְמַן יִתָּכֵן לָנוּ לְכַלּוֹתָם, וְנָפַל עֲלֵיהֶם הַגּוֹרָל בְּחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר בִּשְׁלשָׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ. וְעַכְשָׁו כְּשֶׁיַּגִּיעוּ אֲלֵיכֶם הָאִגְּרוֹת הַלָּלוּ תִּהְיוּ מְזֻמָּנִים לְאוֹתוֹ הַיּוֹם, לְהַשְּׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג אֶת כָּל הַיְּהוּדִים שֶׁבֵּינֵיכֶם, מִנַּעַר וְעַד זָקֵן טַף וְנָשִׁים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד, וְלֹא תַשְׁאִירוּ מֵהֶם שָׂרִיד וּפָלִיט. וּבְשָׁעָה שֶׁנֶּחְתְּמוּ אוֹתָן הָאִגְּרוֹת וְנִתְּנוּ בְּיַד הָמָן, וַיָּבוֹא שָׂמֵחַ הוּא וְכָל בְּנֵי חֲבוּרָתוֹ, וּפָגְעוּ בְּמָרְדֳּכַי שֶׁהוּא הוֹלֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְרָאָה מָרְדֳּכַי שְׁלשָׁה תִּינוֹקוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בָּאִים מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר, וְרָץ מָרְדֳּכַי אַחֲרֵיהֶם, וּכְשֶׁרָאָה הָמָן וְכָל חֲבוּרָתוֹ שֶׁהָיָה רָץ מָרְדֳּכַי אַחֲרֵי הַתִּינוֹקוֹת, הָלְכוּ אַחֲרֵי מָרְדֳּכַי לָדַעַת מַה יִּשְׁאַל מָרְדֳּכַי מֵהֶם, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ מָרְדֳּכַי אֵצֶל הַתִּינוֹקוֹת שָׁאַל לְאֶחָד מֵהֶם פְּסֹק לִי פְּסוּקֶיךָ, אָמַר לוֹ (משלי ג, כה): אַל תִּירָא מִפַּחַד פִּתְאֹם וּמִשֹּׁאַת רְשָׁעִים כִּי תָבֹא. פָּתַח הַשֵּׁנִי וְאָמַר, אֲנִי קָרִיתִי הַיּוֹם וּבָזֶה הַפָּסוּק עָמַדְתִּי מִבֵּית הַסֵּפֶר (ישעיה ח, י): עֻצוּ עֵצָה וְתֻפָר דַּבְּרוּ דָבָר וְלֹא יָקוּם כִּי עִמָּנוּ אֵל. פָּתַח הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאָמַר (ישעיה מו, ד): וְעַד זִקְנָה אֲנִי הוּא וְעַד שֵׂיבָה אֲנִי אֶסְבֹּל אֲנִי עָשִׂיתִי וַאֲנִי אֶשָֹּׂא וַאֲנִי אֶסְבֹּל וַאֲמַלֵּט. כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמַע מָרְדֳּכַי כָּךְ שָׂחַק וְהָיָה שָׂמֵחַ שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה. אָמַר לוֹ הָמָן מָה הִיא זֹאת הַשִֹּׂמְחָה שֶׁשָֹּׂמַחְתָּ לְדִבְרֵי הַתִּינוֹקוֹת הַלָּלוּ, אָמַר עַל בְּשׂוֹרוֹת טוֹבוֹת שֶׁבִּשְׂרוּנִי שֶׁלֹא אֶפְחַד מִן הָעֵצָה הָרָעָה שֶׁיָּעַצְתָּ עָלֵינוּ. מִיָּד כָּעַס הָמָן הָרָשָׁע וְאָמַר אֵין אֲנִי שׁוֹלֵחַ יָדַי תְּחִלָּה אֶלָּא בְּאֵלּוּ הַתִּינוֹקוֹת. אָמַר רַבִּי יִצְחָק נַפְחָא, הָמָן הָרָשָׁע בַּעֲלִילָה גְדוֹלָה בָּא עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (אסתר א, ה): וּבִמְלוֹאת הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה עָשָׂה הַמֶּלֶךְ לְכָל הָעָם הַנִּמְצְאִים בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וגו', וְאֵין הָעָם הָאָמוּר כָּאן אֶלָּא יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (דברים לג, כט): אַשְׁרֶיךָ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִי כָמוֹךָ עַם נוֹשַׁע בַּה' וגו', אָמַר הָמָן לַאֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אֱלֹהֵיהֶם שֶׁל אֵלּוּ שׂוֹנֵא זִמָּה, הַעֲמֵד לָהֶם זוֹנוֹת, וַעֲשֵׂה לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וּגְזֹר עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיָּבוֹאוּ כֻּלָּם וְיֹאכְלוּ וְיִשְׁתּוּ וְיַעֲשׂוּ כִּרְצוֹנָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (אסתר א, ח): לַעֲשׂוֹת כִּרְצוֹן אִישׁ וָאִישׁ. כֵּיוָן שֶׁרָאָה מָרְדֳּכַי כָּךְ עָמַד וְהִכְרִיז עֲלֵיהֶם וְאָמַר לָהֶם לֹא תֵלְכוּ לֶאֱכֹל בִּסְעוּדָתוֹ שֶׁל אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, שֶׁלֹא הִזְמִין אֶתְכֶם כִּי אִם לְלַמֵּד עֲלֵיכֶם קָטֵיגוֹרְיָא, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְהֵא פִּתְחוֹן פֶּה עִם מִדַּת הַדִּין לְקַטְרֵג עֲלֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְלֹא שָׁמְעוּ לְדִבְרֵי מָרְדֳּכַי וְהָלְכוּ כֻּלָּם לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל שְׁמוֹנָה עָשָׂר אֶלֶף וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת הָלְכוּ לְבֵית הַמִּשְׁתֶּה וְאָכְלוּ וְשָׁתוּ וְנִשְׁתַּכְּרוּ וְנִתְקַלְקְלוּ. מִיָּד עָמַד שָׂטָן וְהִלְשִׁין עֲלֵיהֶם לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם עַד מָתַי תִּדְבַּק בְּאֻמָּה זוֹ שֶׁהֵם מַפְרִישִׁין לְבָבָם וֶאֱמוּנָתָם מִמְךָ, אִם רְצוֹנְךָ אַבֵּד אֻמָּה זוֹ מִן הָעוֹלָם, כִּי אֵינָם בָּאִים בִּתְשׁוּבָה לְפָנֶיךָ. אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא תּוֹרָה מַה תְּהֵא עָלֶיהָ, אָמַר לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תִּסְתַּפֵּק בָּעֶלְיוֹנִים, וְגַם הִשְׁוָה דַעְתּוֹ לִמְחוֹת אֶת יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לָמָּה לִי אֻמָּה שֶׁבִּשְׁבִילָהּ הִרְבֵּיתִי אוֹתוֹתַי וּמוֹפְתַי לְכָל הַקָּמִים עֲלֵיהֶם לְרָעָה (דברים לב, כו): אַשְׁבִּיתָה מֶאֱנוֹשׁ זִכְרָם. מִיָּד אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לַשָֹּׂטָן הָבֵא לִי מְגִלָּה וְאֶכְתֹּב עָלֶיהָ כְּלָיָה. בְּאוֹתָהּ הַשָּׁעָה הָלַךְ הַשָֹּׂטָן וְהֵבִיא לוֹ מְגִלָּה וְכָתַב עָלֶיהָ. מִיָּד יָצְתָה הַתּוֹרָה בְּבִגְדֵּי אַלְמְנוּת וְנָתְנָה קוֹלָהּ בִּבְכִי לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, וְגַם מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת צָעֲקוּ לְקוֹל בְּכִיָּתָהּ, וְאָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, אִם יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּטֵלִים מִן הָעוֹלָם אָנוּ לְמָה אָנוּ צְרִיכִין בָּעוֹלָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה לג, ז): הֵן אֶרְאֶלָּם צָעֲקוּ חֻצָה מַלְאֲכֵי שָׁלוֹם מַר יִבְכָּיוּן, כֵּיוָן שֶׁשָּׁמְעוּ חַמָּה וּלְבָנָה כָּךְ, אָסְפוּ נָגְהָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה נ, ג): אַלְבִּישׁ שָׁמַיִם קַדְרוּת וְשַׂק אָשִׂים כְּסוּתָם. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה רָץ אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב בְּבֶהָלָה אֵצֶל אֲבוֹת הָעוֹלָם וְאֵצֶל משֶׁה בֶּן עַמְרָם, וְאָמַר לָהֶם עַד מָתַי אֲבוֹת הָעוֹלָם רְדוּמִים בְּשֵׁנָה וְאִי אַתֶּם מַשְׁגִּיחִים עַל הַצָּרָה שֶׁבְּנֵיכֶם שְׁרוּיִין בָּהּ, כִּי מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת וְחַמָּה וּלְבָנָה וְכוֹכָבִים וּמַזָּלוֹת וְשָׁמַיִם וָאָרֶץ וְכָל צְבָא הַמָּרוֹם בּוֹכִים בְּמֶרֶר, וְאַתֶּם עוֹמְדִים מִנֶּגֶד וְאֵינְכֶם מַשְׁגִּיחִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנֶּהֱנוּ מִסְּעוּדָתוֹ שֶׁל אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ, וּבַעֲבוּר זֹאת נִגְזְרָה עֲלֵיהֶם גְּזֵרָה לְכַלּוֹתָם מִן הָעוֹלָם וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת זִכְרָם. אָמְרוּ לוֹ אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב אִם הֵם עָבְרוּ עַל דָּת הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא וְנֶחְתְּמָה גְּזֵרָתָם, מָה אָנוּ יְכוֹלִים לַעֲשׂוֹת. חָזַר אֵלִיָּהוּ וְאָמַר לוֹ לְמשֶׁה אִי רוֹעֶה נֶאֱמָן כַּמָּה פְּעָמִים עָמַדְתָּ עַל הַפֶּרֶץ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל וּבִטַּלְתָּ גְּזֵרָתָם לְבִלְתִּי הַשְׁחִית, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (תהלים קו, כג): לוּלֵי משֶׁה בְחִירוֹ עָמַד בַּפֶּרֶץ לְפָנָיו לְהָשִׁיב חֲמָתוֹ מֵהַשְׁחִית, מַה תַּעֲנֶה עַל הַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת (ישעיה לז, ג): כִּי בָאוּ בָנִים עַד מַשְׁבֵּר וגו'. אָמַר לוֹ משֶׁה כְּלוּם יֵשׁ אָדָם כָּשֵׁר בְּאוֹתוֹ הַדּוֹר, אָמַר לוֹ יֵשׁ, וּשְׁמוֹ מָרְדֳּכַי. אָמַר לוֹ לֵךְ וְהוֹדִיעוֹ כְּדֵי שֶׁיַּעֲמֹד הוּא מִשָּׁם בִּתְפִלָּה, וַאֲנִי מִכָּאן, וּנְבַקֵּשׁ רַחֲמִים עֲלֵיהֶם לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אָמַר לוֹ, רוֹעֶה נֶאֱמָן, כְּבָר נִכְתְּבָה אִגֶּרֶת כְּלָיָה עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמַר לוֹ משֶׁה אִם בְּטִיט הִיא חֲתוּמָה תְּפִלָּתֵנוּ נִשְׁמַעַת, וְאִם בְּדָם נֶחְתְּמָה מַה שֶּׁהָיָה הוּא, אָמַר לוֹ בְּטִיט הִיא חֲתוּמָה. אָמַר לוֹ משֶׁה רַבֵּנוּ לֵךְ וְהוֹדִיעַ לְמָרְדֳּכַי, מִיָּד הָלַךְ וְהוֹדִיעַ לְמָרְדֳּכַי, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וּמָרְדֳּכַי יָדַע אֶת כָּל אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשָׂה וַיִּקְרַע מָרְדֳּכַי אֶת בְּגָדָיו, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּידוּ לְאֶסְתֵּר, מִיָּד וַתִּתְחַלְחַל הַמַּלְכָּה מְאֹד. מַהוּ וַתִּתְחַלְחַל, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁפֵּרְסָה נִדָּה.
62. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 12



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abraham, covenant of Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154
aggadah, in lists of components of oral law Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 199
akiva, rabbi, and r. yishmael/two-schools hypothesis Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 126
albeck, chanoch Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 315
allegory/allegorical, and midrash Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 153, 154
allegory/allegorical, radical allegory Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 153, 154
allegory/allegorical, ʾapiqoros Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154
amoraim, seeing themselves as descendants of the pharisees Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
anti-gnostic polemic Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 194
apocalyptic Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 154, 155
aramaic, babylonian jewish Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
athletic metaphor, collective Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 384
athletic metaphor, for personal sins Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 384
atonement Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
avesta, recitation of Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
babylonian, ancient, jews Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
baethesians Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
benediction of the minim Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
blasphemy Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 165, 175; Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
boldness Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 154, 155
boyarin, daniel Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
circumcision Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154
commandment/commandments Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488
commandment/s Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153
covenant, of the flesh Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154
covenant, with abraham Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 153, 154
cultural heritage Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
desire Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
diaspora Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
different way (אחרת דרך , ( Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192
divine Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
divine names Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
economy Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
eleazar, son of yair Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
epicureans Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
esau Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
exegesis, two-schools hypothesis Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 126
exile Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
figure Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 154, 155
finkelstein, louis Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 199
fire Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
friedländer, moritz Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81, 194
gnostics Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 194
god, visible Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
goldin, judah Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 199
graetz, heinrich Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
grossberg, david m. Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
hebrew Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
heretic Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 153, 154, 155
hermeneutics/hermeneutical—see also, interpretation Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488
heschel, abraham joshua Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
idolatry Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
interpretation, hellenistic jewish Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
interpretation, rabbinic Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
interpretation—see also midrash Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 512
iqqar Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
israel, nan Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 512
israel, people/nation of Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
kuttim (samaritans) Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192, 194
law divine/mosaic/jewish Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
lieberman, saul Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192
magic Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
marmorstein, arthur Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 194
masada Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
midrash, and allegory Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 153, 154
midrash/midrashim Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488, 512
miller, stuart Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
minim, christians Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192
minim, kuttim (samaritans) Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
minim, laws of Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
minim, their identity Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
minim Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
minut, collaboration with the enemy Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
minut, gnosticism Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
minut, in rabbinic literature Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192
minut, rejection of the jewish people Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
mishnah, in oral torah Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 199
moses, art Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
moses, veil of Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154, 155
moses Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154, 155; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488, 512
pearson, bearger Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 194
perushim, having no connection with the pharisees Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
pharisaic-rabbinic connection Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
pharisees/pharisaism Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152
philo of alexandria Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
pig Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
prayer Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488, 512
prophecy Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
psychological, punishment (divine), withdrawal of Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
qumran Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152
rabbi akiba Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
rav Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
rava Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
repentance Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
ressurection of the dead Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
restoration Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
return Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
revelation Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
ritual, jewish, magical Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
ritual, jewish, zoroastrian Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
roman empire, oppressor of the jews Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
roman empire, reference to in rabbinic texts Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
rosenthal, eliezer shimshon Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
sadducee/s Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154
sadducees Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
salvation Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
samaritans Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
schiffman, lawrence h. Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
scholem, gershom g. Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 194
schremer, adiel Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
segal, alan f. Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68; Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 165
shekhina, auditory Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
shekhina, visual Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
shemesh, aharon Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
shimon ben azzai Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
shmuel Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
sicarii Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 68
simon magus Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 81
sinai, mount Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 512
sinai Brooke et al., Past Renewals: Interpretative Authority, Renewed Revelation, and the Quest for Perfection in Jewish Antiquity (2008) 258
stern, sacha Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 315
sussman, yaakov Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 192
tannaim, view of connection to pharisees' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
tannaitic literature Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148; Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488
targum Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
teshuvah, concept Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
the world, appellation for rome Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 175
torah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 488, 512; Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 5
tradition Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
transfiguration, of moses Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154, 155
transgression Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
turning/change, back/returning Despotis and Lohr, Religious and Philosophical Conversion in the Ancient Mediterranean Traditions (2022) 148
two-schools hypothesis, outlined Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 126
two-schools hypothesis Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 126
two powers in heaven Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 165
veil/unveil Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 152, 153, 154, 155
wisdom Fisch,, Written for Us: Paul’s Interpretation of Scripture and the History of Midrash (2023) 155
yishmael, rabbi, and r. akiva/two-schools hypothesis Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 126
zoroastrian priests Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
zoroastrianism, magianism (amgushta) Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74
zoroastrianism, negative jewish perception of Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 74; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 74