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



8006
Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.8
NaN


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

15 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 34.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

34.15. פֶּן־תִּכְרֹת בְּרִית לְיוֹשֵׁב הָאָרֶץ וְזָנוּ אַחֲרֵי אֱלֹהֵיהֶם וְזָבְחוּ לֵאלֹהֵיהֶם וְקָרָא לְךָ וְאָכַלְתָּ מִזִּבְחוֹ׃ 34.15. lest thou make a covet with the inhabitants of the land, and they go astray after their gods, and do sacrifice unto their gods, and they call thee, and thou eat of their sacrifice;"
2. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.12. If he did not write for her, “You shall live in my house and be maintained from my estate throughout the duration of your widowhood”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court. Thus did the men of Jerusalem write. The men of Galilee wrote as did the men of Jerusalem. The men of Judea used to write: “Until the heirs wish to pay you your ketubah”. Therefore if the heirs wish to, they may pay her her ketubah and dismiss her."
3. Mishnah, Nedarim, 11.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

11.12. At first they would say that three women must be divorced and receive their ketubah: She who says: “I am defiled to you”; “Heaven is between me and you”; “I have been removed from the Jews.” But subsequently they changed the ruling to prevent her from setting her eye on another and spoiling herself to her husband: She who said, “I am defiled unto you” must bring proof. “Heaven is between me and you” they [shall appease them] by a request. “I have been removed from the Jews” he [the husband] must annul his portion, and she may have relations with him, and she shall be removed from other Jews."
4. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

16.5. Even if he only heard from women saying, “so-and-so is dead”, this is enough. Rabbi Judah says: even if he only heard children saying, “behold we are going to mourn for a man named so-and-so and to bury him” [it is enough]. Whether [such statement was made] with the intention [of providing evidence] or was made with no such intention [it is valid]. Rabbi Judah ben Bava says: with an Israelite [the evidence is valid] only if the man had the intention [of acting as witness]. In the case of a non-Jew the evidence is invalid if his intention was [to act as witness]."
5. New Testament, Acts, 10.22, 10.36 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

10.22. They said, "Cornelius, a centurion, a righteous man and one who fears God, and well spoken of by all the nation of the Jews, was directed by a holy angel to invite you to his house, and to listen to what you say. 10.36. The word which he sent to the children of Israel, preaching good news of peace by Jesus Christ -- he is Lord of all --
6. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

7. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5.4. A daughter of a male disqualified priest (halal) is disqualified from [marrying into] the priesthood forever. Rabbi (sic!, based on Ehrfurt manuscript) says: A daughter of a male convert is like the daughter of a male halal and disqualified from the priesthood. An isah is disqualified from the priesthood (see previous halakhah); if she [the isah] got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit [to marry into] the priesthood. A captive woman is disqualified from the priesthood; if she got married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. A freed handmaid is disqualified from the priesthood; if she is married to a Yisrael, her daughter is fit for the priesthood. It turns out that Yisrael is a mikveh for priests [since the daughter of a pesulah with a male Yisrael is no longer pesulah] and a handmaid is a mikveh for all disqualifications."
8. Tosefta, Nedarim, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

9. Tosefta, Yevamot, 14.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

10. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 344 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

11. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

12. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

38a. דאם כן נכתוב קרא להאי רעהו גבי מועד:,שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור: אמרי ממה נפשך אי רעהו דוקא דכנעני כי נגח דישראל נמי ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני נחייב,א"ר אבהו אמר קרא (חבקוק ג, ו) עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח כיון שלא קיימו עמד והתיר ממונן לישראל,רבי יוחנן אמר מהכא (דברים לג, ב) הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונם לישראל,תניא נמי הכי שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור שור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם שנאמר עמד וימודד ארץ ראה ויתר גוים ואומר הופיע מהר פארן,מאי ואומר,וכי תימא האי עמד וימודד ארץ מבעי' ליה לכדרב מתנה וכדרב יוסף ת"ש הופיע מהר פארן מפארן הופיע ממונן לישראל מאי דרב מתנה דא"ר מתנה עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שנצטוו עליהן בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והגלה אותם מעל אדמתם,ומאי משמע דהאי ויתר לישנא דאגלויי הוא כתיב הכא ויתר גוים וכתיב התם (ויקרא יא, כא) לנתר בהן על הארץ ומתרגם לקפצא בהון על ארעא,מאי דרב יוסף דא"ר יוסף עמד וימודד ארץ ראה וכו' מה ראה ראה שבע מצות שקיבלו עליהם בני נח ולא קיימום עמד והתירן להם,איתגורי אתגר א"כ מצינו חוטא נשכר אמר מר בריה דרבנא לומר שאפילו מקיימין אותן אין מקבלין עליהן שכר,ולא והתניא ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה שהוא ככהן גדול ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) אשר יעשה אותם האדם וחי בהם כהנים ולוים וישראלים לא נאמר אלא אדם הא למדת שאפילו נכרי ועוסק בתורה הרי הוא ככהן גדול,אמרי אין מקבלים עליהן שכר כמצווה ועושה אלא כמי שאינו מצווה ועושה דא"ר חנינא גדול המצווה ועושה יותר ממי שאינו מצווה ועושה:,ת"ר וכבר שלחה מלכות רומי שני סרדיוטות אצל חכמי ישראל למדונו תורתכם קראו ושנו ושלשו בשעת פטירתן אמרו להם דקדקנו בכל תורתכם ואמת הוא חוץ מדבר זה שאתם אומרים שור של ישראל שנגח שור של כנעני פטור של כנעני שנגח שור של ישראל בין תם בין מועד משלם נזק שלם,ממ"נ אי רעהו דוקא אפילו דכנעני כי נגח דישראל ליפטר ואי רעהו לאו דוקא אפילו דישראל כי נגח דכנעני לחייב ודבר זה אין אנו מודיעים אותו למלכות,רב שמואל בר יהודה שכיבא ליה ברתא אמרו ליה רבנן לעולא קום ניזל נינחמיה אמר להו מאי אית לי גבי נחמתא דבבלאי דגידופא הוא דאמרי מאי אפשר למיעבד הא אפשר למיעבד עבדי,אזל הוא לחודאי גביה א"ל (דברים ב, ב) ויאמר ה' (אל משה) אל תצר את מואב ואל תתגר בם מלחמה וכי מה עלה על דעתו של משה לעשות מלחמה שלא ברשות אלא נשא משה ק"ו בעצמו אמר ומה מדינים שלא באו אלא לעזור את מואב אמרה תורה (במדבר כה, יז) צרור את המדינים והכיתם אותם 38a. bBecause if so,if one whose ox gores a consecrated ox is exempt from liability, blet the verse write thisphrase: b“of another,” with regard tothe case of ba forewarnedox. One could then infer that the owner is exempt from liability in the case of an innocuous ox as well, as the liability with regard to an innocuous ox is less severe than with regard to a forewarned ox. The stating of this exemption specifically in the context of an innocuous ox indicates that the exemption is only concerning the leniency stated in the verse, that if the gored ox belongs to another person, the owner of the belligerent ox is liable to pay only half the cost of the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: With regard to ban ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile,the owner of the belligerent ox is bexemptfrom liability; whereas if a gentile’s ox gores a Jew’s ox, the owner is liable to pay the full cost of the damage. The Sages bsaid:This statement is difficult bwhichever way youlook at it. bIfthe phrase b“of another”is meant in ba precisemanner, and therefore the liability applies only if his ox gores the ox of another Jew, bwhen a gentile’sox bgores that of a Jew he should also be exemptfrom liability. bAnd ifthe phrase b“of another”is bnotmeant in ba precisemanner, then beven when a Jew’sox bgores that of a gentilethe owner of the belligerent ox bshould be liable. /b, bRabbi Abbahu saidthat the reason for this ruling is that bthe verse states: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble [ ivayyatter /i]”(Habakkuk 3:6). This is homiletically interpreted to mean that God bsaw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselvesto fulfill, and bsince they did not fulfillthem, bHe arose and permitted [ ivehittir /i] their money to the Jewish people,so that in certain cases Jews are not liable for damage caused to gentiles., bRabbi Yoḥa saidthat the source for this ihalakhais bfrom here:It is stated in reference to the giving of the Torah: “The Lord came from Sinai and rose from Seir unto them; bHe appeared from Mount Paran”(Deuteronomy 33:2), which is homiletically interpreted to mean: bFromthe time God came from Mount bParan,when giving the Torah, bthe money ofthe gentile nations bappeared,i.e., it was revealed and granted bto the Jewish people. /b, bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ban ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile,the owner of the belligerent ox is bexemptfrom liability. By contrast, with regard to ban ox of a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whetherit was binnocuous or forewarned,the owner of the belligerent ox bpays the fullcost of the bdamage, as it is stated: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld, and made the nations tremble.” Andanother verse bstates: “He appeared from Mount Paran.” /b,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the reason the ibaraitaadds: bAndanother verse bstates,indicating that the first verse is not a sufficient source?,The Gemara explains that this is how the ibaraitais to be understood: bAnd if you would saythat bthisverse: b“He stood and shook the earth” is necessary toexpress bthat which Rav Mattana and Rav Yosefderived from the verse, bcomeand bhearanother source: b“He appeared from Mount Paran,”meaning: bFrom Paran their money appeared to the Jewish people. What is Rav Mattana’sexposition? It is bas Rav Mattana says: “He stood and shook the earth.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah were commanded but did not fulfill,and bHe arose and exiled them from their landon account of their transgressions., bAnd from where mayit bbe inferred that thisterm ivayyatteris a term of exile? It is written here: “And made the nations tremble [ ivayyatter /i]”(Habakkuk 3:6), band it is written there: “ iLenatterupon the earth”(Leviticus 11:21), bwhich is translatedinto Aramaic as: b“To leap upon the earth.”Apparently, the root inun /i, itav /i, ireish /i, common to both words, indicates uprooting from one place to another., bWhat is Rav Yosef’sexposition? It is bas Rav Yosef says: “He stood and shook the earth; He beheld.” What did He see? He saw the seven mitzvot that the descendants of Noah accepted upon themselves and did not fulfill,so bHe arose and permittedtheir prohibitions bto them. /b,The Gemara asks: bDid theythereby bprofit,in that their prohibitions became permitted to them? bIf so, we have found a transgressorwho bis rewarded. Mar, son of Rabbana, says:This is not to say that for them to transgress their mitzvot is no longer a sin; rather, it is bto say that even if they fulfill them, they do not receive reward forfulfilling bthem. /b,The Gemara asks: bButdo they bnotreceive reward for fulfilling those mitzvot? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Meir says: From whereis it derived bthat even a gentile who engages in Torah isconsidered blike a High Priest? The verse stateswith regard to the mitzvot: b“Which if a person does, he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5). It bis not stated:Which if bpriests and Levites and Israelitesdo, they shall live by them, bbut rather: A person,indicating that all people are included. bYou have therefore learned that even a gentile who engages in Torahstudy bisconsidered blike a High Priest. /b,The Sages bsaidin response: Rav Yosef meant that bthey do not receive the reward asdoes bone who is commandedto perform a mitzva band performsit, bbut asdoes bone who is not commandedto perform a mitzva band performsit anyway. bAs Rabbi Ḥanina says:One who is bcommanded and performsa mitzva bis greater thanone who bis not commanded and performsit., bThe Sages taughtthe following story in the context of the aforementioned ihalakha /i: bAnd the Roman kingdom once sent two military officials [ isardeyotot /i] to the Sages of Israel,and ordered them in the name of the king: bTeach us your Torah.The officials breadthe Torah, band repeatedit, bandrepeated it again, reading it for the bthirdtime. bAt the time of their departure, they said tothe Sages: bWe have examined your entire Torah and it is true, except for thisone bmatter that you state,i.e., that with regard to ban ox of a Jew that gored the ox of a gentile,the owner is bexemptfrom liability, whereas with regard to the ox bof a gentile that gored the ox of a Jew, whetherit was binnocuous or forewarned,the owner bpays the fullcost of the bdamage. /b,The officials’ reasoning was that this ihalakhais difficult bwhichever way youlook at it. bIfthe phrase b“of another”is meant in ba precisemanner, that the owners of both oxen must both be Jewish, then beven whenthe ox bof a gentile gores the ox of a Jewthe owner of the ox bshould be exemptfrom liability. bAnd ifthe phrase b“of another”is bnotmeant in ba precisemanner, and the oxen of all are included, then beven whenthe ox bof a Jew gores the ox of a gentilethe owner bshould be liable.They added: bBut we will not inform this matter to the kingdom;having acknowledged that the entire Torah is true, we will not reveal this ruling, as it will displease the kingdom.,§ Incidentally, it is related that bthe daughterof bRav Shmuel bar Yehuda died. The Sages said to Ulla: Arise; let us go console him.Ulla bsaid to them: Whatbusiness bdo I have with the consolation of Babylonians, which isactually bheresy? As, they saywhile consoling mourners: bWhat can be done?This seems to suggest that bif it were possible to dosomething, acting against the Almighty’s decree, bthey would doso, which is tantamount to heresy. Therefore, Ulla declined to accompany the Babylonian Sages.,Ulla therefore bwent toconsole Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda bby himself,and bsaid to him:The verse states: b“And the Lord said to me, do not be at enmity with Moab, neither contend with them in battle”(Deuteronomy 2:9). bWhat entered Moses’s mind,that God had to warn him not to undertake a particular action? Did it enter his mind bto wage warwith the Moabites bwithout permission? Rather, Moses reasoned an ia fortiori /iinference bby himself, saying: And ifwith regard to bthe Midianites, who came only to help the Moabitesharm the Jewish people (see Numbers, chapter 22), bthe Torah said: “Harass the Midianites and smite them”(Numbers 25:17)
13. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

88b. אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שמע מינה מהרה דמרי עלמא תמני מאה וחמשין ותרתי הוא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big גט מעושה בישראל כשר ובעובדי כוכבים פסול ובעובדי כוכבים חובטין אותו ואומרים לו עשה מה שישראל אומרים לך (וכשר):, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר"נ אמר שמואל גט המעושה בישראל כדין כשר שלא כדין פסול ופוסל,ובעובדי כוכבים כדין פסול ופוסל שלא כדין אפי' ריח הגט אין בו,מה נפשך אי עובדי כוכבי' בני עשויי נינהו איתכשורי נמי ליתכשר אי לאו בני עשויי נינהו מיפסל לא ליפסל,אמר רב משרשיא דבר תורה גט מעושה בעובדי כוכבי' כשר ומה טעם אמרו פסול שלא תהא כל אחת ואחת הולכת ותולה עצמה בעובד כוכבי' ומפקעת עצמה מיד בעלה,אי הכי שלא כדין אפי' ריח הגט אין בו ונהוי שלא כדין כישראל ומפסיל נמי לפסול,אלא הא דרב משרשיא בדותא היא,וטעמא מאי כדין בכדין דישראל מיחלף שלא כדין בכדין ישראל לא מיחלף:,אביי אשכחיה לרב יוסף דיתיב וקא מעשה אגיטי א"ל והא אנן הדיוטות אנן ותניא היה ר"ט אומר כל מקום שאתה מוצא אגוריאות של עובדי כוכבים אע"פ שדיניהם כדיני ישראל אי אתה רשאי להיזקק להם שנאמר (שמות כא, א) ואלה המשפטים אשר תשים לפניהם לפניהם ולא לפני עובדי כוכבים דבר אחר לפניהם ולא לפני הדיוטות,א"ל אנן שליחותייהו קא עבדינן מידי דהוה אהודאות והלואות,אי הכי גזילות וחבלות נמי כי עבדינן שליחותייהו במילתא דשכיחא במילתא דלא שכיחא לא עבדינן שליחותייהו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מגורשת הרי זו מגורשת ובלבד שלא יהא שם אמתלא,איזו היא אמתלא גירש איש פלוני את אשתו על תנאי זרק לה קידושיה ספק קרוב לה ספק קרוב לו זו היא אמתלא:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ואסרינן לה אגברא והא אמר רב אשי כל קלא דבתר נישואין לא חיישינן ליה,ה"ק יצא שמה בעיר מקודשת הרי זו מקודשת מקודשת ומגורשת 88b. bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: Learn fromthis numerical value that bsoon [ imehera /i] for the Master of the World is eight hundred and fifty-twoyears, as it is stated in the verse in Deuteronomy: “You will soon [ imaher /i] utterly perish.” Since the Jewish people dwelled in Eretz Yisrael for almost this amount of time, it is apparently considered soon., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to ba bill of divorcethat the husband bwas compelledby the court to write and give his wife, if he was compelled bby a Jewishcourt it is bvalid, butif he was compelled bby gentilesit is binvalid. But with regard to gentiles they may beat himat the request of the Jewish court band say to him: Do what the Jews are telling you, and it is a validdivorce., strongGEMARA: /strong bRav Naḥman saysthat bShmuel says:With regard to ba bill of divorcethat the husband bwas compelled by a Jewishcourt to give his wife, if they did so blawfully,as the ihalakhaobligated the husband to divorce his wife, it is bvalid.This is referring to cases where sexual intercourse is forbidden or specific cases where the Sages instituted that the husband is obligated to divorce his wife. If they did so bunlawfully,the bill of divorce is binvalid, butit is not considered entirely invalid, as it bdisqualifiesthe wife from marrying a priest after her husband’s death., bAndin a case where the husband was compelled bby gentiles,if he was compelled blawfully,the bill of divorce is binvalid, butit also bdisqualifiesthe wife from marrying a priest. But if he was compelled bunlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce,and the wife is not even disqualified from marrying a priest.,The Gemara raises an objection: With regard to the statement that if the husband was compelled by gentiles the divorce is invalid but it also disqualifies the wife from marrying a priest, bwhichever way you look at it,the statement is difficult. bIf gentiles arelegally bcapable of compulsion, it should be rendered validwith regard to the woman’s permission to remarry bas well. If they are notlegally bcapable of compulsion, it should not disqualifyher either., bRav Mesharshiyya says: By Torah law a bill of divorcethat the husband bwas compelled by gentilesto write and give his wife bis valid, and what is the reasonthe Sages bsaidthat it is binvalid?It is bso that each and every woman will not go and depend on a gentileto compel her husband to divorce her through temptation or bribery, bandthereby she will brelease herself from her husbandunlawfully.,The Gemara asks: bIf that is so,that where the husband was compelled by gentiles the bill of divorce is valid by Torah law, why did Shmuel rule that if he was compelled bunlawfully it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce? Leta bill of divorce that the husband was compelled bunlawfullyby gentiles to give his wife bbe compared toa case where he was compelled unlawfully by bJews, and disqualifythe wife from marrying a priest bas well. /b, bRather, thatstatement bof Rav Mesharshiyya,that by Torah law a bill of divorce is valid even if the husband was compelled by gentiles to write it and give it to his wife, bis a mistake.In principle it does not have even the trace of a bill of divorce, even if the husband is required by law to divorce his wife., bAnd what is the reasonthat the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest in this case? It is because the case where the husband was compelled blawfullyby gentiles bcan be confused witha case where he was compelled blawfully by Jews.If a bill of divorce that gentiles compelled the husband to write and give to his wife carries no weight, people might think that this is likewise the ihalakhawith regard to a case where Jews compelled the husband to do so. Therefore, the Sages issued a decree that even if the husband was compelled by gentiles the wife is disqualified from marrying a priest. By contrast, the case where the husband was compelled bunlawfullyby gentiles bcannot be confused witha case where he was compelled blawfully by Jews,as they are too dissimilar. Therefore, a bill of divorce that gentiles unlawfully compelled the husband to write and give his wife is entirely invalid.,§ bAbaye found Rav Yosef sittingin court as the judge band compellinghusbands to give their wives bbills of divorce. He said to him: But aren’t we ordinary people,not ordained judges? bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Tarfon would say:With regard to bany place where you find gentile courts [ iagoriot /i], even if their laws are like Jewish laws, you may not attend them, as it is stated: “Now these are the ordices which you shall set before them”(Exodus 21:1). It is derived from here that one may go to court only bbefore them,i.e., Jewish judges, band not before gentiles. Alternatively,it is derived that one may go to court bbefore them,i.e., ordained judges, band not before ordinary people.Since we are not ordained judges, how can you perform a distinctly judicial act?,Rav Yosef bsaid to him:We see ourselves as agents of the ordained judges in Eretz Yisrael, and bwe are performingour task as judges on the basis of btheir agency, just as isthe case bwith regard tocases of badmissions and loans,which we attend to on the same basis.,The Gemara asks: bIf so,why is the ihalakhathat judges living outside Eretz Yisrael do not judge in cases of brobbery andpersonal binjury?They should judge in these cases bas well.The Gemara answers: bWhen we performour tasks as judges on the basis of btheir agency,it is bwith regard to common matters,e.g., cases that pertain to the ihalakhotof admissions and loans, which arise frequently between people. But bwith regard to uncommon matters,e.g., cases of robbery or personal injury, bwe do not performour tasks as judges on the basis of btheir agency. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong If ba rumor circulated in the citythat an unmarried woman is bbetrothed, she isconsidered to be bbetrothed.Similarly, if a rumor circulated that a married woman is bdivorced, she is divorced, provided there is novalid alternative bexplanation [ iamatla /i]for the rumor., bWhat isconsidered a valid bexplanation?For example, it is a case where there is a rumor that bso-and-so divorced his wifebut that the bill of divorce was given to her bconditionally.It is therefore possible that the condition was not fulfilled and she is not actually divorced. Similarly, if there is a rumor that a woman was betrothed but that the man bthrew her betrothal,i.e., the money or document of betrothal, bto her,and it is buncertainwhether it was bcloser to herand buncertainwhether it was bcloser to him,and therefore the status of their betrothal is likewise uncertain, bthis isconsidered a valid bexplanation. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the statement that a woman who is rumored to be divorced is divorced, bdo we render her forbidden toher bhusbandif she is married to a priest? bBut didn’t Rav Ashi saythat bwe are not concerned about any rumor thatcirculates bafter marriage?Accordingly, a woman should not be compelled to leave her husband merely on the basis of a rumor.,The Gemara answers that bthis is whatthe mishna bis saying:If ba rumor circulated in the citythat a woman is bbetrothed, she is betrothed,and she may not marry another man until she receives a bill of divorce from the man to whom she is rumored to be betrothed. If she is rumored to have been bbetrothedto a certain man bandsubsequently bdivorcedfrom him
14. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

122a. תלתא ריגלי אמר לה רב אדא בר אהבה זיל לקמיה דרב יוסף דחריף סכינא,אזלה קמיה פשט מהא מתניתין עובד כוכבים שהיה מוכר פירות בשוק ואמר פירות הללו של ערלה הן של עזיקה הן של נטע רבעי הן לא אמר כלום לא נתכוון אלא להשביח מקחו,אבא יודן איש ציידן אמר מעשה בישראל ועובד כוכבים שהלכו בדרך ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על יהודי שהיה עמי בדרך שמת בדרך וקברתיו והשיאו אשתו,ושוב מעשה בקולר של בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לאנטוכיא ובא עובד כוכבים אחד ואמר חבל על קולר של בני אדם שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם ושוב מעשה בששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין לכרכום ביתר ובא עובד כוכבים ואמר חבל על ששים בני אדם שהיו מהלכין בדרך ביתר שמתו וקברתים והשיאו את נשותיהם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מעידין לאור הנר ולאור הלבנה ומשיאין על פי בת קול מעשה באחד שעמד על ראש ההר ואמר איש פלוני בן פלוני ממקום פלוני מת הלכו ולא מצאו שם אדם והשיאו את אשתו,ושוב מעשה בצלמון באחד שאמר אני איש פלוני בן איש פלוני נשכני נחש והרי אני מת והלכו ולא הכירוהו והלכו והשיאו את אשתו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר שמואל תנא בית שמאי אומרים אין משיאין על פי בת קול וב"ה אומרים משיאין על פי בת קול מאי קמ"ל מתני׳ היא הא קמ"ל דאי משתכחת סתמא דאין משיאין בית שמאי היא:,והלכו ולא מצאו: ודלמא שד הוה א"ר יהודה אמר רב שראו לו דמות אדם אינהו נמי דמו דחזו ליה בבואה,ואינהו נמי אית להו בבואה דחזו ליה בבואה דבבואה ודלמא לדידהו אית להו בבואה דבבואה אמר רבי חנינא אמר לי יונתן שידא בבואה אית להו בבואה דבבואה לית להו,ודלמא צרה הואי תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל בשעת הסכנה כותבין ונותנין אף על פי שאין מכירין:, big strongמתני' /strong /big אמר רבי עקיבא כשירדתי לנהרדעא לעבר השנה מצאתי נחמיה איש בית דלי אמר לי שמעתי שאין משיאין את האשה בארץ ישראל על פי עד אחד אלא יהודה בן בבא ונומיתי לו כן הדברים אמר לי אמור להם משמי אתם יודעים שהמדינה משובשת בגייסות מקובלני מר"ג הזקן שמשיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד,וכשבאתי והרציתי הדברים לפני ר"ג שמח לדברי ואמר מצאנו חבר לרבי יהודה בן בבא,מתוך הדבר נזכר ר"ג שנהרגו הרוגים בתל ארזא והשיא ר"ג נשותיהן על פי עד אחד והוחזקו להיות משיאין עד מפי עד מפי עבד מפי אשה מפי שפחה ר' אליעזר ורבי יהושע אומרים אין משיאין את האשה על פי עד אחד ר' עקיבא אומר לא ע"פ אשה ולא על פי עבד ולא על פי שפחה ולא על פי קרובים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big וסבר רבי עקיבא ע"פ אשה לא והתניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר משום רבי עקיבא אשה נאמנת להביא גיטה מק"ו ומה נשים שאמרו חכמים אין נאמנות לומר מת בעלה נאמנות להביא גיטיהן זו שנאמנת לומר מת בעלה אינו דין שנאמנת להביא גיטה,נשים שאמרו חכמים הוא דלא מהימני אשה בעלמא מהימנא לא קשיא כאן קודם שהחזיקו כאן לאחר שהחזיקו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אמרו לו מעשה בבני לוי שהלכו לצוער עיר התמרים וחלה אחד מהם והביאוהו בפונדק ובחזרתם אמרו לפונדקית איה חברנו נומית להם מת וקברתיו והשיאו את אשתו ולא תהא כהנת כפונדקית,אמר להו לכשתהא כפונדקית נאמנת הפונדקית הוציאה להם מקלו ותרמילו וספר תורה שהיה בידו: 122a. for bthreepilgrim bFestivals,on which the Sages gather together to study, but he could not resolve this uncertainty on any of those occasions. bRav Adda bar Ahava said to her: Go before Rav Yosef, whose knife is sharp,i.e., he has keen insight into halakhic matters, and ask him to decide your case., bShe went before himand bhe resolvedthe case bbased on this ibaraita /i:With regard to ba gentile who was selling fruit at the market and said: These fruits are from the first three years of the tree’s growth [ iorla /i];or bthey are from Azeka,i.e., land tilled on the Sabbatical Year, the produce of which it is prohibited to eat; or they bare fourth-year produce,which it is prohibited to eat outside of Jerusalem, bhehas bsaid nothingof consequence. His statement is not deemed credible, since it is possible that bhe intended only to enhancethe reputation of bhis goods,as he thought that his produce would fetch a higher price if he described it in that fashion. Rav Yosef derived from this ibaraitathat in the case of the missing Jew, the gentile’s statement could not be relied upon, as he may have stated it only to promote his own agenda., bAbba Yudan of Sidon said: An incidentoccurred binvolving a Jew and a gentile who traveled on the road, andlater bthe gentile came and said: Alas for the Jew who was with me on the road, for he died, and I buried him. Andthe Sages relied upon this statement and ballowed his wife to marry. /b, bAndthere was banother incident involvinga group of bpeople whohad been taken prisoner, each of whom was shackled bwith a collar [ ikolar /i]around his neck, and they bwere walking to Antokhya. Andsome time later ba certain gentile came and said: Alas for thegroup of bcollared people, for they died, and I buried them. Andthe Sages ballowed their wives to marry. Andthere was yet banother incident involving sixty people who were walking to the siege [ ikarkom /i] of Beitar, andlater ba gentile came and said: Alas for those sixty people who were walking on the roadto bBeitar, for they died, and I buried them. Andthe Sages ballowed their wives to marry. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong Witnesses bmay testifythat an individual died even if they saw his corpse only bby candlelight or by moonlight. Andthe court bmay allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voiceproclaiming that her husband died. There was ban incident with regard to a certainindividual bwho stood at the top of a mountain and said: So-and-so, son of so-and-so, from such and such a place died. They went and found no person there, buteven so btheyrelied upon the statement and ballowed the wife ofthe individual declared dead bto marry. /b,And there was banother incident in Tzalmon,a city in the Galilee, bwhere a particularman bsaid: I am so-and-so, son of so-and-so. A snake bit me and I am dying. And they wentand found his corpse bbut could not recognize him,yet bthey wentahead band allowed his wife to marrybased on what he said in his dying moments., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabba bar Shmuel said:It was btaughtin a ibaraitathat bBeit Shammai say:The judges of a court bmay not allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voice;they require actual testimony. bAnd Beit Hillel say:The judges bmay allowa woman bto marry based onthe statement of ba disembodied voice.The Gemara asks: bWhat isRabba bar Shmuel bteaching ushere? bThis issimply bour mishna,since the decisive ruling follows Beit Hillel’s opinion. The Gemara answers that he bteaches us this: That if an anonymousmishna or ibaraita bis foundthat states bthatthe judges bmay not allowa woman bto marryunder such circumstances, bit issimply the opinion of bBeit Shammai,and is not the accepted ruling.,With regard to the incident where btheyheard a disembodied voice but bwent and found noperson there, which is mentioned in the mishna, the Gemara asks: bPerhaps it was a demon. Rav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: They saw that he had the form of a person,so they knew it was not a demon. The Gemara asks: bThey,i.e., demons, balso appear similarto people. The Gemara answers: bThey saw that he had a shadow. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut they also have a shadow.The Gemara answers: It was a case bwhere they saw that he had a shadow of a shadow.The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps they also have a shadow of a shadow? Rabbi Ḥanina said: Yonatan the demonexpert bsaid to me: They have a shadow,but bthey do not have a shadow of a shadow. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd perhaps it was a rivalwife, or some other enemy of that man’s wife, who cried out that her husband was dead and then fled, in order to trick her into disgracing herself by remarrying while her husband was still alive? The Gemara answers: bThe school of Rabbi Yishmael taught: During a period of danger, one may write and givea bill of divorce to a woman, balthoughthe witnesses bdo not knowthe husband, because we do not raise many suspicions at such a time. This case was similar to a period of danger in that they did not find witnesses that her husband died, and therefore the court did not require further clarification., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Akiva said: When I descended to Neharde’a,in Babylonia, bto intercalate the year, I foundthe Sage bNeḥemya of Beit D’li. He said to me: I heard thatthe Sages bin Eretz Yisrael do not allow a woman to remarry based onthe testimony of ba single witness, except for Yehuda ben Bava. And I told him: That is so. He said to me: Tellthe Sages bin my name: You know that the country is confounded byarmy btroops,and I cannot come myself. I declare that bI received this tradition from Rabban Gamliel the Elder, thatthe court bmay allow a woman to remarry based onthe testimony of ba single witness. /b,Rabbi Akiva continues: bAnd when I came and presented the matter before Rabban Gamlielof Yavne, the grandson of Rabban Gamliel the Elder, bhe rejoiced at my words and said: We have found a companionwho agrees bwith Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava,and since his lenient opinion is no longer the opinion of a lone Sage, it may now be relied upon., bAs a result of this event, Rabban Gamliel remembered that people were murdered in Tel Arza, and Rabban Gamlielthen ballowed their wives to remarry based ononly bone witness. Andfrom then onward bthey establishedas protocol bto allowa woman bto remarry based on hearsay testimony, a slave’s testimony, a woman’s testimony,or ba maidservant’s testimony. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua say:The court bmay not allow a woman to remarry based ononly bone witness. Rabbi Akiva says:The court may bnotallow a woman to marry bbased onthe testimony of ba woman, nor based onthe testimony of ba slave, nor based onthe testimony of ba maidservant, nor based onthe testimony of bclose relatives. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bDoes Rabbi Akiva holdthat the court may bnotallow a woman to remarry bbased onanother bwoman’s testimony? But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: A woman is trusted to bring herown bbill of divorceand affirm in court that it was written and signed properly, and that trust is bbased onthe following ia fortiori /iinference: bIf women,e.g., a rival wife, bwhom the Sages said are not deemed credible to saythat another woman’s bhusband died, arenevertheless btrusted to bringtheir bbills of divorce,then bis it not logical that thiswoman herself, bwho is deemed credible to saythat bher husband died, should be trusted to bring herown bbill of divorce? /b,This statement indicates that according to Rabbi Akiva, bit isspecifically bthe women who the Sages mentioned who are not deemed credible. In general, a woman is deemed credible,and another woman is permitted to remarry on the basis of her testimony. The Gemara answers: bThisis bnot difficult. Here,where Rabbi Akiva disqualified the testimony of a woman, it was bbefore they establishedthe protocol that a woman may be permitted to remarry on the basis of another woman’s testimony. bThere,where he allowed it, it was bafter they establishedthat protocol., strongMISHNA: /strong bThey said toRabbi Akiva: Do we not rely upon a woman’s testimony? After all, ban incident occurred involving Levites who traveled to Tzoar, the city of date palms. And one of them became ill, and they brought him to an inn [ ipundak /i]to rest, while they continued on their travels. bUpon their returnto the inn bthey said to the innkeeper,who was a woman: bWhere is our friend? She told them: He died, and I buried him. Andbased on her testimony bthey allowed his wife to remarry. And shouldn’t a priestess,or any Jewish woman who testifies that a man died, bbedeemed as credible bas an innkeeper? /b,Rabbi Akiva bsaid to them: Whena woman bwill be asconvincing as bthe innkeeper,then bshe shallalso bbe deemed credible. The innkeeper brought them his staff, and his bag, and the Torah scroll that was in his possession,thereby providing supporting evidence to reinforce her claim.
15. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 26 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
arab/arabic Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
aramaic Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
archaeology, arch(a)eological Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
archives Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
babata Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
citizenship, roman Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
constitutio antoniniana (caracallas edict) Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
cornelius Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
divorce bill Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
gentile Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
greek, language Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
hebrew language Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
hebrew script (ancient) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
idolatry Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
judea (region) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
land of israel (palestine) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
law, roman law Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
legal concepts, roman legal concepts Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
matrimonial formulae Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
midrash Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
nabataean Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
peter (cephas, simon –) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
purity (see also food laws) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
rabbis, as romans Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
roman law, jewish use of judicial system Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
roman law, legal concepts Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
romanization, impact and responses to Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
rome, citizenship Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
self-definition, perfect law as defining chosenness Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355
shimon ben elazar Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
tannaic midrash' Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 168
tora, as perfect Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 355