Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

8047

Mishnah, Zevahim, 2.2-2.3
הַשּׁוֹחֵט אֶת הַזֶּבַח לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ בַחוּץ, לְהַקְטִיר אֶת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו בַּחוּץ, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ בַחוּץ אוֹ לֶאֱכֹל כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה בַחוּץ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. לִזְרֹק דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת דָּמוֹ לְמָחָר, לְהַקְטִיר אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר אוֹ מִקְצָת אֵמוּרָיו לְמָחָר, לֶאֱכֹל בְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַזַּיִת מִבְּשָׂרוֹ לְמָחָר אוֹ כַּזַּיִת מֵעוֹר הָאַלְיָה לְמָחָר, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת: One who slaughters a sacrifice [intending]: To sprinkle its blood outside [the Temple] or part of its blood outside; To burn its innards or part of its innards outside; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh outside, Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of the fat-tail outside, It is invalid, but it does not involve karet. [One he slaughters a sacrifice intending]: To sprinkle its blood or part of its blood the next day, To burn its innards or part of its innards on the next day; To eat its flesh or as much as an olive of its flesh on the next day; Or to eat as much as an olive of the skin of its fat-tail on the next day, It is piggul, and involves kareth.
זֶה הַכְּלָל, כָּל הַשּׁוֹחֵט וְהַמְקַבֵּל וְהַמְהַלֵּךְ וְהַזּוֹרֵק, לֶאֱכֹל דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לֶאֱכֹל, לְהַקְטִיר דָּבָר שֶׁדַּרְכּוֹ לְהַקְטִיר, חוּץ לִמְקוֹמוֹ, פָּסוּל וְאֵין בּוֹ כָרֵת. חוּץ לִזְמַנּוֹ, פִּגּוּל וְחַיָּבִין עָלָיו כָּרֵת, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיִּקְרַב הַמַּתִּיר כְּמִצְוָתוֹ: This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.

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

11 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 17.11 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) 17.11. כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי־הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר׃ 17.11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life."
2. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 8.1. He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]."
3. Mishnah, Bikkurim, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 3.3. Those who lived near [Jerusalem] would bring fresh figs and grapes, while those who lived far away would bring dried figs and raisins. An ox would go in front of them, his horns bedecked with gold and with an olive-crown on its head. The flute would play before them until they would draw close to Jerusalem. When they drew close to Jerusalem they would send messengers in advance, and they would adorn their bikkurim. The governors and chiefs and treasurers [of the Temple] would go out to greet them, and according to the rank of the entrants they would go forth. All the skilled artisans of Jerusalem would stand up before them and greet them saying, “Our brothers, men of such and such a place, we welcome you in peace.”"
4. Mishnah, Kelim, 25.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 25.9. Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention."
5. Mishnah, Kilayim, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 9.5. Sellers of clothes may sell [clothes made of kilayim] in accordance with their custom, as long as they do have not the intention in the sun, [to protect themselves] from the sun, or in the rain [to protect themselves] from the rain. The scrupulous hang [such materials or garments] on a stick over their backs."
6. Mishnah, Peah, 6.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 6.11. One who harvests by night and binds sheaves [by night] or one who is blind [that which he leaves] is subject to the law of the “forgotten.” If he intends to remove large leaves first, then the law of “forgotten” does not apply. If he said: “Behold, I am reaping on the condition that I take afterwards that which I have forgotten,” the law of “forgotten” still applies."
7. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 4.10. [If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them."
8. Mishnah, Zevahim, 1.1, 2.1, 2.3, 9.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 1.1. All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their owners’ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). [This is true for] a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat [slaughtered] not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if [slaughtered] not in its own name." 2.1. All sacrifices whose blood was caught by a: non-priest, an onen, a tebul yom, one lacking [priestly] vestments, one lacking sacrificial atonement, one who had not washed his hands and feet, an uncircumcised [priest]; an unclean [priest]; one who was sitting, one who was standing on utensils or on an animal or on another’s feet, are disqualified. If [the priest] caught [the blood] with his left hand, it is disqualified. Rabbi Shimon declares it valid. If the blood was poured out on to the pavement and [the priest] collected it, it is disqualified. If [the priest] put it [the blood] on the ramp [to the altar], [or on the altar, but] not against its base; if he applied [the blood] which should be applied below [the scarlet line] above [it] or that which should be applied above, below, or that which should be applied within [he applied] without, or that which should be applied without [he applied] within, it is invalid, but does not involve karet." 2.3. This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives [the blood], or carries [it] or sprinkles [it] [intending] to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn [on the altar] as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, [the sacrifice] is invalid, but it does not involve karet; [Intending to eat or burn] after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law." 9.1. The altar sanctifies whatever is eligible for it. Rabbi Joshua says: whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it has ascended, as it is said, “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:: just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar fire, does not descend once it has ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar fire does not descend once it ascended. Rabbi Gamaliel said: whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended, as it is said: “The olah itself shall remain where it is burned upon the altar [all night until morning, while the fire of the altar is kept going on it]” (Leviticus 6:2): just as the olah, which is eligible for the altar, does not descend once it ascended, so whatever is eligible for the altar does not descend once it ascended. The only difference between Rabban Gamaliel and Rabbi Joshua is in respect of the blood and libations, for Rabban Gamaliel says that they cannot descend, while Rabbi Joshua says that they can descend. Rabbi Shimon says: if the sacrifice is fit while the libations [which accompanied it] are unfit; or if the libations are fit while the sacrifice is unfit; or even if both are unfit, the sacrifice does not descend, while the libations do descend."
9. Mishnah, Shekalim, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) 3.3. [The members] of Rabban Gamaliel’s household used to enter [the chamber] with their shekel between their fingers, and throw it in front of him who made the appropriation, while he who made the appropriation purposely pressed it into the basket. He who made the appropriation did not make it until he first said to them: “Should I make the appropriation?” And they say to him three times: “Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation! Make the appropriation!”"
10. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 3.5-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) 3.5. If one moistened [produce] with drying clay: Rabbi Shimon says: if there was still in it dripping liquid, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’; But if there was not, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one sprinkled his threshing-floor with water, he need not be concerned lest wheat be put there and it become moist. If one gathered grass with the dew still on it in order to moisten wheat with it, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, But if his intention was for this purpose, it does come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one carried wheat to be milled and rain came down upon it and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped [on his way]." 3.6. If his olives were put on the roof and rain came down upon them and he was glad of it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah said: one cannot help being glad of it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he plugged up the gutter or if he shook the water [onto the olives]." 3.7. If donkey-drivers were crossing a river and their sacks [filled with produce] fell into the water and they were happy about it, it comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if they turned over [the sacks]. If one's feet were full of clay, similarly, the feet of his beast, and he crossed a river and he was happy about it, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. Rabbi Judah says: one cannot help being happy about it. Rather, [it comes under the law] only if he stopped and rinsed off his [feet] or those of his [domesticated] beast. But with an unclean [beast] it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness." 3.8. If one lowered wheels or the gear of oxen into water at the time of the hot east wind in order that they might become tightened, this comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. If one took down a beast to drink, the water which came up on its mouth comes under the law of ‘if water be put’, but that which came up on its feet does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’. If he intended that its feet should be washed, even the water that came up on its feet comes under the law of ‘if water be put’. At the time of footsoreness or of threshing it always causes susceptibility to uncleanness. If a deaf-mute, an imbecile or a minor took it down, even though his intention was that its feet should be washed, it does not come under the law of ‘if water be put’, because with these the act alone counts, but not the intention."
11. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

Subjects of this text:

subject	book bibliographic info
action,versus substances	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
agency	Eilberg-Schwartz (1986), The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention, 223
agent	Eilberg-Schwartz (1986), The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention, 223
altar (mizbeah)̣,and burning/ashes	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
bertinoro	Eilberg-Schwartz (1986), The Human Will in Judaism: The Mishnah's Philosophy of Intention, 223
blood,taboo on,treatment of	Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 193
blood	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
bones	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235
burning (haqtara)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
christianity	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235
dedication	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
detergent'	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
distribution	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
eating (akhilah)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
extirpation (karet)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
gilders,william	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
grain offerings	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
hide	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
idolatry,in the mishnah	Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 18
intention,versus action	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
meat,and blood	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
meat,versus suet	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
mediterranean,sacrifice	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
mentally inept person (shoteh/-ah)	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235
mishnah,and sacrifice	Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 193
omer offering	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
ordinance	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
owner,intention of	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
permission (hatarah)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
piggul	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80, 94
place,of sacrifice	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 80
pollution	Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 193
presentation (of offering)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
priestly code (p),on grain offerings	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
ritual narrative	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48, 80
roman empire,sacrifice in	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
sacrifice,animal,in judaism v,vi	Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 193
seminal emissions	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235
slaughter,time and place of	Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 193
substances,sacrificial,blood versus non-blood	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 94
substances,sacrificial	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 100
thought (mahshava),role of in purity system	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235
tort law,in tannaitic sources	Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 18
tort law,strict liability	Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 18
tossing of blood (zeriqah)	Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 48
visibility,implications of for im/purity	Balberg (2014), Purity, Body, and Self in Early Rabbinic Literature, 235