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



8627
Palestinian Talmud, Hagigah, 1.7
NaN


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

20 results
1. Mishnah, Avot, 2, 5, 1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.8. And these are they which are not qualified [to be witnesses or judges]: A dice player, a usurer, pigeon racers, or traffickers in Seventh Year produce, and slaves. This is the general rule: any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they too are not qualified."
3. Tosefta, Bava Metzia, 2.33 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

4. Tosefta, Eruvin, 1.2, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

6. Tosefta, Pesahim, 10.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

10.12. Once, Rabban Gamliel and the elders were reclining in the house of Boethus ben Zonin in Lod, and they were occupied in studying the laws of Pesach all that night, until the cock crowed. They lifted the table, made themselves ready and went to the house of study [to pray]."
7. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

8. Tosefta, Shabbat, 2.5, 13.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

9. Tosefta, Sukkah, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

1.9. One who puts up four beams, and covers them over [with schach], R. Yaakov says, They should be seen whether, were they divided, each post would reach a span on each side; if so, it is kosher; if not, it is invalid. And the sages say: Two legal walls; and the third wall [need only be] one handbreadth. R. Shimon says: Three legal [walls], and a fourth [need only be] one handbreadth. R. Shimon b. Elazar says in the name of R. Meir: If two are man-made and one by a tree, the sukkah is kosher and they may enter it on the festival."
10. Tosefta, Terumot, 2.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

11. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 81.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

81.2. וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב קוּם עֲלֵה בֵּית אֵל (בראשית לה, א), (משלי ל, לב): אִם נָבַלְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵֹּׂא וְאִם זַמּוֹתָ יָד לְפֶה, בֶּן עַזַּאי וְרַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר אִם נִבַלְתָּ עַצְמְךָ בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה סוֹפְךָ לְהִתְנַשֵֹּׂא בָהֶם, וְאִם זַמּוֹתָ יָד לְפֶה, אִם נִזְדַּמְּמוּ אַחֲרֶיךָ דְּבָרִים יָד לְפֶה, חַד יָדַע תְּרֵין לָא יָדְעִין. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אָמַר מִי גָרַם לְךָ לְהִתְנַבֵּל בְּדִבְרֵי תוֹרָה עַל יְדֵי שֶׁנִּשֵֹּׂאתָ אֶת עַצְמְךָ בְּהוֹן. רַבֵּינוּ הֲוָה עָבַר עַל סֵימוֹנְיָא וְיָצְאוּ אַנְשֵׁי סֵימוֹנְיָא לִקְרָאתוֹ, אָמְרוּ לוֹ רַבִּי תֵּן לָנוּ אָדָם אֶחָד שֶׁיְהֵא מַקְרֵא אוֹתָנוּ וְשׁוֹנֶה אוֹתָנוּ וְדָן אֶת דִּינֵנוּ, נָתַן לָהֶם רַבִּי לֵוִי בַּר סִיסִי וְעָשׂוּ לוֹ בִּימָה גְדוֹלָה וְהוֹשִׁיבוּ אוֹתוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנָּהּ, נִתְעַלְּמָה דִּבְרֵי תוֹרָה מִפִּיו, שָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתוֹ שְׁלשָׁה שְׁאֵלוֹת, אָמְרוּ לוֹ, גִּדֶּמֶת יְבָמָה הֵיאךְ חוֹלֶצֶת, וְלֹא הֱשִׁיבָן, רָקְקָה דַּם מַהוּ, וְלֹא הֱשִׁיבָן כְּלוּם, אָמְרוּ דִּלְמָא דְּלֵית בַּר אוּלְפַן בַּר אַגָדָה הוּא, נִשְׁאֲלֵיהּ קְרָאֵי, אֲמָרוּן לֵיהּ מַהוּ דֵין דִּכְתִיב (דניאל י, כא): אֶת הָרָשׁוּם בִּכְתָב אֱמֶת, אִם אֱמֶת לָמָּה רָשׁוּם וְאִם רָשׁוּם לָמָּה אֱמֶת, וְלֹא הֱשִׁיבָן, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁצָּרָתוֹ צָרָה הִשְׁכִּים בַּבֹּקֶר וְהָלַךְ לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבֵּנוּ, אָמַר לֵיהּ מָה עֲבָדוּן לָךְ אַנְשֵׁי סֵימוֹנְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ אַל תַּזְכִּירֵנִי צָרָתִי, שְׁלשָׁה שְׁאֵלוֹת שָׁאֲלוּ אוֹתִי וְלֹא יָכֹלְתִּי לַהֲשִׁיבָן. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אִינוּן, אָמַר לוֹ גִּדֶּמֶת בַּמֶּה הִיא חוֹלֶצֶת, אָמַר לוֹ וְהָא לֹא הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ לְהָשִׁיב, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אֵין אֲפִלּוּ בְּשִׁנֶּיהָ אֲפִלּוּ בְּגוּפָהּ. רָקְקָה דַם מַהוּ, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ מַה לְּהָשִׁיב, אָמַר לוֹ אִם הָיָה בּוֹ צַחְצוּחִית שֶׁל רֹק הֲרֵי הוּא כָּשֵׁר וְאִם לָאו הֲרֵי זֶה פָּסוּל. אֲבָל אַגִּיד לְךָ אֶת הָרָשׁוּם בִּכְתַב אֱמֶת, אִם אֱמֶת לָמָּה רָשׁוּם וְאִם רָשׁוּם לָמָּה אֱמֶת, אָמַר לוֹ וְלֹא הָיִיתָ יוֹדֵעַ לְהָשִׁיב, אָמַר לוֹ רָשׁוּם עַד שֶׁלֹא נִגְזְרָה גְזֵרָה, אֱמֶת מִשֶּׁנִּגְזְרָה גְזֵרָה, וּמָה הוּא, חוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. רַבֵּנוּ בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי רְאוּבֵן אָמַר אֱמֶת, מַהוּ אֱמֶת, אָמַר רֵישׁ לָקִישׁ אָלֶ"ף בְּרֹאשָׁן שֶׁל אוֹתִיּוֹת, מ"ם בָּאֶמְצַע, תי"ו בַּסּוֹף, וְעַל שֵׁם (ישעיה מד, ו): אֲנִי רִאשׁוֹן וַאֲנִי אַחֲרוֹן וגו'. אָמַר לוֹ וְלָמָּה לֹא הֲשִׁיבוֹתָ אוֹתָן כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהֲשִׁיבוֹתָ אוֹתִי, אָמַר לֵיהּ עָשׂוּ לִי בִּימָה גְדוֹלָה וְהוֹשִׁיבוּ אוֹתִי עָלֶיהָ לְמַעְלָה הֵימֶנָּהּ, וּטְפַת רוּחִי עָלַי וְנִתְעַלְּמוּ מִמֶּנִּי דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה, וְקָרָא עָלָיו הַמִּקְרָא הַזֶּה: אִם נָבַלְתָּ בְהִתְנַשֵֹּׂא. אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא אִם חָשַׁבְתָּ בְּלִבְּךָ דְּבַר מִצְוָה לַעֲשׂוֹת וְלֹא עָשִׂיתָ נוֹחַ לְךָ לִתֵּן זָמָם עַל פִּיךָ וְלֹא לִפְסֹק. אָמַר רַבִּי יוּדָן מַה יָּדְךָ סְמוּכָה לְפִיךָ כֵּן יִהְיֶה נִדְרְךָ סָמוּךְ לְפִיךָ. רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי מַה יָּדְךָ קֹדֶם לְפִיךָ כֵּן יִהְיֶה נִדְרְךָ קֹדֶם לְפִיךָ. תֵּדַע לְךָ שֶׁכֵּן שֶׁהֲרֵי אָבִינוּ יַעֲקֹב עַל יְדֵי שֶׁאִחֵר נִדְרוֹ נִתְבַּקְּרָה פִּנְקָסוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים אֶל יַעֲקֹב קוּם עֲלֵה בֵּית אֵל וְשֶׁב שָׁם וַעֲשֵׂה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ, אָמַר רַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר כַּהֲנָא בִּשְׁעַת עָקְתָא נִדְרָא בִּשְׁעַת רַוְחָא שִׁטְפָא. אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מְהוּלְתָךְ חַרְשָׁה אַקֵּשׁ עֲלָהּ. אָמַר לוֹ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, יַעֲקֹב, שָׁכַחְתָּ נִדְרְךָ, קוּם עֲלֵה בֵית אֵל, לְבֵיתוֹ שֶׁל אֵל, וַעֲשֵׂה שָׁם מִזְבֵּחַ לָאֵל הַנִּרְאֶה אֵלֶיךָ, וְאִם אֵין אַתְּ עוֹשֶׂה כֵּן הֲרֵי אַתְּ כְּעֵשָׂו, מַה עֵשָׂו נוֹדֵר וְאֵינוֹ מְקַיֵּם אַף אַתְּ נוֹדֵר וְאֵינְךָ מְקַיֵּם.
12. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 41 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

13. Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, 4.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

14. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

15. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

84a. וליפרקינהו וליכסינהו בעינן העמדה והערכה,וכמאן אי כר"מ דאמר הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה האמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,אי כר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה האמר לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בשחיטה שאינה ראויה סבר לה כר' שמעון בהעמדה והערכה סבר לה כר"מ,ואיבעית אימא כולה ר"ש היא ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה פדייה וכסוי,והשתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא קדשי מזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה גרירה וכסוי,מר בר רב אשי אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) חיה או עוף מה חיה אינה קדש אף עוף אינו קדש,אי מה חיה שאין במינו קדש אף עוף שאין במינו קדש אוציא תורין ובני יונה שיש במינן קדש,לא כחיה מה חיה לא חלקת בה אף עוף לא תחלוק בו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי,אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי,אלא מעתה יטבילו בו אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לו) אך מעין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור הני אין מידי אחרינא לא,ואימא ה"מ למעוטי שאר משקין דלא איקרו מים אבל דם דאיקרי מים ה"נ,תרי מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים,אימא אידי ואידי למעוטי שאר משקין חד למעוטי זוחלין וחד למעוטי מכונסין,תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים מקוה מים,ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) אשר יצוד אין לי אלא אשר יצוד נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין כגון אווזין ותרנגולים,ת"ל ציד מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל אשר יצוד למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת,ת"ר (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתאבון,יכול יקח אדם מן השוק ויאכל ת"ל (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך יכול יזבח כל בקרו ויאכל כל צאנו ויאכל ת"ל מבקרך ולא כל בקרך מצאנך ולא כל צאנך,מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מי שיש לו מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא ירק עשרה מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא דגים חמשים מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא בשר מאה מנה ישפתו לו קדרה בכל יום ואינך אימת מערב שבת לערב שבת,אמר רב צריכין אנו לחוש לדברי זקן א"ר יוחנן אבא ממשפחת בריאים הוה אבל כגון אנו מי שיש לו פרוטה בתוך כיסו יריצנה לחנווני א"ר נחמן כגון אנו לווין ואוכלין,(משלי כז, כו) כבשים ללבושך מגז כבשים יהא מלבושך (משלי כז, כו) ומחיר שדה עתודים לעולם ימכור אדם שדה ויקח עתודים ואל ימכור אדם עתודים ויקח שדה (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים דיו לאדם שיתפרנס מחלב גדיים וטלאים שבתוך ביתו,(משלי כז, כז) ללחמך ללחם ביתך לחמך קודם ללחם ביתך (משלי כז, כז) וחיים לנערותיך אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן תן חיים לנערותיך מיכן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא ילמד אדם את בנו בשר ויין,אמר רבי יוחנן 84a. The Gemara challenges: bButeven if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, blet one redeem themafter they were slaughtered bandthen bcover theirblood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal bwe require setting and valuating,i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.,The Gemara asks: bButif the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, bin accordance with whoseopinion is the mishna? bIfone suggests the mishna is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir, who says: Everything,i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintece, bwas included inthe requirement of bsetting and valuating,and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. bDoesn’t healso bsaythat bslaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bisnevertheless bconsidereda halakhic act of bslaughterthat requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.,The Gemara continues: And bifone suggests the mishna is bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bis not considereda halakhic act of bslaughterand therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. bDoesn’the also bsaythat animals consecrated for Temple maintece bwere not included inthe requirement of bsetting and valuating?If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood., bRav Yosef saidin reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling bis in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, band he formulatesthe mishna bin accordance withthe opinions of different itanna’im /i: With regard tothe status of an act of bslaughter that is not fitto render the meat permitted bhe holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon,while bwith regard tothe requirement of bsetting and valuating he holds in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Meir.Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintece once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted., bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that bthe entiremishna bisin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Shimon,who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintece may be redeemed even after their slaughter. bAndalthough it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is bdifferent here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour outits blood band coverit” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood bthat is lacking only pouring and covering,without any intervening step. bExcludedis bthisblood of birds consecrated for Temple maintece, bwhich is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering. /b,The Gemara notes: bAnd now that you have arrived at thisexplanation, byoumay beven saythat the mishna is referring to birds bconsecrated for the altar.As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is blacking only pouring and covering,without any intervening step. bExcludedis bthisblood of bird offerings, bwhich is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering. /b,The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: bMar bar Rav Ashi saidthat bthe verse stateswith regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: b“An undomesticated animal or bird”(Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: bJust asthe bundomesticated animalreferred to in the verse bis not consecrated,as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, bso too,the bbirdreferred to in the verse bis not consecrated. /b,The Gemara asks: bIfit is so that the ihalakhotof slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: bJust asthe verse is referring to ban undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecratedas an offering, bso too,the verse is referring only to ba bird whose species cannot be consecratedas an offering. Therefore, bI will excludeeven non-sacred bdoves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated. /b,The Gemara rejects this possibility: bNo,the juxtaposition indicates that the ihalakhawith regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely blikethat of ban undomesticated animal.Therefore, bjust asin the case of ban undomesticated animal, you did not differentiatebetween its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, bso too,with regard to the bbirdmentioned in the verse, byou should not differentiatebetween its various species.,§ Concerning the ihalakhathat covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that bYa’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintainthat ban undomesticated animal,e.g., a deer, is bincludedin the category of ba domesticated animal with regard tothe bcharacteristicsnecessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, bI will also saythat ba domesticated animal is includedin the category of ban undomesticated animal with regard tothe mitzva of bcoveringthe blood.,Rava bsaid to him: With regard to yourclaim, bthe verse statesin reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood… byou shall pour it out on the ground, like water”(Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, bjust as water does not require covering, so too, thisblood of a domesticated animal bdoes not require covering. /b,The Gemara asks: bIf that is so,that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one bimmerseritually impure items bin itto purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: bThe verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure”(Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning bthesebodies of water, byes,they render pure an impure item, while bsomething else,e.g., blood, does bnot. /b,The Gemara challenges: bButperhaps one can bsaythat bthis matter,i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only bto exclude other liquids that are not called water. Butwith regard to bblood, which is called water,as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may bindeedimmerse ritually impure items in it.,The Gemara responds: bTwo exclusions are writtenin the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: bA spring of water, and: A cistern of water.The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.,The Gemara challenges: bSaythat both bthisphrase, a spring of water, band thatphrase, a cistern of water, serve bto exclude other liquids,and not blood, whereby bonephrase is bto exclude flowingliquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; band onephrase serves bto exclude gatheredliquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.,The Gemara responds: bThree exclusions are writtenin the verse: bA spring of water,to exclude flowing liquids; band: A cistern of water,to exclude gathered liquids; band: A gathering of water,to exclude blood.,§ bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, bwho trapsa trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). bI havederived bonlythat one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird bthat one traps. From whereis it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are balreadyconsidered btrapped on their own, such as geese and chickensthat do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?, bThe verse states “a trapping”to indicate that bin any case,one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. bIf so, whatis the meaning when bthe verse states: “Who traps,”if it is not to be understood literally? The ibaraitaexplains: bThe Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation.That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.,In a similar vein, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraitathat the verse states: b“When the Lord, your God, expands yourboundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). bThe Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite.That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that ba person may purchasemeat bfrom the marketplace and consumeit. Therefore, bthenext bverse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,”indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One bmighthave thought that a person bmay slaughter all of his cattle,i.e., his only cow, band consumethe meat, or slaughter ball of his flock,i.e., his only sheep, band consumethe meat. Therefore, bthe verse states: “of your cattle,”indicating some, bbut not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock. /b, bFrom here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundreddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof vegetables for his stewpot [ ilefaso /i];one who has bone thousanddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof fish for his stewpot;one who has bfive thousanddinars bshould purchase a ilitraof meat for his stewpot;and if one has bten thousanddinars, his servants bshould place a potof meat on the stove bfor him every day.The Gemara asks: bAndwith regard to btheseother individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, bwhen,i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: bEvery Shabbat eve. /b, bRav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder,i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. bRabbi Yoḥa says: Abba,i.e., Rav, bwas from a family ofparticularly bhealthyindividuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. bButwith regard to people bsuch as us,who are not as healthy, bone who haseven bone iperutain his pocket should hastenwith bit to the storekeeperand purchase food. Two generations later, bRav Naḥman said:With regard to people bsuch as us,who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even bborrowmoney to purchase food band eat. /b,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustece for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). b“The lambs will be for your clothing”indicates that byour clothing should beproduced bfrom the shearings of lambs,i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. b“And goats the worth of a field”indicates that ba person should alwaysseek to bsell a field and purchase goatsin order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, band a person should not sell goats and purchase a fieldinstead. b“And there will be goats’ milk enough”indicates that bit is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house. /b, b“For your food, for the food of your household”indicates that byour food comes before the food of your household,i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: b“And sustece for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said:The verse indicates that you must bgive sustece to your youth,i.e., to your children. bFrom here, the Torah taughtthat it is ba desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his sonto eat bmeat anddrink bwine;rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods., bRabbi Yoḥa says: /b
16. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

22a. מעשה שעברו יותר מארבעים זוג ועיכבן ר"ע כו': תניא אמר רבי יהודה ח"ו שר"ע עיכבן אלא שזפר ראשה של גדר עיכבן ושלח רבן גמליאל והורידוהו מגדולתו:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אב ובנו שראו את החדש ילכו לא שמצטרפין זה עם זה אלא שאם יפסל אחד מהן יצטרף השני עם אחר ר"ש אומר אב ובנו וכל הקרובין כשרין לעדות החדש,א"ר יוסי מעשה בטוביה הרופא שראה את החדש בירושלים הוא ובנו ועבדו משוחרר וקבלו הכהנים אותו ואת בנו ופסלו את עבדו וכשבאו לפני בית דין קבלו אותו ואת עבדו ופסלו את בנו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר לוי מאי טעמא דר"ש דכתיב (שמות יב, א) ויאמר ה' אל משה ואל אהרן בארץ מצרים לאמר החדש הזה לכם עדות זו תהא כשרה בכם,ורבנן עדות זו תהא מסורה לכם:,א"ר יוסי מעשה בטוביה הרופא כו': אמר רב חנן בר רבא הלכתא כר"ש א"ל רב הונא לרב חנן בר רבא רבי יוסי ומעשה ואת אמרת הלכתא כר"ש,אמר לו והא זמנין סגיאין אמרית קמיה דרב הלכתא כר"ש ולא אמר לי ולא מידי א"ל היכי תנית א"ל אפכא א"ל משום הכי לא אמר לך ולא מידי אמר טבי בריה דמרי טבי אמר מר עוקבא אמר שמואל הלכתא כר"ש:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלו הן הפסולין המשחק בקוביא ומלוי ברבית ומפריחי יונים וסוחרי שביעית ועבדים זה הכלל כל עדות שאין האשה כשירה לה אף הן אינן כשירין לה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big הא אשה כשירה לה אף הן כשירין לה אמר רב אשי זאת אומרת גזלן דדבריהם כשירין לעדות אשה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שראה את החדש ואינו יכול להלך מוליכים אותו על החמור אפי' במטה ואם צודה להם לוקחין בידן מקלות,ואם היתה דרך רחוקה לוקחין בידם מזונות שעל מהלך לילה ויום מחללין את השבת ויוצאין לעדות החדש שנאמר (ויקרא כג, לז) אלה מועדי ה' אשר תקראו אותם במועדם:, br br big strongהדרן עלך ארבעה ראשי שנים /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongאם /strong /big אינן מכירין אותו משלחין עמו אחר להעידו בראשונה היו מקבלין עדות החדש מכל אדם משקלקלו הבייתוסים התקינו שלא יהו מקבלין אלא מן המכירין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי אחר חד 22a. § It was taught in the mishna: There was once ban incident where more than forty pairsof witnesses bwere passingthrough on their way to Jerusalem to testify about the new moon, band Rabbi Akiva detained themin Lod, telling them that there was no need for them to desecrate Shabbat for this purpose. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda said: Heaven forbid that Rabbi Akiva detained them,for he would certainly not have made such an error. bRather,it was bthat Zefer, the head ofthe city of bGeder, detained them. And Rabban Gamliel sent and they removed him from his highoffice because he had acted inappropriately., strongMISHNA: /strong If ba father and his son saw the newmoon, bthey shouldboth bgoto the court in Jerusalem. It is bnot thatthey can bjoin togetherto give testimony, for close relatives are disqualified from testifying together, bbutthey both go bso that if one of them is disqualified, the second may join together with anotherwitness to testify about the new moon. bRabbi Shimon says: A father and his son and alltheir brelatives are fitto combine together as witnesses bfor testimonyto determine the start of bthe month. /b, bRabbi Yosei said:There was ban incident with Toviyya the doctor. When he saw thenew bmoon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slaveall went to testify. bThe priests accepted him and his sonas witnesses band disqualified his slave,for they ruled stringently that the month may be sanctified only on the basis of the testimony of those of Jewish lineage. bAnd when they came before the court, they accepted him and his slaveas witnesses band disqualified his son,due to the familial relationship., strongGEMARA: /strong bRabbi Levi said: What is the reasonfor bRabbi Shimon’sopinion permitting relatives to jointly testify about the new moon, despite the fact that relatives are generally disqualified from testifying together? It is bas it is written: “And the Lord spoke to Moses and Aaron in the land of Egypt, saying: This month shall be to youthe beginning of months; it shall be the first month of the year to you” (Exodus 12:1–2). The words “to you” come to teach that bthis testimonyconcerning the new moon bwill be valideven when it is given bby youtwo, i.e., Moses and Aaron, who are brothers and could not ordinarily testify together.,The Gemara asks: bAndwith regard to bthe Rabbis,who disagree with Rabbi Shimon and prohibit relatives from testifying together about the new moon, how do they understand this verse? The Gemara answers: They interpret the verse as follows: bThis testimony is given over to youand others like you. That is to say, the months are to be established by the most outstanding authorities of each generation.,§ The mishna taught: bRabbi Yosei said:There was ban incident with Toviyya the doctor.When he saw the new moon in Jerusalem, he and his son and his freed slave all went to testify. bRav Ḥa bar Rava said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon.Relatives are permitted to testify together about the new moon. bRav Huna said to Rav Ḥa bar Rava:But bRabbi Yosei,whose position is usually accepted over those of his colleagues, ruled otherwise, bandalso, there was ban incidentin which the court actually ruled against Rabbi Shimon, bandyet byou saythat bthe ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon? /b,Rav Ḥa bar Rava bsaid to him: But many times I said before Ravthat bthe ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimonon this matter, band never did he say anything to meto indicate that he disagreed. Rav Huna bsaid to him: How did you teachthe mishna? Rav Ḥa bar Rava bsaid to him:With bthe oppositeattributions, that is say, the position that is attributed in the mishna to Rabbi Yosei, I would teach in the name of Rabbi Shimon. Rav Huna bsaid to him: Due to thatreason, bhe never said anything to you,for according to your version you ruled correctly. bTavi, son of Mari Tavi, saidthat bMar Ukva saidthat bShmuel said: The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Shimon. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong bThe following are unfitto give testimony, as they are considered thieves and robbers: bOne who plays with dice [ ikubbiyya /i]or other games of chance for money; band those who lendmoney bwith interest; and those who race pigeonsand place wagers on the outcome; and bmerchantswho deal in produce of bthe Sabbatical Year,which may be eaten, but may not be an object of commerce; band slaves. This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is unfit, these too are unfit.Although in certain cases a woman’s testimony is accepted, e.g., to testify to the death of someone’s husband, in the majority of cases her testimony is not valid., strongGEMARA: /strong bThisimplies that any testimony bfor which a woman is fit, these too are fit. Rav Ashi said: That is to say,one who is regarded as ba robber by rabbinic law,i.e., one who illegally came into possession of money but did not actually steal it from another, is like those mentioned in the mishna. Although they are generally unfit to give testimony, bthey are fitto give btestimonyto enable ba womanto remarry., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bone who saw thenew bmoon but is unable to goto Jerusalem by foot because he is sick or has difficulty walking, others bmay bring him on a donkey or even in a bed,even on Shabbat if necessary. bAnd ifthe witnesses are concerned that bandits may be blying in wait for themalong the road, bthey may take clubsor other weapons bin their hands,even on Shabbat., bAnd if it was a long journeyto Jerusalem, bthey may take sustece with them,although it is ordinarily prohibited to carry on Shabbat, bsince fora distance of ba walk of a night and a day,the witnesses bmay desecrate Shabbat and go out togive btestimonyto determine the start of bthe month.This is bas it is stated: “These are the Festivals of the Lord,sacred gatherings, bwhich you shall declare in their seasons”(Leviticus 23:4). This teaches that, in all cases, the Festivals must be fixed at their proper times, even if it entails the transgression of Torah prohibitions.,, strongMISHNA: /strong bIfthe members of the Great Sanhedrin in Jerusalem bare not familiar with thatone who saw the new moon, i.e., that he is a valid witness, the members of his local court of twenty-three bsend another with him to testifyabout bhim.The mishna adds: bInitially,the court bwould accept testimonyto determine the start bof the month from any person,as all are presumed to be qualified witnesses, absent any disqualifying factors. However, bwhen the Boethusians,a sect whose members had their own opinions with regard to the establishment of the Festivals, bcorruptedthe process by sending false witnesses to testify about the new moon, the Sages binstituted that they would acceptthis testimony bonly from thosemen bfamiliarto the Sanhedrin as valid witnesses., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the statement in the mishna that banotherwould be sent along to testify with regard to the qualification of the witness to the new moon? If it means that boneother individual would be sent
17. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

74a. רב פפא אמר במפותה ודברי הכל,אביי אמר ביכול להציל באחד מאבריו ורבי יונתן בן שאול היא דתניא רבי יונתן בן שאול אומר רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו להורגו ויכול להצילו באחד מאבריו ולא הציל נהרג עליו,מאי טעמא דרבי יונתן בן שאול דכתיב (שמות כא, כב) וכי ינצו אנשים (יחדו) וגו' וא"ר אלעזר במצות שבמיתה הכתוב מדבר דכתיב (שמות כא, כג) ואם אסון יהיה ונתתה נפש תחת נפש ואפ"ה אמר רחמנא ולא יהיה אסון ענוש יענש,אי אמרת בשלמא יכול להציל באחד מאבריו לא ניתן להצילו בנפשו היינו דמשכחת לה דיענש כגון שיכול להציל באחד מאבריו,אלא אי אמרת יכול להציל באחד מאבריו נמי ניתן להצילו בנפשו היכי משכחת לה דיענש,דילמא שאני הכא דמיתה לזה ותשלומין לזה,לא שנא דאמר רבא רודף שהיה רודף אחר חבירו ושיבר את הכלים בין של נרדף ובין של כל אדם פטור מאי טעמא מתחייב בנפשו הוא,ונרדף ששיבר את הכלים של רודף פטור של כל אדם חייב של רודף פטור שלא יהא ממונו חביב עליו מגופו של כל אדם חייב שמציל עצמו בממון חבירו,ורודף שהיה רודף אחר רודף להצילו ושיבר את הכלים בין של רודף בין של נרדף בין של כל אדם פטור ולא מן הדין שאם אי אתה אומר כן נמצא אין לך כל אדם שמציל את חבירו מיד הרודף:,אבל הרודף אחר בהמה: תניא רשב"י אומר העובד עבודת כוכבים ניתן להצילו בנפשו מק"ו ומה פגם הדיוט ניתן להצילו בנפשו פגם גבוה לא כל שכן וכי עונשין מן הדין קא סבר עונשין מן הדין,תניא רבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר המחלל את השבת ניתן להצילו בנפשו סבר לה כאבוה דאמר עונשין מן הדין ואתיא שבת בחילול חילול מעבודת כוכבים,א"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יהוצדק נימנו וגמרו בעליית בית נתזה בלוד כל עבירות שבתורה אם אומרין לאדם עבור ואל תהרג יעבור ואל יהרג חוץ מעבודת כוכבים וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ועבודת כוכבים לא והא תניא א"ר ישמעאל מנין שאם אמרו לו לאדם עבוד עבודת כוכבים ואל תהרג מנין שיעבוד ואל יהרג ת"ל (ויקרא יח, ה) וחי בהם ולא שימות בהם,יכול אפילו בפרהסיא תלמוד לומר (ויקרא כב, לב) ולא תחללו את שם קדשי ונקדשתי,אינהו דאמור כר"א דתניא ר"א אומר (דברים ו, ה) ואהבת את ה' אלהיך בכל לבבך ובכל נפשך ובכל מאדך אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים כדרבי דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה למדנו מרוצח,מעתה הרי זה בא ללמד ונמצא למד מקיש רוצח לנערה המאורסה מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילו בנפשו אף רוצח ניתן להצילו בנפשו,ומקיש נערה המאורסה לרוצח מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה תהרג ואל תעבור,רוצח גופיה מנא לן סברא הוא דההוא דאתא לקמיה דרבה ואמר ליה אמר לי מרי דוראי זיל קטליה לפלניא ואי לא קטלינא לך אמר ליה לקטלוך ולא תיקטול מי יימר דדמא דידך סומק טפי דילמא דמא דהוא גברא סומק טפי,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן לא שנו אלא שלא בשעת גזרת המלכות) אבל בשעת גזרת המלכות אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,כי אתא רבין א"ר יוחנן אפי' שלא בשעת גזרת מלכות לא אמרו אלא בצינעא אבל בפרהסיא אפי' מצוה קלה יהרג ואל יעבור,מאי מצוה קלה אמר רבא בר רב יצחק אמר רב 74a. bRav Pappa says:The ruling of the mishna, which lists his sister among those for whom he must pay a fine, is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was bseduced, andin the case of seduction ball agreethat the woman is not saved at the cost of the seducer’s life, as the intercourse was consensual., bAbaye says:The ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard toa young woman who was raped in a case bwhereone was bable to saveher by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs,so that it was not necessary to kill him in order to achieve her rescue, band it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul. As it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yonatan ben Shaul says:If ba pursuer was pursuing another to kill him, andone was bable to savethe pursued party without killing the pursuer, but instead by injuring him bin one of his limbs, but he did not save himin this manner and rather chose to kill him, bhe is executed on his accountas a murderer.,The Gemara explains: bWhat is the reason of Rabbi Yonatan ben Shaul? As it is written: “If men striveand strike a woman with child, so that her fruit departs, and yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished, according to the demands that the woman’s husband makes on him; and he shall pay it as the judges determine” (Exodus 21:22). bAndconcerning this bRabbi Elazar says: The verse is speaking of striving to kill,where each man was trying to kill the other. The proof is bthat it is written: “But if any harm ensues, then you shall give life for life”(Exodus 21:23), and if there was no intention to kill, why should he be executed? bAnd even so, the Merciful One states: “And yet no further harm ensues, he shall be punished,”teaching that he must pay the monetary value of the fetus to the woman’s husband., bGranted, if you saythat in a case where one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he may not savethe pursued party batthe cost of the pursuer’s blife,and if he killed the pursuer rather than injure him he is liable to receive the death penalty, bthat is how you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished.This would be in a case bwhere it was possible to savethe man under attack, i.e., one of the men who were fighting, by injuring the pursuer, i.e., the other man, who ultimately struck the woman, bin one of his limbs.In this case, the one who ultimately struck the woman was not subject to being killed. Therefore, he is subject to pay a fine., bBut if you saythat even if one is bable to savethe pursued party by injuring the pursuer bin one of his limbs, he can also save him atthe cost of the pursuer’s blife, how can you findthe possibility bthatthe one who ultimately struck the woman bwould be punished?When he was going to strike the other man, he was at risk of being killed, as anybody could have killed him at that time, and the ihalakhais that anybody who commits an act warranting death exempts himself from any monetary obligation ensuing from that act.,The Gemara tries to refute this reasoning: bPerhaps it is different here becausehis two liabilities are not on account of the same person; rather, his liability to be put to bdeath is on account of thisperson, the man with whom he fought, bwhilehis liability to give bpayment is on account of thatperson, the woman he ultimately struck. Consequently, he is liable to receive both punishments.,The Gemara rejects this distinction: There bis no difference. As Rava says:If ba pursuer was pursuing anotherto kill him, bandduring the course of the chase the pursuer bbroke vesselsbelonging beither to the person being pursued or to anyone else,he is bexemptfrom paying for the broken vessels. bWhat is the reasonfor this? The reason is that bhe is liable to be killed,since everyone is entitled to kill him in order to save the victim’s life, and one who commits an act rendering himself liable to be killed is exempt from any monetary obligation arising from that act, even if the payment were to be made to a person not connected to the act for which he is liable to be killed.,Rava continues: bAndif bthe pursuedparty bbroke vesselswhile fleeing from the pursuer, if those vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,the pursued party is bexempt.But if they bbelonged to anyoneelse, he is bliableto pay for them. The Gemara explains: If the vessels bbelonged to the pursuer,he is bexempt.The reason for this is bso that thepursuer’s bproperty should not be more precious tothe pursuer bthan hisown bbody.Were the one being pursued to cause the pursuer bodily harm, he would be exempt; all the more so when the pursued one breaks the pursuer’s vessels. And if the vessels belonged bto anyoneelse, he is bliable, as he saved himself atthe expense of banother’s property,and that other person should not have to suffer a loss on his account.,Rava continues: bButif one bpursuer was pursuinganother bpursuerin order bto save him,i.e., if he was trying to save the person being pursued by killing the pursuer, bandwhile doing so bhe broke vesselsbelonging beither to the pursuer or to the one being pursued, or to anyoneelse, he is bexemptfrom paying for them. The Gemara comments: This bis not bystrict blaw,as if one who saves himself at another’s expense is liable to pay for the damage, certainly one who saves another at the expense of a third party should bear similar liability. Rather, it is an ordice instituted by the Sages. This is bbecause if you do not saythat he is exempt, it will bbe found that no person will save another from a pursuer,as everyone will be afraid of becoming liable to pay for damage caused in the course of saving the pursued party.,§ The mishna teaches: bButwith regard to bone who pursues an animalto sodomize it, or one who seeks to desecrate Shabbat, or one who is going to engage in idol worship, they are not saved at the cost of their lives. bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: One whoseeks to bworship idols may be savedfrom transgressing batthe cost of bhis life.This is derived bthrough an ia fortiori /iinference: bIfto avoid bthe degradation of an ordinaryperson, such as in the case of a rapist who degrades his victim, bhe can be savedeven batthe cost of bhis life, all the more sois it bnotclear that one may kill the transgressor to avoid bthe degrading ofthe honor of bGodthrough the worship of idols? The Gemara asks: bBut doesthe court badminister punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference?The Gemara answers: Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai bmaintainsthat the court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference. /b, bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: One whoseeks to bdesecrate Shabbat may be savedfrom transgressing even batthe cost of bhis life.The Gemara explains that Rabbi Elazar bholds in accordance withthe opinion of bhis father,Rabbi Shimon, bwho says:The court badministers punishmentbased bonan ia fortiori binference, andthe ihalakhawith regard to one who desecrates bShabbat is derived fromthe ihalakhawith regard to bidol worshipby way of a verbal analogy between the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of Shabbat and the word b“desecration”mentioned in the context of idol worship.,§ The Gemara now considers which prohibitions are permitted in times of mortal danger. bRabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yehotzadak:The Sages who discussed this issue bcountedthe votes of those assembled band concluded in the upper story of the house of Nitza inthe city of bLod:With regard to ballother btransgressions in the Torah, if a person is told: Transgressthis prohibition band you will not be killed, he may transgressthat prohibition band not be killed,because the preserving of his own life overrides all of the Torah’s prohibitions. This is the ihalakhaconcerning all prohibitions bexcept forthose of bidol worship, forbidden sexual relations, and bloodshed.Concerning those prohibitions, one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress them.,The Gemara asks: bAndshould one bnottransgress the prohibition of bidol worshipto save his life? bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yishmael said: From whereis it derived bthat if a person is told: Worship idols and you will not be killed, from whereis it derived bthat he should worshipthe idol band not be killed? The verse states:“You shall keep My statutes and My judgments, which a person shall do, band he shall live by them”(Leviticus 18:5), thereby teaching that the mitzvot were given to provide life, bbutthey were bnotgiven so bthatone will bdie due to theirobservance.,The ibaraitacontinues: One bmighthave thought that it is permitted to worship the idol in this circumstance beven in public,i.e., in the presence of many people. Therefore, bthe verse states: “Neither shall you profane My holy name; but I will be hallowedamong the children of Israel: I am the Lord Who sanctifies you” (Leviticus 22:32). Evidently, one is not required to allow himself to be killed so as not to transgress the prohibition of idol worship when in private; but in public he must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress.,The Gemara answers: bThosein the upper story of the house of Nitza bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says:It is stated: b“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, and with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5). bIf it is stated: “With all your soul,” why is italso bstated: “With all your might,”which indicates with all your material possessions? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is italso bstated: “With all your soul”?One of these clauses seems to be superfluous.,Rather, this serves to teach that bif you have a person whose body is more precious to him than his property, it is therefore stated: “With all your soul.”That person must be willing to sacrifice even his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if you have a person whose property is more precious to him than his body, it is therefore stated: “With all your might.”That person must even be prepared to sacrifice all his property for the love of God. According to the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, one must allow himself to be killed rather than worship an idol.,From where is it derived that one must allow himself to be killed rather than transgress the prohibition of bforbidden sexual relations andthe prohibition of bbloodshed?This is bin accordance withthe opinion bof RabbiYehuda HaNasi. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:With regard to the rape of a betrothed young woman it is written: “But you shall do nothing to the young woman; the young woman has committed no sin worthy of death; bfor as when a man rises against his neighbor, and slays him,so too with this matter” (Deuteronomy 22:26). But why would the verse mention murder in this context? bBut what do we learnhere bfrom a murderer? /b, bNow,the mention of murder bcamein order bto teacha ihalakhaabout the betrothed young woman, band it turns outthat, in addition, bit derivesa ihalakhafrom that case. The Torah bjuxtaposesthe case of ba murderer tothe case of ba betrothed young womanto indicate that bjust asin the case of a betrothed young woman bone may save her atthe cost of the rapist’s blife, so too,in the case of ba murderer, one may savethe potential victim batthe cost of the murderer’s blife. /b, bAndconversely, the Torah bjuxtaposes a betrothed young woman to a murdererto indicate that bjust aswith regard to a potential bmurderer,the ihalakhais that if one was ordered to murder another, bhe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of bloodshed, bso too,with regard to ba betrothed young woman,if she is faced with rape, bshe must be killed and not transgressthe prohibition of forbidden sexual relations.,The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this ihalakhawith regard to ba murderer himself,that one must allow himself to be killed rather than commit murder? The Gemara answers: bIt isbased on blogical reasoningthat one life is not preferable to another, and therefore there is no need for a verse to teach this ihalakha /i. The Gemara relates an incident to demonstrate this: bAswhen ba certain person came before Rabba and said to him: The lord of my place,a local official, bsaid to me: Go kill so-and-so, and if not I will kill you,what shall I do? Rabba bsaid to him:It is preferable that bhe should kill you and you should not kill. Who is to say that your blood is redderthan his, that your life is worth more than the one he wants you to kill? bPerhaps that man’s blood is redder.This logical reasoning is the basis for the ihalakhathat one may not save his own life by killing another.,§ bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe saidthat bRabbi Yoḥasaid: The Sages btaughtthat one is permitted to transgress prohibitions in the face of mortal danger bonly when it is not a time ofreligious bpersecution. But in a time ofreligious bpersecution,when the gentile authorities are trying to force Jews to violate their religion, bevenif they issued a decree about ba minor mitzva, one must be killed and not transgress. /b, bWhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that bRabbi Yoḥa said: Even whenit is bnot a time ofreligious bpersecution,the Sages bsaidthat one is permitted to transgress a prohibition in the face of mortal danger bonlywhen he was ordered to do so bin private. Butif he was ordered to commit a transgression bin public, evenif they threaten him with death if he does not transgress ba minor mitzva, he must be killed and not transgress. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is a minor mitzvafor this purpose? bRava bar Yitzḥak saysthat bRav says: /b
18. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 3.1.2, 3.5.3, 3.27.1-3.27.6 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

3.1.2. Peter appears to have preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia to the Jews of the dispersion. And at last, having come to Rome, he was crucified head-downwards; for he had requested that he might suffer in this way. What do we need to say concerning Paul, who preached the Gospel of Christ from Jerusalem to Illyricum, and afterwards suffered martyrdom in Rome under Nero? These facts are related by Origen in the third volume of his Commentary on Genesis. 3.5.3. But the people of the church in Jerusalem had been commanded by a revelation, vouchsafed to approved men there before the war, to leave the city and to dwell in a certain town of Perea called Pella. And when those that believed in Christ had come there from Jerusalem, then, as if the royal city of the Jews and the whole land of Judea were entirely destitute of holy men, the judgment of God at length overtook those who had committed such outrages against Christ and his apostles, and totally destroyed that generation of impious men. 3.27.1. The evil demon, however, being unable to tear certain others from their allegiance to the Christ of God, yet found them susceptible in a different direction, and so brought them over to his own purposes. The ancients quite properly called these men Ebionites, because they held poor and mean opinions concerning Christ. 3.27.2. For they considered him a plain and common man, who was justified only because of his superior virtue, and who was the fruit of the intercourse of a man with Mary. In their opinion the observance of the ceremonial law was altogether necessary, on the ground that they could not be saved by faith in Christ alone and by a corresponding life. 3.27.3. There were others, however, besides them, that were of the same name, but avoided the strange and absurd beliefs of the former, and did not deny that the Lord was born of a virgin and of the Holy Spirit. But nevertheless, inasmuch as they also refused to acknowledge that he pre-existed, being God, Word, and Wisdom, they turned aside into the impiety of the former, especially when they, like them, endeavored to observe strictly the bodily worship of the law. 3.27.4. These men, moreover, thought that it was necessary to reject all the epistles of the apostle, whom they called an apostate from the law; and they used only the so-called Gospel according to the Hebrews and made small account of the rest. 3.27.5. The Sabbath and the rest of the discipline of the Jews they observed just like them, but at the same time, like us, they celebrated the Lord's days as a memorial of the resurrection of the Saviour. 3.27.6. Wherefore, in consequence of such a course they received the name of Ebionites, which signified the poverty of their understanding. For this is the name by which a poor man is called among the Hebrews.
19. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Homilies, 11.29 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

20. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Recognitiones (E Pseudocaesario), 1.27-1.71 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
apostolic succession Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
ebionites Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
eusebius of caesarea Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
identity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
james (brother) Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
jewish christianity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
laws of minim Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 201
moses Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
nazarenes Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
oral torah Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
orthodoxy and heresy Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
peter (apostle) Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
pharisees Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 107
rabbi ishmael Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 201
rabbi johannan Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 201
rabbi shimon ben jehozadak Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 201
rabbis, as well-to-do Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 293
rabbis, impact of judah the patriarch' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 293
schäfer, peter Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 201