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



2784
Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.3
NaN


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

20 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 5.28, 17.11, 17.20, 28.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

5.28. וְאַתָּה פֹּה עֲמֹד עִמָּדִי וַאֲדַבְּרָה אֵלֶיךָ אֵת כָּל־הַמִּצְוָה וְהַחֻקִּים וְהַמִּשְׁפָּטִים אֲשֶׁר תְּלַמְּדֵם וְעָשׂוּ בָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי נֹתֵן לָהֶם לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃ 17.11. עַל־פִּי הַתּוֹרָה אֲשֶׁר יוֹרוּךָ וְעַל־הַמִּשְׁפָּט אֲשֶׁר־יֹאמְרוּ לְךָ תַּעֲשֶׂה לֹא תָסוּר מִן־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר־יַגִּידוּ לְךָ יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאל׃ 28.14. וְלֹא תָסוּר מִכָּל־הַדְּבָרִים אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול לָלֶכֶת אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לְעָבְדָם׃ 5.28. But as for thee, stand thou here by Me, and I will speak unto thee all the commandment, and the statutes, and the ordices, which thou shalt teach them, that they may do them in the land which I give them to possess it.’" 17.11. According to the law which they shall teach thee, and according to the judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do; thou shalt not turn aside from the sentence which they shall declare unto thee, to the right hand, nor to the left." 17.20. that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel." 28.14. and shalt not turn aside from any of the words which I command you this day, to the right hand, or to the left, to go after other gods to serve them. ."
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 31.14-31.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

31.14. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַשַּׁבָּת כִּי קֹדֶשׁ הִוא לָכֶם מְחַלְלֶיהָ מוֹת יוּמָת כִּי כָּל־הָעֹשֶׂה בָהּ מְלָאכָה וְנִכְרְתָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא מִקֶּרֶב עַמֶּיהָ׃ 31.15. שֵׁשֶׁת יָמִים יֵעָשֶׂה מְלָאכָה וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי שַׁבַּת שַׁבָּתוֹן קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה כָּל־הָעֹשֶׂה מְלָאכָה בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת מוֹת יוּמָת׃ 31.14. Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore, for it is holy unto you; every one that profaneth it shall surely be put to death; for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people." 31.15. Six days shall work be done; but on the seventh day is a sabbath of solemn rest, holy to the LORD; whosoever doeth any work in the sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death."
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.1-14.32, 19.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

4. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 12.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

12.1. וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל־מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת׃ 12.1. וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃ 12.1. And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman."
5. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

11.13. הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃ 20.19. גּוֹלֶה־סּוֹד הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו לֹא תִתְעָרָב׃ 11.13. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter." 20.19. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips."
6. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 92.1-92.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

92.1. כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יְהוָה כִּי־הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ יִתְפָּרְדוּ כָּל־פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן׃ 92.1. מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת׃ 92.2. טוֹב לְהֹדוֹת לַיהוָה וּלְזַמֵּר לְשִׁמְךָ עֶלְיוֹן׃ 92.1. A Psalm, a Song. For the sabbath day." 92.2. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, And to sing praises unto Thy name, O Most High;"
7. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 17.21-17.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

17.21. כֹּה אָמַר יְהוָה הִשָּׁמְרוּ בְּנַפְשׁוֹתֵיכֶם וְאַל־תִּשְׂאוּ מַשָּׂא בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וַהֲבֵאתֶם בְּשַׁעֲרֵי יְרוּשָׁלִָם׃ 17.22. וְלֹא־תוֹצִיאוּ מַשָּׂא מִבָּתֵּיכֶם בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת וְכָל־מְלָאכָה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וְקִדַּשְׁתֶּם אֶת־יוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אֶת־אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם׃ 17.21. thus saith the LORD: Take heed for the sake of your souls, and bear no burden on the sabbath day, nor bring it in by the gates of Jerusalem;" 17.22. neither carry forth a burden out of your houses on the sabbath day, neither do ye any work; but hallow ye the sabbath day, as I commanded your fathers;"
8. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 22.26, 42.20 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

22.26. כֹּהֲנֶיהָ חָמְסוּ תוֹרָתִי וַיְחַלְּלוּ קָדָשַׁי בֵּין־קֹדֶשׁ לְחֹל לֹא הִבְדִּילוּ וּבֵין־הַטָּמֵא לְטָהוֹר לֹא הוֹדִיעוּ וּמִשַׁבְּתוֹתַי הֶעְלִימוּ עֵינֵיהֶם וָאֵחַל בְּתוֹכָם׃ 22.26. Her priests have done violence to My law, and have profaned My holy things; they have put no difference between the holy and the common, neither have they taught difference between the unclean and the clean, and have hid their eyes from My sabbaths, and I am profaned among them." 42.20. He measured it by the four sides; it had a wall round about, the length five hundred, and the breadth five hundred, to make a separation between that which was holy and that which was common."
9. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 29.21 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

29.21. וַיָּבִיאוּ פָרִים־שִׁבְעָה וְאֵילִים שִׁבְעָה וּכְבָשִׂים שִׁבְעָה וּצְפִירֵי עִזִּים שִׁבְעָה לְחַטָּאת עַל־הַמַּמְלָכָה וְעַל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְעַל־יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהַעֲלוֹת עַל־מִזְבַּח יְהוָה׃ 29.21. And they brought seven bullocks, and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he-goats, for a sin-offering for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Judah. And he commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the LORD."
10. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 10.30-10.32 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

10.31. וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא־נִתֵּן בְּנֹתֵינוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֵיהֶם לֹא נִקַּח לְבָנֵינוּ׃ 10.32. וְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הַמְבִיאִים אֶת־הַמַּקָּחוֹת וְכָל־שֶׁבֶר בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לִמְכּוֹר לֹא־נִקַּח מֵהֶם בַּשַּׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וְנִטֹּשׁ אֶת־הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִית וּמַשָּׁא כָל־יָד׃ 10.30. they cleaved to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and His ordices and His statutes;" 10.31. and that we would not give our daughters unto the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons;" 10.32. and if the peoples of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the sabbath, or on a holy day; and that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt."
11. Anon., Jubilees, 2.29-2.30, 50.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

2.29. these two great classes--He hath hidden us to keep the Sabbath with Him in heaven and on earth. 2.30. And He said unto us: "Behold, I will separate unto Myself a people from among all the peoples, and these will keep the Sabbath day 50.8. And behold the commandment regarding the Sabbaths--I have written (them) down for thee and all the judgments of its laws. brSix days wilt thou labour, but on the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God.
12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 1.8-1.9, 1.13, 3.9-3.12, 3.14-3.15, 6.17-6.19, 10.14, 12.4-12.6, 13.4-13.6, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

13. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 1.8-1.9, 3.9-3.12, 3.14-3.15, 6.17-6.19, 10.14, 12.3-12.4, 12.6, 13.4-13.6, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

14. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 7.25 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

7.25. וּמִלִּין לְצַד עליא [עִלָּאָה] יְמַלִּל וּלְקַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין יְבַלֵּא וְיִסְבַּר לְהַשְׁנָיָה זִמְנִין וְדָת וְיִתְיַהֲבוּן בִּידֵהּ עַד־עִדָּן וְעִדָּנִין וּפְלַג עִדָּן׃ 7.25. And he shall speak words against the Most High, and shall wear out the saints of the Most High; and he shall think to change the seasons and the law; and they shall be given into his hand until a time and times and half a time."
15. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.43, 1.45, 2.12, 3.51 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

1.43. All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 1.45. to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and feasts 2.12. And behold, our holy place, our beauty,and our glory have been laid waste;the Gentiles have profaned it. 3.51. Thy sanctuary is trampled down and profaned,and thy priests mourn in humiliation.
16. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 17.9-17.10, 18.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

18.3. Do not follow your base desires,but restrain your appetites.
17. Mishnah, Sukkah, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

5.5. They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight. Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine. And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane. On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane."
18. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

19. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

46a. רב פפא אמר מאי בעל לוקה דקתני התם ממון וקרי ליה לממון מלקות אין והא תנן האומר חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר לוקה ונותן ערך שלם לוקה אמאי אמר רב פפא לוקה בערך שלם,מאי טעמא גזירה חצי ערכו אטו ערך חציו וערך חציו הוי ליה אבר שהנשמה תלויה בו,ת"ר (דברים כב, יט) וענשו אותו זה ממון (דברים כב, יח) ויסרו זה מלקות,בשלמא וענשו זה ממון דכתיב וענשו אותו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה אלא ויסרו זה מלקות מנלן,א"ר אבהו למדנו יסרו מיסרו ויסרו מבן ובן מבן (דברים כה, ב) והיה אם בן הכות הרשע,אזהרה למוציא שם רע מנלן ר' אלעזר אמר (ויקרא יט, טז) מלא תלך רכיל רבי נתן אומר (דברים כג, י) מונשמרת מכל דבר רע,ורבי אלעזר מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדר' פנחס בן יאיר ונשמרת מכל דבר רע מכאן אמר ר' פנחס בן יאיר אל יהרהר אדם ביום ויבא לידי טומאה בלילה,ור' נתן מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא אזהרה לב"ד שלא יהא רך לזה וקשה לזה,לא אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני והן מעידים אותו מאליהן הוא אינו לוקה ואינו נותן מאה סלעים היא וזוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,היא וזוממיה סלקא דעתך אלא או היא או זוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,טעמא דלא אמר להו הא אמר להו אע"ג דלא אגרינהו לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב עד שישכור עדים,מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר ר' אבהו אתיא שימה שימה כתיב הכא (דברים כב, יד) ושם לה עלילות דברים וכתיב התם (שמות כב, כד) לא תשימון עליו נשך מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וכן תני רב יוסף צידוני בי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אתיא שימה שימה,בעי רבי ירמיה שכרן בקרקע מהו בפחות משוה פרוטה מהו שניהם בפרוטה מהו,בעי רב אשי הוציא שם רע על הנישואין הראשונים מהו על נשואי אחיו מהו,פשוט מיהא חדא דתני ר' יונה (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה לזה ולא ליבם,מאי רבנן ומאי ר' אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמר פלוני לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה,אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה בת סקילה היא הכי קאמר אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה,נמצא ששם רע אינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל ובין לא בעל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא כשבעל בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב (דברים כב, יג) ובא אליה ואקרב אליה,אלא לרבנן מאי ובא אליה ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי לבתך כשרי בתולים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ואלה בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי בתי ואלה כשרי בתולי בתי,בשלמא לר"א בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו השמלה,אמר רבי אבהו פרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש,שלח רבי יצחק בר רב יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דרבי יוחנן אע"ג שלא מצינו בכל התורה כולה שחלק הכתוב בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע חלק אינו חייב עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדרכה,כמאן אי כרבנן אף על גב דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר בן יעקב 46a. bRav Pappa said: Whatof the statement bthat is taught there,in the ibaraita /i, that it is only if bhe had intercoursewith her that he is bflogged?It is referring to the bmoneyof the fine. The Gemara asks: bAnddoes one bcall monetarypayment bflogging?The Gemara answers: bYes, and we learnedin a ibaraita /i: bOne who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation,in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2–3). bRabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and giveshis bfull valuation.The Sages inquired: bWhy is he flogged?What transgression did he commit? bRav Pappa said: He is flogged byhaving to pay ba full valuation.This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.,The Gemara clarifies: bWhat is the reasonof Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic bdecreein the case of one who vows to donate bhalf of his valuation, due toa case where one vowed the bvaluation of half of himself. Andone who vows to donate the bvaluation of half of himself haseffectively vowed to donate the valuation of ba limb upon whichhis blife depends,e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the ihalakhotof the defamer. bThe Sages taughtthe following ibaraita /i, based upon the following verses: “And the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19). b“And they shall fine [ ive’anshu /i] him”; thisis referring to bmoney. “And chastisehim”; bthisis referring to bflogging. /b,The Gemara asks: bGranted,with regard to the phrase b“and they fine [ ive’anshu /i] him,”although the word ive’anshucan refer to any punishment, in bthiscase it is referring to bmoney, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However,with regard to the statement of the ibaraitathat: b“And chastisehim”; bthisis referring to bflogging, from where do wederive this?, bRabbi Abbahu said: We learnedthe meaning of the word bchastisein the case of a defamer by verbal analogy bfromthe word bchastisestated in the verse “if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [ iben /i], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them” (Deuteronomy 21:18). bAndthe implication of the word bchastisein that verse is derived bfromthe word bsonthat appears in the same verse. bAndthe implication of the word bson [ iben /i]with regard to a rebellious son is derived bfromthe word ibin /iin the verse b“Then it shall be if the wicked man deserve [ ibin /i] to be flogged”(Deuteronomy 25:2).,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive the bwarning,i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging bfor a defamer? Rabbi Elazar saysthat the prohibition is derived bfromthe verse b“You shall not go up and down as talebearer”(Leviticus 19:16). bRabbi Natan saysthat it is derived bfrom: “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [ idavar ra /i]”(Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean idibbur ra /i, evil speech.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what is the reasonthat bRabbi Elazar did not statethat it is derived from bthisverse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: bHe requires thatverse bforthe statement of bRabbi Pineḥas ben Yair,as it was taught: b“Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing”; from here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair said: A person should not thinkimpure thoughts bby day andthereby bcome by night tothe bimpurityof an emission.,The Gemara asks the reverse question: bAnd what is the reasonthat bRabbi Natan did not statethat it is derived bfrom thatverse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains bthatverse, which includes the term talebearer [ irakhil /i], as ba warning to the court that it should not be soft to [ irakh la /i] thislitigant band harsh to thatone, but it must treat both sides as equals.,§ The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband bdid not say to witnesses: Come and testify for methat my wife committed adultery, bbut they testifyfor bhim of their own accordand are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband bis not flogged and does not givethe bone hundred isela /i,as he did not harm her. bShe and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. /b,The Gemara asks: bDoes it enter your mindto say that bshe and her conspiring witnessesare stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. bRather,this must mean: bEither she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning.If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.,The Gemara infers from the ibaraitathat the breasonthe husband is not flogged or fined is bthatthe husband bdid not tell themto testify, bbutif bhe told themto testify, balthough he did not hire thembut merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves bto excludethe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda says:The husband bis liableto the punishments of a defamer bonly if he hired witnesses. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonof bRabbi Yehuda?Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that bRabbi Abbahu said:It is bderivedby a verbal analogy between the term bplacing,written with regard to a defamer, and the term bplacing,written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. bIt is written here,with regard to a defamer: b“And he place wanton charges against her”(Deuteronomy 22:14), band it is written there: “Neither shall you place upon him interest”(Exodus 22:24). bJust as below,with regard to interest, the verse is referring to bmoney, so too here,in the case of a defamer, it is referring to bmoney,thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai:It is bderivedfrom the verbal analogy between the term bplacing,written with regard to a defamer, and the term bplacing,written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest., bRabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma:According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband bhiredthe false witnesses bwith landinstead of money, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? If he hired them bwith less than the value of a iperuta /i, what isthe ihalakha /i? If he hired bbothwitnesses bwith a iperuta /i, what isthe ihalakha /i? Since this ihalakhais derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a iperuta /i.,Similarly, bRav Ashi raised a dilemmaconcerning a defamer: If bhe defamedhis wife bwith regard totheir bfirst marriage, what isthe ihalakha /i? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the ihalakha /i? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her bwith regard to his brother’s marriageto her, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i?,The Gemara comments: bResolve at least oneof these dilemmas, bas Rabbi Yona taughtthat the verse “And the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: bI gave my daughter to this man”(Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave him bto thisman band not to the iyavam /i,i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his iyevamawith regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique ihalakhotof defamation do not apply.,§ In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: bWhatis the opinion of bthe Rabbis and whatis the opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov,referred to above (45b)? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bHowdoes the case of bdefamationproceed? It involves a situation where the husband bcame to the court and saidto the father: bSo-and-so, I have not foundindications of byour daughter’s virginity. If there are witnesseswho testify bthat she committed adultery under hisauthority, i.e., while betrothed to him, bshe has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. /b,The Gemara interrupts its citation of the ibaraita /i, as this last statement is very surprising: bIf there are witnesseswho testify bthat she committed adultery under hisauthority, does bshe have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She ispunished bby stoning.The Gemara explains that bthis is whatthe itanna bsaid: If there are witnesseswho testify bthat she committed adultery under hisauthority, she is liable btoreceive the punishment of bstoning.However, if bshe engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset,before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore bshe has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars,which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.,The Gemara resumes its quotation of the ibaraita /i: If it was bdiscovered that the bad name is not a bad name,i.e., the husband’s accusation was false, bhe is flogged and givesher father bone hundred isela /i, whether he had intercourse with heror bwhether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: These matters were stated onlyin a case bwhere he had intercoursewith his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: bGranted, according tothe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written:“If a man take a wife band go in unto her”(Deuteronomy 22:13), and: b“And when I came near to her,I did not find in her the tokens of virginity” (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse., bHowever, according tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis, what isthe meaning of the phrases b“and go in unto her,”and b“and when I came near to her,”if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, b“and go in unto her”is referring btothe bwanton chargesthe husband leveled against his wife; b“and when I came near to her”means that he came near bwith words,not intercourse.,The Gemara asks: bGranted, according tothe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity”(Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. bHowever, according tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis, what isthe meaning of b“I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,”if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: bI did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity,i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.,The Gemara asks further: bGranted, according tothe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is writtenthat the father replies: b“And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”(Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband’s claim. bHowever, according tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis, what isthe meaning of b“And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”?The Rabbis answer that the father means: bAnd these are theproofs of the bfitness of my daughter’s virginity,i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband’s witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.,The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: bGranted, according tothe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is at it is written: “And they shall spread the garment”(Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. bHowever, according tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, bwhat isthe meaning of the phrase b“And they shall spread the garment [ ihasimla /i]”? /b, bRabbi Abbahu saidthat the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: bThey shall spread,i.e., examine, bthat which he placed against her [ isam la /i].In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: b“And they shall spread the garment”;this bteaches that the witnesses of thishusband bcomeforward, bandlikewise bthe witnesses of thatfather come forward, bandthe court bclarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The mattersare bas they are written,i.e., the verse refers to ban actual cloth. /b,§ bRabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Ya’akov bar Giyyorei senta message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bin the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: Although we have not found in the entire Torah thatany bverse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner,i.e., anal intercourse, bwith regard to flogging orany other bpunishment. However,in the case of the bdefamer,the Torah bdoes distinguishin this manner, as the husband bis obligatedto pay the fine bonlyif bhe had intercoursewith his wife, even it was bin an atypical manner, andhe bdefamesher by claiming that she had previously had intercourse bin a typical mannerwith someone else.,The Gemara asks: In baccordance with whoseopinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥa? bIfit is bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe Rabbis,the husband should be liable beven if he did not have intercoursewith his wife. bIfit is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b
20. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא 31a. The Gemara answers: bAre you settingthe statement of one bman againstthe statement of another bman?Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages bof Neharde’a say: Evenif bone saysthat it was ba black coin andthe other bone saysthat it was ba white cointheir testimonies bare combined. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? bSay that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥasaying that two testimonies are combined in a case bwhere they do not contradict each other;but in a case bwhere they contradict each other, did he saythat they are combined?, bRather,the Sages of Neharde’a bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bthat itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard toa case of btwo sets of witnesses, where oneset bsaysthat the plaintiff lent the defendant btwo hundreddinars, bandthe other bone saysthat he lent him bone hundred dinars.Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, bas one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred,i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., bWith regard to whatcase bdo they disagree?They disagree boverthe case of bone setof two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. bAs Beit Shammai saythat btheir testimony is divided.Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. bAnd Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred.Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the plaintiff gave the defendant ba barrel of wine, andthe other bone saysthat he gave him ba barrel of oil, there wasactually such ban incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami.Since wine was cheaper than oil, bRabbi Ami deemedthe defendant bliable to paythe plaintiff only the value of ba barrel of wine out ofthe value of ba barrel of oil,an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion transmitted by bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saidthat two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case bwhere one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred;perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in ba case like this,where the testimonies are about completely different items, bdid he saythat they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: bNo,this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is bnecessaryonly bwith regard to monetary value,i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the incident took place bon the upper floor [ ibadeyota /i] andthe other bone saysthat it occurred bon the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina saysthat ban incidentlike this bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi band he combined their testimonies.This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd from whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleavesthe courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleaves he should not say: I deemedyou bexempt and my colleagues deemedyou bliable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered meand consequently you were deemed liable? bThe verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16), band it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets”(Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study halland should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged btwenty-two years afterthe time the statement was revealed. bRav Ami removed him from the study hallas a punishment. Rav Ami bsaid: This is a revealer of secretsand he cannot be trusted., strongMISHNA: /strong bAny timeone of the litigants bbringsadditional bproof, he can overturn the verdictthat was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty daysfrom now, if bhe foundadditional proof bwithin thirty days, he can overturnthe verdict. If he found it bafter thirty days, he cannot overturnthe verdict anymore., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:He can still overturn the verdict, as bwhat should thislitigant, bwhosought and bdid not findadditional proof bwithin thirtydays bbut foundit bafter thirtydays, bhave done? /b,In a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses, andthe latter bsaid: I have no witnesses,and the former bsaidto him: bBring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses,in this case, bthisproof or these witnesses are worth bnothing.It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should thislitigant, bwho did not know that he has witnesses andultimately bfound witnesses,or who bdid not know that he has a proof andultimately bfound proof, have done?Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then bhe saw that hewas about to be bdeemed liableto pay bin the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ ipundato /i],even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds bthat this isworth bnothing.If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the first ihalakhain the mishna, bRabba bar Rav Huna says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsays:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bthe Rabbis. /b,The Gemara answers: bLest you saythat bthis statement,that the ihalakhais not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies iab initio /i, but after the fact,even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is bvalid,as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore bteaches us that ifthe court bactsin accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, bwe sendthe case bbackto court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses,and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel saidthat their testimony is valid. bRabba bar Rav Huna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsaysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakhais not in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara answers: bThisstatement of Rabba bar Rav Huna bteaches us thatspecifically bwith regard to that ihalakha /i, the ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to allother statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,This is bto the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taughta ruling bin our Mishna,the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with hisopinion, bexcept forthe following three cases: The responsibility of the bguarantor, andthe incident that occurred in the city of bTzaidan, andthe dispute with regard to bevidencein the bfinaldisagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesseson your behalf? The child bsaid to them: No.They continued to ask: bDo you have evidence?The child bsaid to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable,in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child bwas walking and crying. These people heard him,and bsaid to him: We know about themonetary bmatters of your fatherand can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, bRav Naḥman said: Ina case like bthis, even the Rabbis concedethat the testimony is accepted, bas a child does not know about themonetary bmatters of his father.Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain woman from whose possessiona promissory bnote emerged,i.e., she was appointed to hold it. bShe said tothe judge: bI know that thispromissory bnote was repaid.The creditor should not use it to collect. bRav Naḥman deemed hertestimony bcredibleand did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., bRava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whoseopinion is your ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bwho saysthat bletters,i.e., the content of a promissory note, bare acquired bymerely btransferringthe document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman bsaid to him:That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, bhere it is different.Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, bas,since the promissory note was in her possession, bif she had wantedto, bshecould have bburned it.Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., bSome saythat there is another version of the story, according to which bRav Naḥman did not deem hertestimony bcredible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wantedto


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
amoraim, amoraic period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
apocrypha Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 184
calendar/calendrical issues Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
carrying, prohibited on sabbath, biblical referents, in dead dea scrolls' Jassen, Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls (2014) 197
christianity Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 181, 184
commandments Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
essenes Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 181, 184
festivals—see also calendar Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
food ration Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
hebrew, qumran Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
hebrew, rabbinic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
hebrew, tannaitic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
hellenistic kings/rulers, antiochus iv epiphanes Beyerle and Goff, Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (2022) 182
imprisonment Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
israel, nan Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
judgment Beyerle and Goff, Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (2022) 182
judicial authority (misuse of) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
law, biblical/rabbinic—see also, halakhah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
offenses, gossip Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
offenses Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
penal code of the manual of discipline Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
prayer Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
punishment, penalty Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
quarantine Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
qumran/qumran community Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 267
repentance Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
sabbath Beyerle and Goff, Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (2022) 182
scribal error Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
sect, leaders of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
sect, non-members Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
talebearing Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 189
temple Beyerle and Goff, Notions of Time in Deuterocanonical and Cognate Literature (2022) 182