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



8037
Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.3


מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה:Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.


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

22 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 20.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

20.20. Only the trees of which thou knowest that they are not trees for food, them thou mayest destroy and cut down, that thou mayest build bulwarks against the city that maketh war with thee, until it fall."
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 10.22, 22.21, 38.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

10.22. בְּנֵי שֵׁם עֵילָם וְאַשּׁוּר וְאַרְפַּכְשַׁד וְלוּד וַאֲרָם׃ 22.21. אֶת־עוּץ בְּכֹרוֹ וְאֶת־בּוּז אָחִיו וְאֶת־קְמוּאֵל אֲבִי אֲרָם׃ 38.24. וַיְהִי כְּמִשְׁלֹשׁ חֳדָשִׁים וַיֻּגַּד לִיהוּדָה לֵאמֹר זָנְתָה תָּמָר כַּלָּתֶךָ וְגַם הִנֵּה הָרָה לִזְנוּנִים וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוּדָה הוֹצִיאוּהָ וְתִשָּׂרֵף׃ 10.22. The sons of Shem: Elam, and Asshur, and Arpachshad, and Lud, and Aram." 22.21. Uz his first-born, and Buz his brother, and Kemuel the father of Aram;" 38.24. And it came to pass about three months after, that it was told Judah, saying: ‘Tamar thy daughter-in-law hath played the harlot; and moreover, behold, she is with child by harlotry.’ And Judah said: ‘Bring her forth, and let her be burnt.’"
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

18.3. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשׂוּ לִפְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃ 18.3. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ׃ 18.3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes."
4. Hebrew Bible, 1 Chronicles, 2.9 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

2.9. וּבְנֵי חֶצְרוֹן אֲשֶׁר נוֹלַד־לוֹ אֶת־יְרַחְמְאֵל וְאֶת־רָם וְאֶת־כְּלוּבָי׃ 2.9. The sons also of Hezron, that were born unto him: Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Chelubai."
5. Anon., Jubilees, 34.20, 41.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

34.20. and Dinah also, his daughter, died after Joseph had perished. And there came these three mournings upon Israel in one month. 41.1. And in the forty-fifth jubilee, in the second week, (and) in the second year, Judah took for his first-born Er, a wife from the daughters of Aram, named Tamar.
6. Anon., Testament of Judah, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE)

7. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 2 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE)

8. Livy, History, 29.10-29.11 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)

9. Philo of Alexandria, On The Virtues, 221 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

221. for Tamar was a woman from Syria Palestina, who had been bred up in her own native city, which was devoted to the worship of many gods, being full of statues, and images, and, in short, of idols of every kind and description. But when she, emerging, as it were, out of profound darkness, was able to see a slight beam of truth, she then, at the risk of her life, exerted all her energies to arrive at piety, caring little for life if she could not live virtuously; and living virtuously was exactly identical with living for the service of and in constant supplication to the one true God.
10. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.1, 1.5, 2.5, 3.1, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.1. On the three days preceding the festivals of idolaters, it is forbidden to conduct business with them, to lend articles to them or borrow from them, to lend or borrow any money from them, to repay a debt, or receive repayment from them. Rabbi Judah says: we should receive repayment from them, as this can only depress them; But they [the Rabbis] said to him: even though it is depressing at the time, they are glad of it subsequently." 1.5. The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters." 2.5. Rabbi Judah said: Rabbi Ishmael put this question to Rabbi Joshua as they were walking on the way, “Why have they forbidden the cheese of non-Jews?” He replied, because they curdle it with the rennet of a nevelah (an animal that was not properly slaughtered.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said: “but is not the rennet of a burnt-offering more strictly forbidden than the rennet of a nevelah? [and yet] it was said that a priest who is not fastidious may suck it out raw.” (Though the Sages disagreed with this opinion, and they said that no benefit may be derived from it, although one who consumed it did not trespass [temple property). Rabbi Joshua responded: “The reason then is because they curdle it with the rennet from calves sacrificed to idols.” He (Rabbi Ishmael) said to him: “if that be so, why do they not extend the prohibition to any benefit derived from it?” He (Rabbi Joshua) diverted him to another matter, saying: “Ishmael, how do you read for your [masc.] love is more delightful than wine” or “your [fem.] love etc. (Song of Songs 1:2” He replied: “your [fem.] love is better …” He said to him: this is not so, as it is proved by its fellow [-verse]: your ointments [masc.] have a goodly fragrance … [therefore do the maidens love you] (Song of Songs 1:3).”" 3.1. All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited]." 3.3. If one finds utensils upon which is the figure of the sun or moon or a dragon, he casts them into the Dead Sea. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: if [one of these figures] is upon precious utensils they are prohibited, but if upon common utensils they are permitted. Rabbi Yose says: he may grind [an idol] to powder and scatter it to the wind or throw it into the sea. They said to him, even so it may then become manure, as it says, “let nothing that has been proscribed stick to your hand (Deuteronomy 13:18)”."
11. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.7. They testified concerning the boards of bakers, that they are impure (they can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares them pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified concerning an oven which was cut into rings and sand was put between the rings that it is impure (can receive impurity), whereas Rabbi Eliezer declares it pure (unable to receive impurity). They testified that the year may be intercalated throughout the whole of Adar, whereas they used to say: only until Purim. They testified that the year may be intercalated conditionally. There was such a case with Rabban Gamaliel who went to receive permission from the governor in Syria and he delayed in coming back; and they intercalated the year on condition that rabban gamaliel should approve; and when he came back he said: I approve, and the year was intercalated."
12. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9.2. If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or [he intended to kill] a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or [if he intended to kill] a prematurely born child [who was bound to die in any case] and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill [when struck] on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill [an adult], but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: “Even if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable."
13. Mishnah, Shekalim, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.6. Rabbi Shimon said: there were seven things that the court decree and that was one of them. [The others were the following:]A non-Jew who sent a burnt-offering from overseas and he sent with it its libation-offerings, they are offered out of his own; But if [he did] not [send its libation-offerings], they should be offered out of public funds. So too [in the case of] a convert who had died and left sacrifices, if he had also left its libation-offerings they are offered out of his own; But if not, they should be offered out of public funds. It was also a condition laid down by the court in the case of a high priest who had died that his minhah should be offered out of public funds. Rabbi Judah says: [it was offered out] of the property of his heirs, And had to be offered of the whole [tenth]."
14. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 2.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

2.8. If one found there lost property, If the majority [of the inhabitants] were non-Jews, he need not proclaim it; If the majority were Israelites, he must proclaim it; If they were half and half, he must [also] proclaim it. If one found bread there we must consider who form the majority of the bakers. If it was bread of clean flour, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat bread of pure flour. Rabbi Judah says: if it was coarse bread, we must consider who form the majority of those who eat coarse bread."
15. New Testament, Matthew, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

1.3. Judah became the father of Perez and Zerah by Tamar. Perez became the father of Hezron. Hezron became the father of Ram.
16. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

2.13. “A man who had a seminal emission (Baal Keri) who does not have water to dip in may read the Shema, but he may not [read it loud enough so that he can] hear [himself talking] with his own ear, and does not say the Beracha (blessing) not before it and not after it.” [These are] the words of Rebbi Meir. And the Chachamim (Sages) say, ”He may read the Shema and he may [read it loud enough so that he can] hear [himself talking] with his own ear, and he says the Beracha [both] before it and after it.” Rebbi Meir said, “One time we were sitting in the Bet Midrash (Study Hall) in front of Rebbi Akiva and we were reading the Shema, but we were not saying it loud enough to be able to hear ourselves, because of one inquisitor who was standing by the door.” They (i.e. Chachamim) said [back] to him, “The time of danger is not a proof.”"
17. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

18. Tosefta, Shevi It, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

19. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

20. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה 21b. bora case where he prayed as part of ba congregation andbegan to repeat it as part of ba congregation; however,in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that ban individual vis-à-vis the congregation isconsidered bas one who has not prayed.Therefore, bhe taught usthat in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. bAnd,on the other hand, bif he had taught us hereonly with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is bbecause he did notyet bbeginto recite the prayer, bbut there, in the case where healready bbeganto recite the prayer, bsaythat this is bnotthe case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are bnecessary. /b, bRav Huna said: One whodid not yet pray and benters a synagogue and found that the congregation isin the midst of brecitingthe iAmida bprayer, if he is able to begin and completehis own prayer bbefore the prayer leader reachesthe blessing of bthanksgiving [ imodim /i], he shouldbegin to bpray, and, if not, he should notbegin to bpray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and completehis prayer bbefore the prayer leader reaches sanctification [ ikedusha /i], then he shouldbegin to bpray. If not, then he should notbegin to bpray. /b,The Gemara clarifies: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The basis for their dispute is that one bSage,Rav Huna, bholds: An individualis permitted to brecite ikedusha /ion his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; bandthe other bSage,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, bholdsthat ban individual may not recite ikedusha /ialone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches ikedusha /i., bSimilarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated,in accordance with the second opinion: bFrom where is it derived that an individual may not recite ikedusha /ialone? bAs it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel”(Leviticus 22:32), bany expression of sanctity may not berecited in a quorum of bfewer than tenmen.,The Gemara asks: bHow is this inferredfrom that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a ibaraita /i, bwhich was taught by Rabbenai, the brotherof bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferredby means of a verbal analogy [ igezera shava /i] between the words bamong, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there,regarding Korah’s congregation, bit is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation”(Numbers 16:21). bJust as thereamong connotes bten, so too here,among connotes bten.The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten., bAnd, in any case, everyoneagrees that bone may not interrupthis prayer in order to respond to ikedusha /i.,However, ba dilemma was raisedbefore the Sages of the yeshiva: bWhat isthe ruling? Is one permitted bto interrupthis prayer in order btorecite: b“May His great name be blessed”in ikaddish /i? bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupthis prayer bfor anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as evenif one was bengaged inthe exalted study of the bAct of theDivine bChariot[iMa’aseh Merkava /i](see Ezekiel 1) bhe stopsto recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: bThe ihalakhais not in accordance with hisopinion.,We learned in the mishna that bRabbi Yehuda sayswith regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; bhe recites a blessing beforehand and afterwardin both the case of iShemaand in the case of food. The Gemara asks: bIs that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permittedto engage bin matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From wherein the Torah is it derived bthat one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging bin matters of Torah? As it is stated:“Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, band you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. bAnd, juxtaposed to it,is the verse: b“The day that you stoodbefore the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that bjust as below,at the revelation at Mount Sinai, bthose who experienced a seminal emission were prohibitedand were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, bso too here,throughout the generations, bthose who experience a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom engaging in Torah study., bAnd if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses, bdidn’t Rav Yosefalready say: bEven one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses throughout bthe entire Torah,nevertheless, bderivesthem bin Deuteronomy [ iMishne Torah /i], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposedverses bthroughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in iMishne Torah /i. /b, bAnd from where do we derivethat Rabbi Yehuda bdoes not derive homiletic interpretationsfrom juxtaposed verses bthroughout the entire Torah? As it was taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the punishment of a sorceress, bben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live”(Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, band it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death”(Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah bjuxtaposed this matter to thatwas bto say: Just as one who lies with a beastis executed bby stoning(see Leviticus 20), bso too a sorceressis executed bby stoning. /b,With regard to this proof bRabbi Yehuda said to him: And doesthe fact bthatthe Torah bjuxtaposed this matter to that warrant takingthis person bout to be stoned?Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis bRather,the source is: bMediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled outfrom the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to bdraw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizardare executed bby stoning, so too is a sorceressexecuted bby stoning. /b, bAnd from where do we derivethat Rabbi Yehuda bderives homiletic interpretationsfrom juxtaposed verses bin iMishne Torah /i? As it was taughtin another ibaraita /i: bRabbi Eliezer said that a manmay bweda woman braped by his father andone bseduced by his father;a woman braped by his son andone bseduced by his son.Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them., bAnd Rabbi Yehuda prohibitshim from marrying ba woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel saidthat bRav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’sopinion? bAs it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt”(Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: bA skirt that has been seen by his father,i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, bmay not be uncoveredby his son, i.e., his son may not marry her., bAnd from wheredo we know bthatthe verse bis written with regard to a woman raped by his father? Asthe previous section, bjuxtaposed to it,deals with the laws of rape: b“And the man who lay with her must giveher father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? bThey replied: Indeed, in iMishne Torah /iRabbi Yehuda bdoes derive homiletic interpretationsfrom the juxtaposition of verses, bbuthe requires bthese juxtaposed versesin order btoderive banotherstatement of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to himcredit bas if he receivedthe Torah bfrom Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9) bafter which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.”Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah., bWe learnedin a mishna that ba izavwho experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercoursewith her husband band she sawmenstrual bblood,all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless brequire ritual immersionin order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. bAnd Rabbi Yehuda exemptsthem from immersion.,However, bRabbi Yehuda only exemptedfrom immersion in the case bof a izavwho experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset,as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the izav /i. bBut,in the case of bone who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda brequiresimmersion before he may engage in Torah matters., bAnd if you say: The same is true evenin the case of bone who experienced a seminal emission alone,that bRabbi Yehuda also exemptshim from immersion, band the fact that they disagreein the case of ba izavwho experienced a seminal emissionand not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone bis in order to convey the far-reachingnature of the opinion bof the Rabbis,who require immersion even in this case. If so, bsay the last caseof that same mishna: bA woman who was engaged in intercourse and she sawmenstrual bblood requires immersion. /b,The Gemara seeks to clarify: bIn accordance with whoseopinion bwas thiscase in the mishna btaught? If you saythat it is in accordance with the opinion of bthe Rabbis, that is obvious; ifin the case of ba izavwho experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset,when he experienced the seminal emission, bthe Rabbisnevertheless brequire immersion, all the more sowouldn’t they require immersion for ba woman who engaged in intercourse andonly then bsaw blood,who bwas fit to immerse herself from the outset,when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? bRather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’sopinion, bandthis case bwas taught specificallyin order to teach
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

56a. בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי,נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין,והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא עד שיברך שם בשם,מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם וגו' בנקבו שם יומת,ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב (במדבר כג, ח) מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כב, כז) אלהים לא תקלל,ואימא מיברז הוא דכתיב (מלכים ב יב, י) ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם,בעינא שם בשם וליכא,ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע,אימא פרושי שמיה הוא דכתיב (במדבר א, יז) ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא,חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה,ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יא) ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא,ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (ויקרא כד, יד) הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא,תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף,והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם,אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר,דתניא (ויקרא כד, טו) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר,וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה,ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב,מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי,ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל,ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם,איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי 56a. bOn every dayof a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges bjudge the witnesses,i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use ban appellationfor the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: bLet Yosei smite Yosei,as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.,When bthe judgment is over,and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, bthey do not sentencehim bto death based onthe testimony of the witnesses in which they used ban appellationfor the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. bRather, they remove allthe bpeoplewho are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges binterrogate the eldest ofthe witnesses, band say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he saysexactly what he heard. bAnd the judges stand on their feet and make a tearin their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. bAnd they do notever fully bstitchit back together again., bAnd the secondwitness bsays: I tooheard bas hedid, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. bAnd the thirdwitness, in the event that there is one, bsays: I tooheard bas hedid. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary., strongGEMARA: /strong The Sage btaughtin a ibaraita /i: A blasphemer is not liable bunless he blesses,a euphemism for curses, the bnameof God bwiththe bnameof God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where is this matterderived? bShmuel says:It is derived from that bwhich the verse states: “And he who blasphemes [ ivenokev /i] the nameof the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, bwhen he blasphemes [ ibenokvo /i] the name, he shall be put to death”(Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.,The Gemara asks: bFrom whereis it derived bthat thisword inokevis a term for blessing,i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: b“How shall I curse [ iekkov /i] whom God has not cursed?”(Numbers 23:8). bAndthe bprohibitionagainst cursing God is derived bfrom here: “You shall not curse God”(Exodus 22:27).,The Gemara asks: bBut saythat perhaps the meaning of inokev bisnot cursing, but rather bmaking a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole [ ivayyikkov /i] in its lid”(II Kings 12:10). According to this, the word inokevis referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. bAndthe bprohibitionagainst doing so is derived bfrom here: “And you shall destroy their nameout of that place. bYou shall not do so to the Lord your God”(Deuteronomy 12:3–4).,The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of inokevthat for one to be liable, it is bnecessarythat his transgression involve the bnameof God bwiththe bnameof God, bandsuch a transgression is bnotpossible if the reference is to making a hole.,The Gemara challenges: bBut say thatsuch a transgression is possible, as one can bplace twowritten bnamesof God, bone on top of the other, and tearthrough bthemat once. The Gemara explains: bThatwould be defined as bmaking a hole and again making a hole,not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: bBut say thatone can betchthe bnameof God bon the point of a knife and cutthrough another name bwith it.The Gemara answers: In bthatcase, bit is the point of the knife that is cutting,not the name of God.,The Gemara asks: bSaythat inokevmeans the butterance of theineffable bname ofGod. bAs it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out [ inikkevu /i] by name”(Numbers 1:17). bAndthe bprohibitionto do so is derived bfrom here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God”(Deuteronomy 6:13).,The Gemara answers: bOneanswer is bthatfor one to be liable, it is bnecessarythat his transgression involve the bnameof God bwiththe bnameof God, bandsuch a transgression is bnotpossible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. bFurthermore,the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” bis a prohibitionstated as ba positive mitzva, and a prohibitionstated as ba positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition. /b,The Gemara presents an alternative proof that inokevis referring to cursing: bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bthe verse states: “Andthe son of the Israelite woman bblasphemed [ ivayyikkov /i]the name band cursed”(Leviticus 24:11). bThat is to say thatthe meaning of inokevisto bcurse. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut perhapsthis verse does not prove that the meaning of inokevis to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed bunless he does both,i.e., both inokevand cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall bnot enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed… /band stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), band it is not written: Bring forth the inokevand one who cursed. Conclude from itthat bit is oneact and not two.,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: bOne [ iish /i]who curses his God. bWhymust bthe verse state: “Anyone [ iish ish /i]”?It is bto include the gentiles, who are prohibited from blessing,i.e., cursing, bthe nameof God, just blike Jewsare. bAnd they are executedfor this transgression bby the sword alone, as all deathpenalties bstated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut is this ihalakha bderived from here?Rather, bit is derived from there:“And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a ibaraitathat will soon be quoted at length: b“The Lord,” thisis referring to bthe blessing,i.e., cursing, bof the nameof God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity., bRav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says:The verse “anyone who curses his God” bis necessary only to includegentiles who curse God using bthe appellationsfor the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, bandthis is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rabbi Meir. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhymust bthe verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death”(Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, bsince it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the nameof the Lord bshall be put to death,”one bmighthave thought that one bwill be liable only forcursing bthe ineffable nameof God. bFrom whereis it derived that the verse bincludesone who curses bany of the appellationsas well? bThe verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,”to indicate that one is liable to be executed bin any case.This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. /b, bAnd the Rabbis say: Forcursing bthe ineffable nameof God, one is punished bby death, and forcursing bthe appellations,one is liable to receive lashes bforviolating ba prohibition. /b,The Gemara comments: bAndRav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, gentiles are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, bdisagrees withthe opinion of bRav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God byone of the bappellations is liableto be executed even baccording tothe opinion of bthe Rabbis. /b, bWhat is the reason?It is bbecause the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn,when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that bit isonly in the case of ba convert or a homebornJew bthat we requirethe condition: b“When he blasphemes the name,”i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. bBut a gentileis liable to be executed beven due tomerely cursing ban appellation. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd what does Rabbi Meir do with thispart of the verse: b“The convert as well as the homeborn”?What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that ba convert or a homebornJew is liable to be executed bby stoningfor this transgression, bbut a gentileis executed bby the sword.This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might benter your mind to saythat bsincegentiles bare includedin the ihalakhotof this verse, bthey are includedin all the ihalakhotof blasphemy. Therefore the verse bteaches usthat they are not stoned.,The Gemara asks: bAnd what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with thispart of the verse: b“The convert as well as the homeborn,” according tothe opinion bof the Rabbis,since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a gentile liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that bit isspecifically with regard to ba convert and a homebornJew bthat we requirethe condition that he curse ba nameof God bby a nameof God; bbutwith regard to ba gentile, we do not requirethat he curse ba nameof God bby a nameof God in order for him to be liable.,The Gemara asks: bWhy do Ineed the inclusive term b“anyonewho curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a gentile is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No ihalakhais derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as bthe Torah spoke in the language of people. /b,§ Since the ihalakhotof the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe descendants of Noah,i.e., all of humanity, bwere commandedto observe bseven mitzvot:The mitzva of establishing courts of bjudgment; andthe prohibition against bblessing,i.e., cursing, bthe nameof God; and the prohibition of bidol worship;and the prohibition against bforbidden sexual relations; andthe prohibition of bbloodshed; andthe prohibition of brobbery; andthe prohibition against eating ba limb from a livinganimal.
22. Justinian, Digest, 48.9.9 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abandoned child Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
adultery, punishment Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
albeck, h. Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59, 235
apocalyptic literature and thought Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
apostate town Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
aqiba Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 129, 150, 235
arena Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
authority Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
barber Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
bath-house Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
ben bathyra Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 150
body hair Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
border-areas/frontier Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
bread Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
buying and/or selling Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59, 154
canaanite slaves Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59, 154
carrying Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
cheese Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
children Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59
cicero Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
citizenship Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
city/town Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
class Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
court Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59
criminalization Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
crucifixion Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
damages (injury) Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 154
danby, h. Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
dangerous gentile Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
death-bound subjects Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
death penalty, axe Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, burning Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, crucifixion Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, drowning in a sack Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, mauling Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, status of convict Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, stoning Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
death penalty, strangulation Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
divorce Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 59
eliezer Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 129, 235
eliezer b. jacob Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 150
epstein, j. Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 235
eschatology, as colonial mimicry Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
execution, public Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
execution Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55; Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
exegesis Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148
fantasy Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 55
fingernails Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
fornication, punishment Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
hair covering Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
hebrew, h-r-g Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 179
hermeneutic, of passivity Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148
hermeneutic, rabbinic Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148, 149
hierarchization Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
imperialism roman, x Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55, 149
ius civile Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
ius gentium Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
lex iulia de adulteris Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
lime Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
military Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
mimicry Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54
mishnah Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 148, 149
nazirite Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
passivity Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148, 149
poverty Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
protevangelium of james, exile Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
protevangelium of james, financial Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
punishment Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
rabbi judah Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148, 149
rabbinic literature Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
resistance Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
revelation, book of Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
rhetoric Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148
roman empire culture of spectacle of Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
roman empire government of Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
roman empire social structure within Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 55
roman law Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 181
sentries Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
sibylline oracles Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 54, 55
slavery Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
status Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
stereotyping Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148
sword Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148, 149
tamar (daughter-in-law of judah), daughter of aram Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 179
tamar (daughter-in-law of judah), daughter of mardi Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 179
tamar (daughter-in-law of judah), daughter of shem Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 179
thug Williams, Criminalization in Acts of the Apostles Race, Rhetoric, and the Prosecution of an Early Christian Movement (2023) 79
torah Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 148, 149
violence fantasies of Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 55
violence legitimation of Boustan Janssen and Roetzel, Violence, Scripture, and Textual Practices in Early Judaism and Christianity (2010) 55
vow Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81
werman, cana Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 179
women, captive' Rosen-Zvi, The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash (2012) 81