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



10976
Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8
NaN


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

55 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 27.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

27.7. וְזָבַחְתָּ שְׁלָמִים וְאָכַלְתָּ שָּׁם וְשָׂמַחְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃ 27.7. And thou shalt sacrifice peace-offerings, and shalt eat there; and thou shalt rejoice before the LORD thy God."
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 8-10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

3. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 35.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

4. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 2.10 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

2.10. And when Sanballat the Horonite, and Tobiah the servant, the Ammonite, heard of it, it grieved them exceedingly, for that there was come a man to seek the welfare of the children of Israel."
5. Anon., 1 Enoch, 38-71, 37 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

37. The second vision which he saw, the vision of wisdom -which Enoch the son of Jared, the son,of Mahalalel, the son of Cai, the son of Enos, the son of Seth, the son of Adam, saw. And this is the beginning of the words of wisdom which I lifted up my voice to speak and say to those which dwell on earth: Hear, ye men of old time, and see, ye that come after, the words of the Holy,One which I will speak before the Lord of Spirits. It were better to declare (them only) to the men of old time, but even from those that come after we will not withhold the beginning of wisdom.,Till the present day such wisdom has never been given by the Lord of Spirits as I have received according to my insight, according to the good pleasure of the Lord of Spirits by whom the lot of,eternal life has been given to me. Now three Parables were imparted to me, and I lifted up my voice and recounted them to those that dwell on the earth.
6. Dead Sea Scrolls, Mmt, 0 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

7. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 2.41 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

2.41. So they made this decision that day: "Let us fight against every man who comes to attack us on the sabbath day; let us not all die as our brethren died in their hiding places.
8. Philo of Alexandria, That Every Good Person Is Free, 75 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

75. Moreover Palestine and Syria too are not barren of exemplary wisdom and virtue, which countries no slight portion of that most populous nation of the Jews inhabits. There is a portion of those people called Essenes, in number something more than four thousand in my opinion, who derive their name from their piety, though not according to any accurate form of the Grecian dialect, because they are above all men devoted to the service of God, not sacrificing living animals, but studying rather to preserve their own minds in a state of holiness and purity.
9. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 12.277, 13.372-13.374, 18.12-18.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

12.277. This speech persuaded them. And this rule continues among us to this day, that if there be a necessity, we may fight on Sabbath days. 13.372. 5. As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons [which they then had in their hands, because] the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related. They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing. 13.373. At this he was in a rage, and slew of them about six thousand. He also built a partition-wall of wood round the altar and the temple, as far as that partition within which it was only lawful for the priests to enter; and by this means he obstructed the multitude from coming at him. 13.374. He also maintained foreigners of Pisidiae and Cilicia; for as to the Syrians, he was at war with them, and so made no use of them. He also overcame the Arabians, such as the Moabites and Gileadites, and made them bring tribute. Moreover, he demolished Amathus, while Theodorus durst not fight with him; 18.12. 3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; 18.12. 3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. 18.13. and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. 18.13. 4. Herod the Great had two daughters by Mariamne, the [grand] daughter of Hyrcanus; the one was Salampsio, who was married to Phasaelus, her first cousin, who was himself the son of Phasaelus, Herod’s brother, her father making the match; the other was Cypros, who was herself married also to her first cousin Antipater, the son of Salome, Herod’s sister. 18.14. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; 18.14. Alexander had a son of the same name with his brother Tigranes, and was sent to take possession of the kingdom of Armenia by Nero; he had a son, Alexander, who married Jotape, the daughter of Antiochus, the king of Commagena; Vespasian made him king of an island in Cilicia. 18.15. on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also. 18.15. Yet did not Herod long continue in that resolution of supporting him, though even that support was not sufficient for him; for as once they were at a feast at Tyre, and in their cups, and reproaches were cast upon one another, Agrippa thought that was not to be borne, while Herod hit him in the teeth with his poverty, and with his owing his necessary food to him. So he went to Flaccus, one that had been consul, and had been a very great friend to him at Rome formerly, and was now president of Syria. 18.16. 4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: 18.16. o she undertook to repay it. Accordingly, Alexander paid them five talents at Alexandria, and promised to pay them the rest of that sum at Dicearchia [Puteoli]; and this he did out of the fear he was in that Agrippa would soon spend it. So this Cypros set her husband free, and dismissed him to go on with his navigation to Italy, while she and her children departed for Judea. 18.17. but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. 18.17. for he did not admit ambassadors quickly, and no successors were despatched away to governors or procurators of the provinces that had been formerly sent, unless they were dead; whence it was that he was so negligent in hearing the causes of prisoners;
10. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.119 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.119. 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have.
11. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-1.2, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah." 1.2. Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety." 5.5. Ten wonders were wrought for our ancestors in the Temple: [1] no woman miscarried from the odor of the sacred flesh; [2] the sacred flesh never became putrid; [3] no fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse; [4] no emission occurred to the high priest on the Day of Atonement; [5] the rains did not extinguish the fire of the woodpile; [6] the wind did not prevail against the column of smoke; [7] no defect was found in the omer, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread; [8] the people stood pressed together, yet bowed down and had room enough; [9] never did a serpent or a scorpion harm anyone in Jerusalem; [10] and no man said to his fellow: the place is too congested for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem."
12. Mishnah, Eruvin, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

6.2. Rabban Gamaliel said: A Sadducee once lived with us in the same alley in Jerusalem and father told us: “Hurry up and carry out all vessels into the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”. Rabbi Judah said [the instruction was given] in different language: “Hurry up and perform all of your needs in the alley before he carries out his and thereby restricts you”."
13. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification." 3.8. How did they undertake the purification of the Temple court? They immersed the vessels which were in the Temple, and they say to them: “Be cautious lest you touch the table or menorah and defile them.” All the vessels that were in the Temple had second and third sets, so that if the first was defiled, they might bring a second set in its place. All the vessels that were in the Temple required immersion, except the altar of gold and the altar of bronze, for they are like the ground, the words of Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: because they were overlaid [with metal]."
14. Mishnah, Horayot, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.8. A priest takes precedence over a levite, a levite over an israelite, an israelite over a mamzer, a mamzer over a natin, a natin over a convert, and a convert over a freed slave. When is this so? When all these were in other respects equal. However, if the mamzer was a scholar and the high priest an ignoramus, the scholar mamzer takes precedence over the ignorant high priest."
15. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.6. Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial."
16. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival."
17. Mishnah, Negaim, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.1. Everyone can become impure from negaim, except for a non-Jew and a resident alien. All are qualified to inspect negaim, but only a priest may declare them unclean or clean. He is told, \"Say: 'unclean,'\" and he repeats \"unclean,\" or \"Say: 'clean,'\" and he repeats \"clean.\" Two negaim may not be inspected simultaneously whether in one man or in two men; rather he inspects one first and isolates him, certifies him as unclean or pronounces him clean, and then he inspects the second. One who is isolated may not be isolated again nor may one who is certified unclean be certified unclean again. One who is certified unclean may not be isolated nor may one who is isolated be certified unclean. But in the beginning, or at the end of a week, he may isolate on account of the one nega and isolate him on account of another one; he may certify him unclean on account of one sign and also certify him unclean on account of another sign; he may isolated the one sign and declare the other clean, or certify the one unclean and declare the other clean."
18. Mishnah, Niddah, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.2. The daughters of the Sadducees, so long as they are accustomed to walking in the paths of their fathers, are to be regarded as Samaritan women. If they left those paths to walk in the paths of Israel, they are to be regarded as Israelite women. Rabbi Yose says: they are always regarded as Israelite women unless they leave the paths of Israel to walk in the paths of their fathers."
19. Mishnah, Parah, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.7. If the cow refused to go out, they may not take out with it a black one lest people say, \"They slaughtered a black cow\" nor another red [cow] lest people say, \"They slaughtered two.\" Rabbi Yose says: it was not for this reason but because it is said \"And he shall bring her out\" by herself. The elders of Israel used to go first by foot to the Mount of Olives, where there was a place of immersion. The priest that was to burn the cow was (deliberately) made unclean on account of the Sadducees so that they should not be able to say, \"It can be done only by those on whom the sun has set.\""
20. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.6. It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs."
21. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.3. The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction."
22. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.4. She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world." 9.15. When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”"
23. Mishnah, Sukkah, 4.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.9. How was the water libation [performed]? A golden flask holding three logs was filled from the Shiloah. When they arrived at the water gate, they sounded a teki'ah [long blast], a teru'ah [a staccato note] and again a teki'ah. [The priest then] went up the ascent [of the altar] and turned to his left where there were two silver bowls. Rabbi Judah says: they were of plaster [but they looked silver] because their surfaces were darkened from the wine. They had each a hole like a slender snout, one being wide and the other narrow so that both emptied at the same time. The one on the west was for water and the one on the east for wine. If he poured the flask of water into the bowl for wine, or that of wine into that for water, he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah says: with one log he performed the ceremony of the water-libation all eight days. To [the priest] who performed the libation they used to say, “Raise your hand”, for one time, a certain man poured out the water over his feet, and all the people pelted him with their etrogs."
24. Mishnah, Tamid, 2.2, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.2. They then began to throw the ashes on to the heap (tapuah). This heap was in the middle of the altar, and sometimes there was as much as three hundred kor on it. On festivals they did not use to clear away the ash because it was reckoned an ornament to the altar. It never happened that the priest was neglectful in taking out the ashes." 3.8. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the great gate being opened. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the magrephah. From Jericho they could hear the noise of the wooden pulley which Ben Katin made for the laver. From Jericho they could hear the voice of Gevini the herald. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the pipes. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the cymbals. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the singing [of the Levites]. From Jericho they could hear the sound of the shofar. Some say also of the high priest when he pronounced the divine name on Yom Kippur. From Jericho they could smell the odor of the compounding of incense. Rabbi Elazar ben Diglai said: my father had some goats in Har Michvar, and they would sneeze from the smell of the incense."
25. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.1-1.8, 2.1-2.2, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.1. Seven days before Yom HaKippurim they remove the high priest from his house to the chamber of the counselors and they set up another priest to take his place lest something should occur to him to disqualify him [from being able to worship]. Rabbi Judah said: they even prepare another wife for him in case his wife should die, as it says “And he shall make atonement for himself and for his house” (Leviticus 16:6): “his house” this refers to his wife. They said to him: if so there would be no end to the matter." 1.2. All seven days he sprinkles the blood and burns the incense and cleans lamps and offers the head and the leg; And on all other days if he wants he offers, for the high priest is first in offering a portion and has first place in taking a portion." 1.3. They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him [throughout the seven days] from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service." 1.4. All seven days they did not withhold food or drink from him. On the eve of Yom HaKippurim near nightfall they would not let him eat much because food brings about sleep." 1.5. The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept." 1.6. If he was a sage he would expound, and if not, the disciples of the sages would expound before him. If he was familiar with reading [the Scriptures] he would read, if not they would read before him. From what would they read before him? From Job, Ezra and Chronicles. Zechariah ben Kv’utal says: I have often read before him from Daniel." 1.7. If he wished to sleep, young priests would snap their middle finger before him and say: “Sir high priest, stand up and drive the sleep away by standing once on this [cold] floor. They would keep him busy until the time for the slaughtering [of the daily morning offering] would arrive." 1.8. Every day they would remove [the ashes from] the altar at the cock’s crow or close to that time, either before or after. But on Yom HaKippurim from midnight, and on the festivals at the [end of the] first watch; And the cock’s crow would not arrive before the Temple court was full of Israelites." 2.1. Originally anyone who wished to remove [the ashes from] the altar did so. When they were many, they would run up the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits won the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put out? One or two but one does not put out a thumb in the Temple." 2.2. Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count." 5.2. After the Ark had been taken away, there was a stone from the days of the earlier prophets, called “shtiyah”, three fingers above the ground, on which he would place [the pan of burning coals]."
26. Mishnah, Toharot, 4.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.12. \"A condition of doubt concerning non-sacred food\"--this refers to the cleanness practiced by Pharisees. \"A condition of doubt concerning a sheretz\" –according [to their condition at] the time they are found. \"A condition of doubt concerning negaim\" it is deemed clean in the beginning before it had been determined to be unclean, but after it had been determined to be unclean, a condition of doubt is deemed unclean. \"A condition of doubt concerning a nazirite vow\" [in such a condition of doubt he] is permitted [all that is forbidden to a nazirite]. \"A condition of doubt concerning first-borns\" whether they are human firstborn or firstborn of cattle, whether the firstborn of an unclean beast or a clean one, for the one who wishes to extract from his fellow bears the burden of proof."
27. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.5-4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.5. The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink." 4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?" 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)."
28. New Testament, Acts, 5.34 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5.34. But one stood up in the council, a Pharisee named Gamaliel, a teacher of the law, honored by all the people, and commanded to take the apostles out a little while.
29. New Testament, John, 7.22-7.24 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

7.22. Moses has given you circumcision (not that it is of Moses, but of the fathers), and on the Sabbath you circumcise a boy. 7.23. If a boy receives circumcision on the Sabbath, that the law of Moses may not be broken, are you angry with me, because I made a man every bit whole on the Sabbath? 7.24. Don't judge according to appearance, but judge righteous judgment.
30. New Testament, Luke, 10.25 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

10.25. Behold, a certain lawyer stood up and tested him, saying, "Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?
31. New Testament, Matthew, 22.35 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

22.35. One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him.
32. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.11, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

33. Tosefta, Megillah, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

34. Tosefta, Menachot, 13.18, 13.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

35. Tosefta, Niddah, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

36. Tosefta, Parah, 3.7-3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

37. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

38. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

39. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1, 3.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath."
40. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.12, 2.4-2.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

41. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.12, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

42. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 80 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

80. The opinion of Justin with regard to the reign of a thousand years. Several Catholics reject it Trypho: I remarked to you sir, that you are very anxious to be safe in all respects, since you cling to the Scriptures. But tell me, do you really admit that this place, Jerusalem, shall be rebuilt; and do you expect your people to be gathered together, and made joyful with Christ and the patriarchs, and the prophets, both the men of our nation, and other proselytes who joined them before your Christ came? Or have you given way, and admitted this in order to have the appearance of worsting us in the controversies? Justin: I am not so miserable a fellow, Trypho, as to say one thing and think another. I admitted to you formerly, that I and many others are of this opinion, and [believe] that such will take place, as you assuredly are aware; but, on the other hand, I signified to you that many who belong to the pure and pious faith, and are true Christians, think otherwise. Moreover, I pointed out to you that some who are called Christians, but are godless, impious heretics, teach doctrines that are in every way blasphemous, atheistical, and foolish. But that you may know that I do not say this before you alone, I shall draw up a statement, so far as I can, of all the arguments which have passed between us; in which I shall record myself as admitting the very same things which I admit to you. For I choose to follow not men or men's doctrines, but God and the doctrines [delivered] by Him. For if you have fallen in with some who are called Christians, but who do not admit this [truth], and venture to blaspheme the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; who say there is no resurrection of the dead, and that their souls, when they die, are taken to heaven; do not imagine that they are Christians, even as one, if he would rightly consider it, would not admit that the Sadducees, or similar sects of Genistæ, Meristæ, Galilæans, Hellenists, Pharisees, Baptists, are Jews (do not hear me impatiently when I tell you what I think), but are [only] called Jews and children of Abraham, worshipping God with the lips, as God Himself declared, but the heart was far from Him. But I and others, who are right-minded Christians on all points, are assured that there will be a resurrection of the dead, and a thousand years in Jerusalem, which will then be built, adorned, and enlarged, [as] the prophets Ezekiel and Isaiah and others declare.
43. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 4.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

44. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

115b. הא כיצד נחלה ממשמשת והולכת עד ראובן ולימא עד יעקב אמר אביי גמירי דלא כלה שבטא,אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל האומר תירש בת עם בת הבן אפילו נשיא שבישראל אין שומעין לו שאינן אלא מעשה צדוקין דתניא בארבעה ועשרים בטבת תבנא לדיננא שהיו צדוקין אומרין תירש הבת עם בת הבן,נטפל להן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי אמר להם שוטים מנין זה לכם ולא היה אדם שהחזירו דבר חוץ מזקן אחד שהיה מפטפט כנגדו ואומר ומה בת בנו הבאה מכח בנו תירשנו בתו הבאה מכחו לא כל שכן,קרא עליו את המקרא הזה (בראשית לו, כ) אלה בני שעיר החורי יושבי הארץ לוטן ושובל וצבעון וענה וכתיב (בראשית לו, כד) אלה בני צבעון ואיה וענה אלא מלמד שבא צבעון על אמו והוליד ענה,ודלמא תרי ענה הוו אמר רבה אמינא מלתא דלא אמרה שבור מלכא ומנו שמואל איכא דאמרי אמר רב פפא אמינא מלתא דלא אמרה שבור מלכא ומנו רבה אמר קרא (בראשית לו, כד) הוא ענה הוא ענה דמעיקרא,אמר ליה רבי בכך אתה פוטרני אמר לו שוטה 115b. The Gemara asks: bHow so,i.e., how is the investigation performed when he has no offspring at all? The Gemara answers: The family lineage that determines the binheritance is successively examined up to Reuben,son of Jacob, i.e., the heirs are determined by investigating the family genealogy, and that investigation can extend all the way to Reuben, son of our forefather Jacob. The Gemara asks: bAnd letit bsay: Until Jacobhimself, rather than until Reuben, since if none of Reuven’s descendants survive, one would have to examine Jacob’s descendants. bAbaye saidin reply: It bis learnedas a tradition bthat a tribe will not be eliminatedentirely, and some descendants will always remain.,§ bRav Huna saysthat bRav says:With regard to banyone who saysthat ba daughterof the deceased bshould inheritthe estate of her father along bwith the daughter of the sonof the deceased, bevenif he is ba prince of the Jewish people,one bshould not listen to him, as this is nothing other than an act of the Sadducees,and runs counter to the ruling of the mishna that the descendants of a son inherit before a daughter. bAs it is taughtin a ibaraitain iMegillat Ta’anit /i, which describes various minor holidays on which it is forbidden to fast or eulogize: bOn the twenty-fourth of Tevet, we returned to our law,i.e., the ihalakhawas reestablished in accordance with the opinion of the Sages after having been dictated by the Sadducees. bAs the Sadducees would say: A daughter should inheritthe estate of her father along bwith the daughter of the sonof the deceased.,The ibaraitacontinues: bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joined themto discuss their ruling, and bsaid to them: Imbeciles, from wheredo byouderive bthisruling? bAnd there was no person that answered him anything, except for one oldman bwho was chattering at him and sayingthat it is an ia fortioriinference: bAnd just as a daughter ofthe deceased’s bson, who comesto claim her inheritance from her grandfather bby virtue of his son, inheritsher grandfather’s property, so too, with regard to the deceased’s own bdaughter, who comesto inherit bby virtue ofthe deceased, ball the more sois it bnotclear that she should inherit his property?,Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai brecited this verse about him: “These are the sons of Seir the Horite, the inhabitants of the land: Lotan and Shobal and Zibeon and Anah”(Genesis 36:20), band it is written: “And these are the children of Zibeon: Aiah and Anah”(Genesis 36:24). The first verse portrays Zibeon and Anah as brothers, while the second states that they are father and son. bRather,this bteaches that Zibeon engaged in sexual intercourse with his mother and begot Anah,so that he was both Anah’s father and his brother. From the fact that the first verse equates Zibeon and Anah by referring to both of them as Seir’s sons despite Anah being a grandson of Seir, it is clear that grandchildren are equal to children, contrary to the Sadducees’ assertion.,The Gemara interrupts the recounting of the ibaraitaand questions Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai’s inference: bBut perhaps there were twopeople named bAnah,so that one Anah was Zibeon’s son, and the other his brother? bRabba said: I will state a matterthat even bKing Shapur did not state. And who isthis King Shapur? This cannot be a reference to Shapur, king of Persia; rather, it must be a moniker for someone else. He is bShmuel,whose legal rulings were accepted by the public like the edicts of a king by his subjects. bSome statea different version, that it was bRav Pappawho bsaid: I will state a matterthat even bKing Shapur did not state. And who isthis King Shapur? He is bRabba. The versegoes on to bstate: “This is Anah”(Genesis 36:24), indicating that bhe isthe same bAnahmentioned binitially,earlier in the verse. Accordingly, there was only one Anah, who was both Zibeon’s brother and Zibeon’s son.,The ibaraitacontinues: The Sadducee bsaid toRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai: bMy teacher, you dismiss me with thisretort? I agree that the son of a son precedes a daughter, as the verse you quoted suggests; I am asserting that a daughter inherits together with the daughter of a son, and the verse you quoted has no bearing on that claim. Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai bsaid to him: Imbecile, /b
45. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

22a. משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר' יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר' יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר' אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע [כרמך] כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:,תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא 22a. that ba woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrualblood bis not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone,with no concurrent impurity, bis required to do so?If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: bDo not saythat one brecites a blessingorally, but rather he means that bone contemplatesthose blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: bAnd does Rabbi Yehuda maintain thatthere is validity to bcontemplatingin his heart? bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerseand purify himself brecites iShemaand neither recites the blessingsof iShema bbeforehand nor thereafter? Andwhen bhe eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter,Grace after Meals, bbut does not recite the blessing:Who brings forth bread from the earth, bbeforehand. However,in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, bhe contemplatesit bin his heart rather than utterit bwith his lips,this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.However bRabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he uttersall of the blessings bwith his lips.Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. bRabbi Yehuda renderedthe blessings blike iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission., bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is written: b“And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children”(Deuteronomy 4:9), band it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb”(Deuteronomy 4:10). bJust as below,the Revelation at Sinai was bin reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here,in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of breverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b, bFrom herethe Sages bstated: iZavim /i, lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women,despite their severe impurity, bare permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and ihalakhotand iaggada /i. However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibitedfrom doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.,However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. bRabbi Yosei says:One who experiences a seminal emission bstudies imishnayotthat he is baccustomedto study, bas long as he does not expound upon anew bmishnato study it in depth. bRabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara,which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. bRabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utterthe bmentionsof God’s name btherein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva:One who experiences a seminal emission bmay not enter into homiletic interpretation [ imidrash /i]of verses bat all. Some saythat he says: bHe may not enter the study hall [ ibeit hamidrash /i] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may studyonly iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i.In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i, and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates ban incident involving Rabbi Yehudahimself, who bexperienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbankwith his disciples. bHis disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i,as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. bHe descended and immersed himselfin the river band taught them iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i. bThey said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study iHilkhot Derekh Eretz /i? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others,and allow them to study it without immersion, bI am stringent with myself. /b,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impureand therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this ihalakhain practice. The Gemara relates ban incident involving a student who wasreciting imishnayotand ibaraitot bhesitantly beforethe study hall of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira.The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda bsaid to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 23:29). bJust as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,In this ibaraita bthe Master saidthat one who is impure because of a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara.The Gemara notes: This statement bsupportsthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai,as bRabbi El’ai saidthat bRabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu,Rav b: The ihalakhais that one who experienced a seminal emission bmay expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara.This dispute bis parallel a tannaiticdispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission bexpounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara;that is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel:Both bthis and that are prohibited. And some saythat he said: Both bthis and that are permitted. /b,Comparing these opinions: bThe one who saidthat both bthis and that are prohibitedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who saidthat both bthis and that are permittedholds bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b,Summarizing the ihalakha /i, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universallyaccepted bpractice is in accordance withthe opinions of bthese three elders: In accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard tothe ihalakhotof bthe first shearing, in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard tothe laws of prohibited bdiverse kinds,and bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi El’ai says:The obligation to set aside bthe first shearingfrom the sheep for the priest bis only practiced in EretzYisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., bIn accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds”(Deuteronomy 22:9). bRabbi Yoshiya says:This means that bonewho sows diverse kinds bis not liableby Torah law buntil he sows wheat and barley and agrape bpit with a single hand motion,meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., bIn accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard toone who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in bmatters of Torah, as it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b,And the Gemara relates: bWhen Ze’iri camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhesuccinctly capsulated this ihalakhaand bsaid: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say thathe said: bThey abolished ritual washing of the hands.The Gemara explains: bThe one who saysthat bthey abolished immersionholds in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteirathat one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. bAnd the one who saysthat bthey abolished washing of the handsholds bin accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one whogoes out of his way bto seek water at the time of prayer. /b, bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne who experienced a seminal emission who had nine ikavofdrawn bwater poured over him,that is sufficient to render him britually pureand he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: bNaḥum of Gam Zo whisperedthis ihalakhato bRabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it tohis student bben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his studentspublicly bin the marketplace. Two iamora’imin Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreedas to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. bOne taught:Ben Azzai btaught itto his students in the market. bAnd the other taught: Ben Azzaialso bwhispered itto his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. bTheSage bwho taughtthat ben Azzai btaughtthe law openly in the market held that the leniency was bdue toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bderelictionin the study bof Torah.The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was balso due toconcern that the ihalakhotrequiring ritual immersion would promote bthe suspension of procreation,as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. bAnd theSage, bwho taughtthat ben Azzai only bwhisperedthis ihalakhato his students, held that he did so bin order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters.If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.,With regard to this ritual immersion, bRabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it.The ihalakhain this matter was never conclusively established band anyone whoaccepts bupon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning?The Gemara retorts: How can one ask bwhat is their essence? Isn’t hethe one bwho saidthat bone who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited fromengaging in bmatters of Torahand is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, bthis iswhat bhemeant to bsay: What is the essence ofimmersion in a ritual bath of bforty ise’a /iof water when bit is possibleto purify oneself bwith nine ikav /i?Furthermore, bwhat is the essence of immersionwhen bit isalso bpossibleto purify oneself by bpouringwater?,Regarding this, bRabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fenceprotecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty ise’aof water. bAs it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving one who solicited a woman tocommit ba sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty ise’ain which to immerseand purify byourselfafterwards? He bimmediately desisted.The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., bRav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is becauseit is difficult for you to immerse in the bcoldwaters of the ritual bath, bit is possibleto purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated bbathhouses,which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., bRabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water?Rav Huna bsaid to him:Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and bRav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with youropinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: bRabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine ikav /iof water band pourit bover meso that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my masterrequire ball of this? Aren’t you seated inat least nine ikavof water in the tub. bHe said to him:The law of nine ikav bparallelsthe law of bforty ise’a /i,in that their ihalakhotare exclusive. bJust as forty ise’a /ican only purify an individual through bimmersion and not through pouring, so too nine ikav /ican only purify one who experienced a seminal emission bthrough pouring and not through immersion. /b,The Gemara relates that bRav Naḥman prepared a jugwith a capacity bof nine ikav /iso that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. bWhen Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, bhe said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said:The ihalakhathat one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine ikav bwas only taught for a sick personwho experienced the emission binvoluntarily. However, a sick personwho experienced a bnormalseminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in bforty ise’a /i. /b, bRav Yosef said:In that case, bRav Naḥman’s jug is broken,meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, bwhen Ravin camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bhe said: In Usha there was an incident /b
46. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

10b. השתא [הא] אמרי לא צריכא לקדושי אלא מצאו את אלו ומנאום,ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה לך מסורת בידך מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל המצות הללו נוהגין בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא קשיא דר' ישמעאל אדר' ישמעאל,תרי תנאי אליבא דר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי ואיבעית אימא הא ר' אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא ר' אלעזר בר' יוסי אמר אשר לוא חומה (ויקרא כה, ל) אע"פ שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן:,ויהי בימי אחשורוש אמר רבי לוי ואיתימא רבי יונתן דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאנשי כנסת הגדולה כל מקום שנאמר ויהי אינו אלא לשון צער,ויהי בימי אחשורוש (אסתר א, א) הוה המן ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים (רות א, א) הוה רעב ויהי כי החל האדם לרוב (בראשית ו, א) וירא ה' כי רבה רעת האדם (בראשית ו, ה),ויהי בנסעם מקדם (בראשית יא, ב) הבה נבנה לנו עיר (בראשית יא, ד) ויהי בימי אמרפל (בראשית יד, א) עשו מלחמה (בראשית יד, ב) ויהי בהיות יהושע ביריחו (יהושע ה, יג) וחרבו שלופה בידו ויהי ה' את יהושע (יהושע ו, כז) וימעלו בני ישראל (יהושע ז, א) ויהי איש אחד מן הרמתים (שמואל א א, א) כי את חנה אהב וה' סגר רחמה (שמואל א א, ה),ויהי (כי) זקן שמואל ולא הלכו בניו בדרכיו (שמואל א ח, ג) ויהי דוד לכל דרכיו משכיל [וה' עמו] (שמואל א יח, יד) ויהי שאול עוין את דוד (שמואל א יח, ט) ויהי כי ישב המלך בביתו (שמואל ב ז, א) רק אתה לא תבנה הבית (מלכים א ח יט),והכתיב (ויקרא ט, א) ויהי ביום השמיני ותניא אותו היום היתה שמחה לפני הקדוש ברוך הוא כיום שנבראו בו שמים וארץ כתיב הכא ויהי ביום השמיני וכתיב התם (בראשית א, ה) ויהי (בקר) יום אחד,הא שכיב נדב ואביהוא,והכתיב (מלכים א ו, א) ויהי בשמונים שנה וארבע מאות שנה והכתיב (בראשית כט, י) ויהי כאשר ראה יעקב את רחל והכתיב ויהי ערב ויהי בקר יום אחד והאיכא שני והאיכא שלישי והאיכא טובא,אמר רב אשי כל ויהי איכא הכי ואיכא הכי ויהי בימי אינו אלא לשון צער,חמשה ויהי בימי הוו ויהי בימי אחשורוש ויהי בימי שפוט השופטים ויהי בימי אמרפל (ישעיהו ז, א) ויהי בימי אחז (ירמיהו א, ג) ויהי בימי יהויקים,(א"ר) לוי דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו אמוץ ואמציה אחים הוו מאי קמ"ל,כי הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן כל כלה שהיא צנועה בבית חמיה זוכה ויוצאין ממנה מלכים ונביאים מנלן מתמר דכתיב (בראשית לח, טו) ויראה יהודה ויחשבה לזונה כי כסתה פניה משום דכסתה פניה ויחשבה לזונה,אלא משום דכסתה פניה בבית חמיה ולא הוה ידע לה זכתה ויצאו ממנה מלכים ונביאים מלכים מדוד נביאים דא"ר לוי מסורת בידינו מאבותינו אמוץ ואמציה אחים היו וכתיב (ישעיהו א, א) חזון ישעיהו בן אמוץ,וא"ר לוי דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו מקום ארון אינו מן המדה,תניא נמי הכי ארון שעשה משה יש לו עשר אמות לכל רוח וכתיב (מלכים א ו, כ) ולפני הדביר עשרים אמה אורך וכתיב כנף הכרוב האחד עשר אמות וכנף הכרוב האחד עשר אמות ארון גופיה היכא הוה קאי אלא לאו שמע מינה בנס היה עומד,ר' יונתן פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ישעיהו יד, כב) וקמתי עליהם וגו' והכרתי לבבל שם ושאר ונין ונכד נאם ה' שם זה הכתב שאר זה לשון נין זה מלכות ונכד זו ושתי,רבי שמואל בר נחמני פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ישעיהו נה, יג) תחת הנעצוץ יעלה ברוש ותחת הסרפד יעלה הדס,תחת הנעצוץ תחת המן הרשע שעשה עצמו ע"ז דכתיב (ישעיהו ז, יט) ובכל הנעצוצים ובכל הנהלולים,יעלה ברוש זה מרדכי שנקרא ראש לכל הבשמים שנאמר (שמות ל, כג) ואתה קח לך בשמים ראש מר דרור ומתרגמינן מרי דכי,תחת הסרפד תחת ושתי הרשעה בת בנו של נבוכדנצר הרשע ששרף רפידת בית ה' דכתיב (שיר השירים ג, י) רפידתו זהב,יעלה הדס זו אסתר הצדקת שנקראת הדסה שנאמר (אסתר ב, ז) ויהי אומן את הדסה והיה לה' לשם זו מקרא מגילה לאות עולם לא יכרת אלו ימי פורים,ר' יהושע בן לוי פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (דברים כח, סג) והיה כאשר שש ה' עליכם להיטיב אתכם כן ישיש להרע אתכם,ומי חדי הקב"ה במפלתן של רשעים והא כתיב (דברי הימים ב כ, כא) בצאת לפני החלוץ ואומרים הודו לה' כי לעולם חסדו וא"ר יוחנן מפני מה לא נאמר כי טוב בהודאה זו לפי שאין הקב"ה שמח במפלתן של רשעים,ואמר רבי יוחנן מאי דכתיב (שמות יד, כ) ולא קרב זה אל זה כל הלילה בקשו מלאכי השרת לומר שירה אמר הקב"ה מעשה ידי טובעין בים ואתם אומרים שירה,אמר רבי אלעזר הוא אינו שש אבל אחרים משיש ודיקא נמי דכתיב כן ישיש ולא כתיב ישוש ש"מ,רבי אבא בר כהנא פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (קהלת ב, כו) לאדם שטוב לפניו נתן חכמה ודעת ושמחה זה מרדכי הצדיק ולחוטא נתן ענין לאסוף ולכנוס זה המן לתת לטוב לפני האלהים זה מרדכי ואסתר דכתיב ותשם אסתר את מרדכי על בית המן,רבה בר עופרן פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא (ירמיהו מט, לח) ושמתי כסאי בעילם והאבדתי משם מלך ושרים מלך זו ושתי ושרים זה המן ועשרת בניו,רב דימי בר יצחק פתח לה פיתחא להאי פרשתא מהכא 10b. bNow, didn’t they saylater in the same ibaraitathat bit is not necessary to consecratethem? bRather,this is what the ibaraitameans to say: It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia bthey discovered these and enumerated them. /b,The ibaraitacontinues. bAnd not only these, butin banycity with regard to bwhich you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot are observed in it, due tothe fact bthat the initial consecration sanctifiedEretz Yisrael bfor its time and sanctifiedEretz Yisrael bforever.This is bdifficult,as there is a contradiction between one statement bof Rabbi Yishmael andanother statement bof Rabbi Yishmael. /b,The Gemara answers: This is a dispute between btwolater itanna’im /i,who hold baccording tothe opinion of bRabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei.Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as with regard to bthisstatement, bRabbi Elazar bar Yosei said it, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, saidthat the verse states: b“Which has [ ilo /i] a wall”(Leviticus 25:30). The word ilois written with an ialef /i, meaning no, that it does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, ilowith a ivav /i, meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that beven though it does not presently havea wall, as it was destroyed, bbut it had a wall previously,it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, who maintains that the first consecration sanctified Jerusalem forever.,§ The Gemara returns to the primary topic of this chapter, the book of Esther. The Gemara cites various aggadic interpretations of the verses of the Megilla. The opening verse of the Megilla states: b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days of Ahasuerus”(Esther 1:1). bRabbi Levi said, and some saythat it was bRabbi Yonatanwho said: bThis matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom the members of the Great Assembly. Anywhere thatthe word ivayhiis stated, it isan ominous btermindicating bnothing otherthan impending bgrief,as if the word were a contraction of the words ivaiand ihi /i, meaning woe and mourning.,The Gemara cites several proofs corroborating this interpretation. b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days of Ahasuerus”led to grief, as there bwas Haman. “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the days when the judges ruled”(Ruth 1:1) introduces a period when there bwas famine. “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i], when men began to multiply”(Genesis 6:1) is immediately followed by the verse: b“And the Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth”(Genesis 6:5)., b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] as they journeyed from the east”(Genesis 11:2) is followed by: b“Come, let us build us a city”(Genesis 11:4), which led to the sin of the Tower of Babel. The Gemara cites further examples: b“And it came to pass in the days of Amraphel”(Genesis 14:1), about whom it is stated: b“These made war”(Genesis 14:2). Another verse states: b“And it came to pass, when Joshua was by Jericho”(Joshua 5:13), it was there that he saw an angel b“with his sword drawn in his hand”as a warning. It is written: b“And the Lord was [ ivayhi /i] with Joshua”(Joshua 6:27), and immediately afterward: b“But the children of Israel committed a trespass”(Joshua 7:1). It states: b“And it came to pass that there was a certain man of Ramathaim”(I Samuel 1:1), and it mentions shortly afterward Hannah’s inability to conceive: b“For he loved Hannah, but the Lord had closed up her womb”(I Samuel 1:5).,Similarly, the verse states: b“And it came to pass, when Samuel was old”(I Samuel 8:1), and then it is written: b“And his sons did not walk in his ways”(I Samuel 8:3). Also, it states: b“And it came to pass that David was successful in all his ways, and the Lord was with him”(I Samuel 18:14), and only a few verses prior it is written: b“And Saul viewed David with suspicion”(I Samuel 18:9). In another instance, the verse states: b“And it came to pass, when the king dwelt in his house”(II Samuel 7:1). Here King David mentioned his desire to build a temple for God, but it is written elsewhere that he was told: b“Yet you shall not build the house”(II Chronicles 6:9).,After citing several verses where ivayhiportends grief, the Gemara mentions a number of verses that seem to indicate otherwise. bBut isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] on the eighth day”(Leviticus 9:1), which was the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle? bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to that day: bOn that day there was joy before the Holy One, Blessed be He, similar tothe joy that existed on the bday on which the heavens and earth were created.The Gemara cites a verbal analogy in support of this statement. bIt is written here,with regard to the dedication of the Tabernacle: b“And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] on the eighth day,” and it is written there,in the Creation story: b“And it was [ ivayhi /i]evening, and it was bmorning, one day”(Genesis 1:5). This indicates that there was joy on the eighth day, when the Tabernacle was dedicated, similar to the joy that existed on the day the world was created. Apparently, the term ivayhiis not necessarily a portent of grief.,The Gemara answers: This verse does not contradict the principle. On the day of the dedication of the Tabernacle, a calamity also befell the people, bas Nadav and Avihu died. /b,The Gemara cites additional verses where ivayhiis not indicative of impending grief: bBut isn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] in the four hundred and eightieth year”(I Kings 6:1), which discusses the joyous occasion of the building of the Temple? bAndfurthermore, bisn’t it written: “And it came to pass [ ivayhi /i] when Jacob saw Rachel”(Genesis 29:10), which was a momentous occasion? bAnd isn’t it written: “And it was [ ivayhi /i] evening, and it was [ ivayhi /i] morning, one day”(Genesis 1:5)? bAnd isn’t there the secondday of Creation, band isn’t there the thirdday, where the term ivayhiis used? bAnd aren’t there manyverses in the Bible in which the term ivayhiappears and no grief ensues? Apparently, the proposed principle is incorrect.,Rather, bRav Ashi said:With regard to beveryinstance of ivayhi /ialone, bthere aresome that mean bthis,grief, band there aresome that mean bthat,joy. However, wherever the phrase b“and it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i]”is used in the Bible, bit is nothing otherthan ba term ofimpending bgrief. /b,The Gemara states that bthere are fiveinstances of ivayhi bimei /iin the Bible. b“And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Ahasuerus”; “And it came to pass in the days [ ivayhi bimei /i] when the judges ruled”; “And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Amraphel”; “And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Ahaz”(Isaiah 7:1); b“And it came to pass in the days of [ ivayhi bimei /i] Jehoiakim”(Jeremiah 1:3). In all those incidents, grief ensued.,§ Apropos the tradition cited by Rabbi Levi above, the Gemara cites additional traditions that he transmitted. bRabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors: Amoz,father of Isaiah, band Amaziah,king of Judea, bwere brothers.The Gemara questions: bWhatnovel element bis thisstatement bteaching us? /b,The Gemara responds: It is bin accordance with that which Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yonatan said: Any bride who is modest in the house of her father-in-law merits that kings and prophetswill bemerge from her. From where do wederive this? bFrom Tamar, as it is written: “When Judah saw her, he thought her to be a prostitute; for she had covered her face”(Genesis 38:15). Can it be that bbecauseTamar bcovered her face he thought her to be a prostitute?On the contrary, a harlot tends to uncover her face., bRather, because she covered her face in the house of her father-in-law and he was not familiar with herappearance, Judah didn’t recognize Tamar, thought she was a harlot, and sought to have sexual relations with her. Ultimately, bshe merited that kings and prophets emerged from her. Kingsemerged from her bthrough David,who was a descendant of Tamar’s son, Peretz. However, there is no explicit mention that she was the forebear of bprophets.This is derived from that bwhich Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors. Amoz,father of Isaiah, band Amaziah,king of Judea, bwere brothers, and it is written: “The vision of Isaiah the son of Amoz”(Isaiah 1:1). Amoz was a member of the Davidic dynasty, and his son, the prophet Isaiah, was also a descendant of Tamar., bAnd Rabbi Levi said: This matter is a traditionthat bwereceived bfrom our ancestors: The place of the Arkof the Covet bis notincluded bin the measurementof the Holy of Holies in which it rested.,The Gemara comments: bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe Ark crafted by Moses had ten cubitsof empty space bon each side. And it is writtenin the description of Solomon’s Temple: b“And before the Sanctuary, which was twenty cubits in length,and twenty cubits in breadth” (I Kings 6:20). The place “before the Sanctuary” is referring to the Holy of Holies. It was twenty by twenty cubits. If there were ten cubits of empty space on either side of the Ark, apparently the Ark itself occupied no space. bAnd it is written: And the wing of one of the cherubs was ten cubits and the wing of the other cherub was ten cubits;the wings of the cherubs occupied the entire area. If so, bwhere was the Ark itself standing? Rather,must one bnot conclude from itthat the Ark bstood by means of a miracleand occupied no space?,§ The Gemara cites prologues utilized by various Sages to introduce study of the Megilla: bRabbi Yonatan introduced this passage,the book of Esther, bwith an introduction from here: “For I will rise up against them,says the Lord of hosts, band cut off from Babylonia name, and remt, and offspring [ inin /i], and posterity, says the Lord”(Isaiah 14:22). This verse may be interpreted homiletically: b“Name,” this isthe bwritingof ancient Babylonia that will disappear from the world. b“Remt,” this isthe blanguageof ancient Babylonia. b“offspring,” this istheir bkingdom. And “posterity,” this is Vashti,who according to tradition was Nebuchadnezzar’s granddaughter, and the book of Esther relates how she too was removed from the throne., bRabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “Instead of the thorn shall the cypress come up, and instead of the nettle shall the myrtle come up;and it shall be to the Lord for a name, for an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off” (Isaiah 55:13). Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani interpreted the verse homiletically as referring to the righteous individuals who superseded the wicked ones in the book of Esther., b“Instead of the thorn”;this means binstead of the wicked Haman.He is referred to as a thorn bbecause he turned himself into an object of idol worship,as he decreed that all must prostrate themselves before him. The Gemara cites proof that the term thorn is used in connection with idol worship, bas it is written: “And upon all thorns, and upon all brambles”(Isaiah 7:19), which is understood to be a reference to idol worship.,The next section of the verse discusses what will replace the thorns, i.e., Haman: b“Shall the cypress [ iberosh /i] come up”; this is Mordecai.Why is he called a cypress [ iberosh /i]? bBecause he was called the chief[irosh/b] bof all the spices, as it is stated: “Take you also to yourself the chief spices, of pure myrrh [ imar deror /i]”(Exodus 30:23), band we translate“pure myrrh,” into Aramaic as imari dakhei /i.Mordecai was like imari dakhi /i, the chief [ irosh /i] of spices, and therefore he is called iberosh /i.,The verse continues: “And binstead of the nettle [ isirpad /i],”this means binstead of the wicked Vashti.Why is she called a nettle [ isirpad /i]? Because she was bthe daughter of the son of the wicked Nebuchadnezzar, who burned the ceiling [ isaraf refidat /i] of the House of God, as it is written: “Its top [ irefidato /i] of gold”(Song of Songs 3:10).,The next section of the verse states: b“Shall the myrtle [ ihadas /i] come up”; this is the righteous Esther, who was called Hadassahin the Megilla, bas it is stated: “And he had brought up Hadassah;that is, Esther” (Esther 2:7). The concluding section of the verse states: b“And it shall be to the Lord for a name”; this is the reading of the Megilla. “For an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off”; these are the days of Purim. /b, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And it shall come to pass, that as the Lord rejoiced over you to do you good,and to multiply you; so the Lord will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you” (Deuteronomy 28:63). The verse indicates that just as the Lord rejoiced in the good he did on behalf of Israel, so too, the Lord bwill rejoice to cause you harm. /b,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: bDoes the Holy One, Blessed be He,in fact brejoice over the downfall of the wicked? But it is written: “As they went out before the army, and say: Give thanks to the Lord, for His kindness endures forever”(II Chronicles 20:21), band Rabbi Yoḥa said: For whatreason were the words: b“for He is good” not stated in thisstatement of bthanksgiving,as the classic formulation is: “Give thanks to the Lord; for He is good; for His kindness endures forever” (I Chronicles 16:34)? bBecause the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked.Since this song was sung in the aftermath of a military victory, which involved the downfall of the wicked, the name of God was not mentioned for the good., bAndsimilarly, bRabbi Yoḥa said: What isthe meaning of bthat which is written: “And the one came not near the other all the night”(Exodus 14:20)? bThe ministering angels wanted to singtheir bsong,for the angels would sing songs to each other, as it states: “And they called out to each other and said” (Isaiah 6:3), but bthe Holy One, Blessed be He, said: The work of My hands,the Egyptians, are bdrowning at sea, and youwish to bsay songs?This indicates that God does not rejoice over the downfall of the wicked., bRabbi Elazar saidthat this is how the matter is to be understood: Indeed, God Himself bdoes not rejoiceover the downfall of the wicked, bbut He causes others to rejoice.The Gemara comments: One can blearn fromthe language of the verse bas well, as it is written: “Sothe Lord bwill rejoice [ iken yasis /i]”(Deuteronomy 28:63). bAnd it is not written iyasus /i,the grammatical form of the verb meaning: He will rejoice. Rather, it is written iyasis /i. The grammatical form of this verb indicates that one causes another to rejoice. Consequently, these words are understood to mean that God will cause others to rejoice. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, blearn fromit that this is the case., bRabbi Abba bar Kahana introduced this passage with an introduction from here.The verse states with regard to God’s reward to the righteous: b“He gives to a man that is good in His sight wisdom, and knowledge, and joy”(Ecclesiastes 2:26). The Gemara explains that bthisverse bisreferring to bthe righteous Mordecai.With regard to the next part of the verse: b“But to the sinner He gives the task of gathering and heaping up,” this isreferring to bHaman.The conclusion of the verse states: b“That he may give it to one who is good before God”(Ecclesiastes 2:26). bThis is Mordecai and Esther, as it is written: “And Esther set Mordecai over the house of Haman”(Esther 8:2)., bRabba bar oferan introduced this passage with an introduction from here: “And I will set my throne in Elam, and destroy from there the king and the princes, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 49:38). b“The king”who was destroyed; bthis isreferring to bVashti. “And the princes”; this isreferring to bHaman and his ten sons. /b, bRav Dimi bar Yitzḥak introduced this passage with an introduction from here: /b
47. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

65a. bAnd this is as we learnedin a mishna ( iShekalim13b): bPetaḥyawas responsible bfor the nestsof birds, i.e., the doves or pigeons brought by a izav /i, a izava /i, a woman after childbirth, and a leper. These individuals would place the appropriate sum of money into the horn designated for this purpose, and each day Petaḥya oversaw the purchase of birds from that money and their sacrifice in the proper manner. bThisSage bis Mordekhai;and bwhy was he called Petaḥya,which resembles the word for opening [ ipetaḥ /i]? The reason is bthat he would open,i.e., elucidate, difficult btopics and interpret themto the people, bandbecause bhe knewall bseventy languagesknown in that region at the time.,The Gemara asks: What was unique about Petaḥya? bAllof the members of the bSanhedrin also knowall bseventy languages. As Rabbi Yoḥa says:They bplace on theGreat bSanhedrin onlymen bof wisdom, and ofpleasant bappearance, and ofhigh bstature, and ofsuitable bageso that they will be respected. bAndthey must also be bmasters of sorcery,i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, bandthey must bknowall bseventy languagesin order bthat the Sanhedrin will notneed to bheartestimony bfrom the mouth of a translatorin a case where a witness speaks a different language.,The Gemara answers: bRather,Petaḥya was unique bashe not only knew all seventy languages, but also had the ability to bcombinevarious blanguages and interpretthem. bThis isthe meaning of that bwhich is written with regard to Mordekhai: “Bilshan”(Nehemiah 7:7). Bilshan is interpreted as another name for Mordekhai, as he would combine [ ibalil /i] languages [ ilashon /i]., strongMISHNA: /strong bHow would they performthe rite of the harvest of the iomer /i? bEmissaries of the courtwould bemerge on the eve of the festivalof Passover band fashionthe stalks of barley into bsheaves whilethe stalks were still battached to the ground, so that it would be convenient to reapthem. The residents of ball the towns adjacent tothe site of the harvest bwould assemble there, so that it would be harvested with great fanfare. /b, bOnce it grew dark,the court emissary bsays tothose assembled: bDid the sun set?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: bDid the sun set?They again bsay: Yes.The court emissary next says to those assembled: Shall I reap the sheaves with bthis sickle?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: With bthis sickle?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary then says to those assembled: Shall I place the gathered sheaves in bthis basket?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: In bthis basket?The assembly bsays: Yes. /b,If the sixteenth of Nisan occurs bon Shabbat,the court emissary bsays tothe assembled: Shall I cut the sheaves on bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsaysin response: bYes.The emissary repeats: On bthis Shabbat?The assembly bsays: Yes.The court emissary says to those assembled: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they say to himin response: bCut.The emissary repeats: bShall I cutthe sheaves? bAnd they sayto him: bCut. /b,The emissary asks bthree times with regard to each and every matter, andthe assembly bsays to him: Yes, yes, yes.The mishna asks: bWhy do Ineed those involved to publicize each stage of the rite bto that extent?The mishna answers: It is bdue to the Boethusians, as theydeny the validity of the Oral Law and bwould say: There is no harvest of the iomerat the conclusion of thefirst bFestivalday of Passover unless it occurs at the conclusion of Shabbat. The publicity was to underscore that the sixteenth of Nisan was the proper time for the iomerharvest., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThese are the days on which fasting is prohibited, and on some of them eulogizing is prohibitedas well: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month, the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. bAndfurthermore, bfrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period.,The Gemara discusses the ibaraita /i: bFrom the New Moon of Nisan until the eighth ofthe month the proper sacrifice of bthe daily offering was established,and therefore it was decreed bnot to eulogizeon these dates. The Gemara explains bthat the Sadducees would say: An individual may donate and bringthe bdaily offering,in opposition to the accepted tradition that the daily offering must be brought from communal funds. bWhatverse did the Sadducees bexpound? “The one lamb shall you offer [ ita’aseh /i] in the morning, and the other lamb shall you offer in the afternoon”(Numbers 28:4). Since the verse is in the singular form, the Sadducees maintained that even an individual may donate the daily offering.,The Gemara asks: bWhatdid the Sages breplyto refute the argument of the Sadducees? They cited the verse: “Command the children of Israel, and say to them: bMy food that is presented to Me for offerings made by fire,of a pleasing aroma unto Me, byou shall observe [ itishmeru /i]to offer to Me in its due season” (Numbers 28:2). The term: “You shall observe” is in the plural form, which indicates that ball of thedaily offerings bshould come from collection of theTemple treasury bchamber.Since during that period, between the New Moon of Nisan and the eighth of Nisan, the Sages overruled the Sadducees, it was established as a period of rejoicing, and it was prohibited to eulogize on those dates.,The Gemara discusses the next period listed in the ibaraita /i: bFrom the eighth ofNisan buntil the end of the festivalof Passover, the correct date for the bfestival of iShavuotwas restored,and it was similarly decreed bnot to eulogizeduring this period. bAs the Boethusians would saythat the festival of iShavuot /ialways occurs bafter Shabbat,on a Sunday. Their reasoning was that the verse states, with regard to the iomeroffering and the festival of iShavuotthat follows seven weeks later: “And you shall count for you from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i], from the day that you brought the sheaf [ iomer /i] of the waving; seven weeks shall there be complete” (Leviticus 23:15). Disregarding the oral tradition, the Boethusians interpreted the phrase “from the morrow after the day of rest [ ihashabbat /i]” literally, as referring to Shabbat, not the Festival day.,At the time, bRabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai joinedthe discussion with the Boethusians band said to them: Fools! From wherehave byouderived this? bAnd there was no man who answered him, except for one elderly man who was prattling [ imefatpet /i] at him, and he said: Moses, our teacher, was a lover of the Jewish people and he knew that iShavuotisonly bone day.Therefore, bhe arose and established it after Shabbat, in order that the Jewish people would enjoy themselves for two days.Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai brecited this versein response btothat old man: b“It is eleven days’ journey from Horeb to Kadesh Barnea by the way of Mount Seir”(Deuteronomy 1:2).
48. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

33b. או דילמא נוגעת היתה ולא סתרה,אמר רבא לפום חורפא שבשתא נהי נמי דסתרה כמה תסתור תסתור שבעה דיה כבועלה,תסתור יום אחד (ויקרא טו, כח) ואחר תטהר אמר רחמנא אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם,וליטעמיך זב גופיה היכי סתר לטהרתו אמר רחמנא שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהן,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן הכא נמי שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש וכו' רב פפא איקלע לתואך אמר אי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא איזיל אקבל אפיה אמרה ליה ההיא סבתא איכא הכא צורבא מרבנן ורב שמואל שמיה ותני מתניתא יהא רעוא דתהוי כוותיה,אמר מדקמברכי לי בגוויה ש"מ ירא שמים הוא אזל לגביה רמא ליה תורא רמא ליה מתני' אהדדי תנן אין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהן את התרומה מפני שטומאתה ספק אלמא מספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ורמינהי על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בגדי עם הארץ,אמר רב פפא יהא רעוא דלתאכיל האי תורא לשלמא הכא במאי עסקינן בכותי חבר,כותי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה,שבקיה ואתא לקמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא משנית ליה בכותי שטבל ועלה ודרס על בגדי חבר ואזלו בגדי חבר ונגעו בתרומה,דאי משום טומאת עם הארץ הא טביל ליה ואי משום בועל נדה ספק בעל בקרוב ספק לא בעל בקרוב,ואם תמצי לומר בעל בקרוב ספק השלימתו ירוק ספק לא השלימתו והוי ספק ספיקא ואספק ספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ותיפוק ליה משום בגדי עם הארץ דאמר מר בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושין אמר ליה בכותי ערום, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בנות צדוקין בזמן שנהגו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית רבי יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו סתמא מאי ת"ש בנות צדוקין בזמן שנוהגות ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות הא סתמא כישראלית אימא סיפא פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית הא סתמא ככותיות אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה,ת"ש דתנן ר' יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן מכלל דת"ק סבר סתמא ככותיות ש"מ,תנו רבנן מעשה בצדוקי אחד שספר עם כהן גדול בשוק ונתזה צנורא מפיו ונפלה לכהן גדול על בגדיו והוריקו פניו של כהן גדול וקדם אצל אשתו,אמרה לו אף על פי שנשי צדוקים הן מתיראות מן הפרושים ומראות דם לחכמים,אמר רבי יוסי בקיאין אנו בהן יותר מן הכל והן מראות דם לחכמים חוץ מאשה אחת שהיתה בשכונתינו שלא הראת דם לחכמים ומתה,ותיפוק ליה משום צנורא דעם הארץ אמר אביי בצדוקי חבר אמר רבא צדוקי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה אלא אמר רבא 33b. bOr perhapsit is because bshe was touchingthe semen, bandif so bshe has notthereby bnegatedher count, just as a izavdoes not negate his count if he touches semen., bRava says: Commensurate with the sharpnessof Rami bar Ḥama is the extent of his berror,as this is not a dilemma at all, since bevenif one could suggest bthata izavawho discharges semen has bindeed negatedher count, one must ask: bHow much should she negate?If one suggests bshe should negateall bsevendays of her counting, this is untenable, as bit is enough for herthat she should negate her count blikethe man who bengages in intercourse with her,i.e., like a izavwho discharges semen, who negates only one day.,And if one suggests that bshe should negate one dayalone, this too is untenable, as bthe Merciful One states:“But if she is purified from her izivathen she shall count to herself seven days, band after that she shall be pure”(Leviticus 15:28). The word b“after”indicates that she shall be pure only bafter all of them,i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such bthat there should be no impurity separating between them.If so, there cannot be a situation where a izavanegates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a izavawho discharges semen negates any part of her count.,The Gemara rejects Rava’s response: bAnd according to your reasoning, how does a izavhimself negateonly one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, bthe Merciful One states:“And when the izavis purified of his iziva /i, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days bfor his purification,”indicates bthat there should be no impurity separating between them. /b, bRather, what have you to say?The verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them. Here too,with regard to a izava /i, the verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them;a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a izavanegates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar Ḥama remains in place.,§ The mishna teaches: bButone who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain bis not liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple,nor does one burn iterumathat came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these ihalakhot /i, the Gemara relates that bRav Pappa happenedto come btothe city of bTavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches imishnayot /i; may it beGod’s bwill that you should be like him. /b,Rav Pappa bsaidto himself: bFromthe fact bthat they bless me throughthis Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may bconclude from itthat bhe is a God-fearingindividual. Rav Pappa bwent tovisit bhim,and Rav Shmuel braised a bull for him,i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also braiseda difficulty between two imishnayot /ithat apparently contradict bone another: We learnin the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain is bnot liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple, nor does one burn iteruma /ithat came into contact with bthosegarments, bbecause their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn iterumadue to uncertainimpurity., bAndone can braise a contradictionfrom another mishna ( iTeharot4:5): bFor sixcases of buncertainimpurity bone burns the iteruma /iif it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the iteruma /i. One of these is bfor the uncertaincase bof the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [ iam ha’aretz /i].Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the iam ha’aretzmight have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns iterumadue to uncertain impurity., bRav Pappabegan his response with a supplication and bsaid: May it beGod’s bwill that this bull shall be eaten peacefully,i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: bHere we are dealing with a Samaritanwho is bdevoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially ihalakhotof ritual purity, iteruma /i, and tithes [ iḥaver /i].There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an iam ha’aretz /i. Consequently, the mishna here states that iterumais not burned on account of him.,Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, bare you equating a Samaritan iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? /b,Rav Pappa bleftRav Shmuel in embarrassment band came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi,to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid to him: What is the reasonthat byou did not respond to himthat the ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard to a Samaritan who immersedin a ritual bath band arosefrom his impure status, bandsubsequently btrod on the garments of a iḥaver /i,which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, bandthen those bgarments ofthe iḥaverwent and touched iteruma /i?In such a case one does not burn the iteruma /i., bAs, ifone would say to burn it bdue to the impurity of an iam ha’aretz /i, hehas bimmersedin a ritual bath. bAnd ifone were to suggest that it should be burned bbecausethe Samaritan is one who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman,this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is buncertainwhether bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is buncertainwhether bhe did not recently engage in intercoursewith his wife, in which case he is in fact pure., bAndeven bif you saythat bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is buncertainwhether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and bcompletedher count for the bgreenblood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is buncertainwhether bshe did not completea count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. bAndtherefore bthis is a compound uncertainty, andthere is a principle that bone does not burn iterumaonaccount of ba compound uncertainty. /b,Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: bAnd letone bderivethat the garments of the iḥaverare impure bbecausethey came into contact with the bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /i. As the Master said:The bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /iare considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the btreadingof a izav /i, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, bfor individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [ iperushin /i].Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid toRav Pappa: The mishna is referring bto a naked Samaritan.Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the iḥaver /i., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bSadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women,whose ihalakhawas discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish peopletheir status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bWhatis the ihalakhain ban unspecifiedcase, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearevidence from the mishna: With regard to bSadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women.It can be inferred from the mishna bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.The Gemara rejects this suggestion: bSay the latter clause:If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish people theirstatus bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.One may infer from this bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women. Rather, noinference is bto be learned from thismishna.,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearthe last clause of the mishna, bas we learnedin the mishna that bRabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. By inference,one may conclude bthat the first itannaholdsthat in ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women.The Gemara affirms: bConclude from itthat this is the case.,§ bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, andas he was speaking, bsaliva [ itzinora /i] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green,as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. bAnd he rushed tothe Sadducee’s bwifeto inquire whether she properly observed the ihalakhotof menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., bShe said to him: Even thoughwomen such as myself bare the wives of Sadducees,who do not follow in the ways of the iperushim /i, bthey are scared of the iperushimand they showtheir bblood to the Sageswhen an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the ihalakhotof menstruation., bRabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with thewives of Sadducees bmore so than everyoneelse, as they are our neighbors, bandI can testify that btheyall bshowtheir bblood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who wasliving bin our neighborhood who did not showher bblood to the Sages, and she died,as a punishment for her behavior.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe High Priest bderivethat his garments are impure bdue to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i,which imparts impurity. bAbaye said:That case involved ba Sadducee iḥaver /i,who was particular with regard to the ihalakhotof ritual purity. bRava said: Are you equating a Sadducee iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. bRather, Rava said: /b
49. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

109a. קליות ואגוזין בערב פסח כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו אמרו עליו על רבי עקיבא שהיה מחלק קליות ואגוזין לתינוקות בערב פסח כדי שלא ישנו וישאלו תניא רבי אליעזר אומר חוטפין מצות בלילי פסחים בשביל תינוקות שלא ישנו,תניא אמרו עליו על ר' עקיבא מימיו לא אמר הגיע עת לעמוד בבהמ"ד חוץ מערבי פסחים וערב יום הכפורים בע"פ בשביל תינוקות כדי שלא ישנו וערב יוה"כ כדי שיאכילו את בניהם,ת"ר חייב אדם לשמח בניו ובני ביתו ברגל שנא' (דברים טז, יד) ושמחת בחגך במה משמחם ביין,רבי יהודה אומר אנשים בראוי להם ונשים בראוי להן אנשים בראוי להם ביין ונשים במאי תני רב יוסף בבבל בבגדי צבעונין בארץ ישראל בבגדי פשתן מגוהצין,תניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אין שמחה אלא בבשר שנאמר (דברים כז, ז) וזבחת שלמים ואכלת שם ושמחת לפני ה' אלהיך ועכשיו שאין בית המקדש קיים אין שמחה אלא ביין שנאמר (תהלים קד, טו) ויין ישמח לבב אנוש,אמר רבי יצחק קסתא דמוריסא דהוה בציפורי היא הות כמין לוגא דמקדשא ובה משערין רביעית של פסח אמר רבי יוחנן תמנייתא קדמייתא דהוה בטבריא הות יתירה על דא ריבעא ובה משערין רביעית של פסח,א"ר חסדא רביעית של תורה אצבעים על אצבעים ברום אצבעים וחצי אצבע וחומש אצבע כדתניא (ויקרא טו, טז) ורחץ במים את כל בשרו שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין בשרו למים במים במי מקוה את כל בשרו מים שכל גופו עולה בהן וכמה הן 109a. broasted grains and nuts on Passover eve, so that they will not sleep andalso so bthey will askthe four questions at night. bThey said about Rabbi Akiva that he would distribute roasted grains and nuts to children on Passover eve, so that they would not sleep andso bthey would ask. It was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: One grabs the imatzoton the nights of Passover.One should eat them very quickly bon account of the children, sothat, due to the hasty consumption of the meal, bthey will not sleepand they will inquire into the meaning of this unusual practice., bIt was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThey said about Rabbi Akivathat binall bhis days he never saidto his students that the btime had come to arisefrom their learning bin the study hall.Instead, he would continue to teach as long as they were willing to listen. This was true bexcept for the eves of Passover and the eve of Yom Kippur,when he would stop teaching. The Gemara explains the reasons for these exceptions: bOn the eve of Passover,he would stop bon account ofthe bchildren, so thatthey would go to sleep during the day, so that bthey would notbe tired and bsleepat night. bAndon bthe eve of Yom Kippur,he would stop bso thathis students bwouldremember to bfeed their children. /b, bThe Sages taught: A man is obligated to gladden his children and the members of his household on a Festival, as it is stated: “And you shall rejoice on your Festival,you, and your son, and your daughter, and your manservant, and your maidservant, and the Levite, and the stranger, and the fatherless, and the widow that are within your gates” (Deuteronomy 16:14). bWith whatshould bone make them rejoice? With wine. /b, bRabbi Yehuda says:One should enable each member of his household to rejoice with an item that pleases them, bmen with what is fit for them and women with what is fit for them.Rabbi Yehuda elaborates: bMen with what is fit for them,i.e., bwith wine. Andas for the bwomen, with whatshould one cause them to rejoice? bRav Yosef teaches:One should delight them with new clothes, bin Babylonia with colored clothesand bin Eretz Yisrael withthe bpressed linen clothesthat are manufactured there., bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: When the Temple is standing, rejoicing is only throughthe eating of sacrificial bmeat, as it is stated: “And you shall sacrifice peace-offerings and you shall eat there and you shall rejoice before the Lord your God”(Deuteronomy 27:7). bAnd now that the Temple is not standingand one cannot eat sacrificial meat, he can fulfill the mitzva of brejoicingon a Festival bonly bydrinking bwine, as it is stated: “And wine that gladdens the heart of man”(Psalms 104:15)., bRabbi Yitzḥak said: The vesselused for measuring bbrine [ imoraysa /i] that was in Tzippori was the samevolume bas the ilogin the Temple, and with itthe Sages would bmeasure the quarter /b- ilog bof Passover.They would fill this vessel and then divide the liquid it contained into four equal parts. The result was one quarter- ilog /i, which is the minimum measure of wine for the four cups on Passover and for certain other ihalakhot /i. bRabbi Yoḥa said: The old eighthmeasure bthat wasin use bin Tiberias was greater than thiseighth measure bbyone bquarter /b- ilog /i, band with it we measurethe bquarter /b- ilog bof Passover.When the old measure is filled and poured into the newer version, the amount left in the original vessel is one quarter- ilog /i., bRav Ḥisda said: The quarter /b- ilogmeasurement bof the Torah is two fingerbreadths by two fingerbreadthsin volume, bby the height of two fingerbreadths and one half fingerbreadth and one-fifth of a fingerbreadth.This statement is bas it was taughtin a ibaraitaconcerning a ritual bath, about which the verse states: b“And he shall bathe all his flesh in the water”(Leviticus 15:16), from which the Sages expounded: This phrase teaches bthat there should be nothing interposing between one’s fleshand bthe water.The expression b“in the water”indicates that the verse is referring to a specific body of water, i.e., bin the water of a ritual bath.The phrase b“all his flesh”teaches that one must immerse in bwater that his whole body can enterat once. bAnd how much is that? /b
50. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b
51. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

22b. ועד כמה עד ארבעין שנין איני והא רבה אורי בשוין,ומכות פרושין וכו' ת"ר שבעה פרושין הן פרוש שיכמי פרוש נקפי פרוש קיזאי פרוש מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה,פרוש שיכמי זה העושה מעשה שכם פרוש נקפי זה המנקיף את רגליו פרוש קיזאי א"ר נחמן בר יצחק זה המקיז דם לכתלים פרוש מדוכיא אמר רבה בר שילא דמשפע כי מדוכיא,פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה הא מעליותא היא אלא דאמר מה חובתי תו ואעשנה,פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה אמרו ליה אביי ורבא לתנא לא תיתני פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפי' שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דמטמרא מטמרא ודמגליא מגליא בי דינא רבה ליתפרע מהני דחפו גונדי אמר לה ינאי מלכא לדביתיה אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין אלא מן הצבועין שדומין לפרושין שמעשיהן כמעשה זמרי ומבקשין שכר כפנחס, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר אין זכות תולה במים המרים ואם אתה אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררין מדהה אתה את המים בפני כל הנשים השותות ומוציא אתה שם רע על הטהורות ששתו שאומרים טמאות הן אלא שתלתה להן זכות רבי אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררים ואינה יולדת ואינה משבחת אלא מתנוונה והולכת לסוף היא מתה באותה מיתה,נטמאת מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותפדה ואם משקדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות 22b. bAnd until whenis it considered too premature for a scholar to issue halakhic rulings? It is buntil forty years.The Gemara asks: bIs that so? But didn’t Rabba issue rulings,even though he lived for only forty years? The Gemara answers: It is permitted for a scholar who has not studied for so long to issue rulings bwhenhis knowledge reaches the level of the foremost scholar in his city and bthey are equals. /b,§ It states in the mishna: bAnd those who injurethemselves out of false babstinence [ iperushin /i]are people who erode the world. bThe Sages taught: There are sevenpseudo- brighteouspeople who erode the world: The brighteous of Shechem,the self- bflagellating righteous,the bbloodletting righteous,the bpestle /b-like brighteous,the brighteouswho say: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,those who are brighteous due to love,and those who are brighteous due to fear. /b,The Gemara explains: The brighteous of Shechem [ ishikhmi /i]; this isone bwho performsactions comparable to the bactionof the people of bShechem,who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self- bflagellating righteous; this isone bwho injures his feet,as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bbloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak saysthat bthis isone bwho lets bloodby banging his head bagainst the wallsbecause he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The bpestle /b-like brighteous; Rabba bar Sheila saysthat this is one bwhowalks bbent over likethe bpestleof a mortar.,With regard to the brighteousone who says: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,the Gemara asks: bIsn’t this virtuousbehavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? bRather,this is referring to one bwho says:Tell me bwhat further obligationsare incumbent bupon me and I will perform them,indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations.,The ibaraitaalso includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear,i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. bAbaye and Rava said to the itanna /iwho transmitted this ibaraita /i: bDo not teachin the ibaraita /i: Those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: A person should always engage in Torahstudy band inperformance of bthe mitzvot even ifhe does bnotdo so bfor their own sake, as throughperforming them bnot for their own sake,one bcomesto perform them bfor their own sake. /b, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:That bwhich is hidden is hidden, andthat bwhich is revealed is revealed,but in Heaven everything is known, and bthe great courtin Heaven bwill exact payment from those who wear the cloakof the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: bKing Yannai said to his wifebefore he died: bDo not be afraid of the Pharisees [ iperushin /i], and neithershould you fear bfrom those who are not Pharisees,i.e., the Sadducees; brather,beware bof the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act ofthe wicked bZimri and they requesta breward likethat of the righteous bPinehas(see Numbers, chapter 25)., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delaythe punishment bof the bitter waterof a isota /i, band if you saythat bmerit does delaythe punishment bof the water that causes the curse,as stated earlier by the Rabbis (20a), byou weaken [ imadhe /i]the power of bthebitter bwater before all the women who drinkthe water, who will no longer be afraid of it, as they will rely on their merit to save them. bAnd you defame the untainted women who drankthe water and survived, baspeople bsay: They are defiled butit is their bmerit that delayedthe punishment bfor them. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Merit delaysthe punishment bof the water that causes the curse, buta woman whose punishment is delayed bdoes not give birth and does not flourish; rather, she progressively deteriorates. Ultimately she dies by the same deathas a isotawho dies immediately.,§ If bthe meal-offeringof the isota bis rendered impure before it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure before being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is redeemed. But ifit is rendered impure bafter it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure after being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is burned. And these arethe isotawomen bwhose meal-offerings are burnedif they have already been sanctified in a service vessel:
52. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

43b. תשבו תשבו לגזרה שוה נאמר כאן תשבו ונאמר במלואים (ויקרא ח, לה) תשבו מה להלן ימים ואפי' לילות אף כאן ימים ואפילו לילות:,ערבה שבעה כיצד: ערבה בשביעי מ"ט דחיא שבת א"ר יוחנן כדי לפרסמה שהיא מן התורה אי הכי לולב נמי לידחי כדי לפרסמו שהוא מן התורה,לולב גזרה משום דרבה אי הכי ערבה נמי נגזור ערבה שלוחי בית דין מייתי לה לולב לכל מסור,אי הכי כל יומא נמי לידחי אתי לפקפוקי בלולב ולידחי ביום טוב ראשון לא מוכחא מלתא אמרי לולב הוא דקא דחי,ולידחי בחד מהנך כיון דקא מפקת לה מראשון אוקמה אשביעי,אי הכי האידנא נמי לידחי אנן לא ידעינן בקיבועא דירחא,אינהו דידעי בקיבועא דירחא לידחי כי אתא בר הדיא אמר לא איקלע כי אתא רבין וכל נחותי אמרי איקלע ולא דחי,ואלא קשיא אמר רב יוסף מאן לימא לן דערבה בנטילה דלמא בזקיפה,איתיביה אביי לולב וערבה ששה ושבעה מאי לאו כלולב מה לולב בנטילה אף ערבה בנטילה מידי איריא הא כדאיתיה והא כדאיתיה,איתיביה אביי בכל יום מקיפין את המזבח פעם אחת ואותו היום שבע פעמים מאי לאו בערבה לא בלולב והא אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה בערבה א"ל הוא אמר לך בערבה ואנא אמינא בלולב אתמר ר' אלעזר אומר בלולב רב שמואל [בר נתן] אמר ר' חנינא בערבה וכן אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה בערבה,א"ל רבא לרב יצחק בריה דרבה בר בר חנה בר אוריא תא ואימא לך מלתא מעליתא דהוה אמר אבוך הא דתנן כל היום מקיפין את המזבח פעם אחת ואותו היום מקיפין את המזבח שבע פעמים הכי אמר אבוך משמיה דר' אלעזר בלולב,איתיביה לולב דוחה את השבת בתחלתו וערבה בסופו פעם אחת חל שביעי של ערבה להיות בשבת והביאו מרביות של ערבה מערב שבת והניחום בעזרה והכירו בהן בייתוסין ונטלום וכבשום תחת אבנים,למחר הכירו בהן עמי הארץ ושמטום מתחת האבנים והביאום הכהנים וזקפום בצידי המזבח לפי שאין בייתוסין מודים שחיבוט ערבה דוחה את השבת,אלמא בנטילה היא תיובתא,ואלא נדחו כיון דאנן לא דחינן אינהו נמי לא דחו והא יום טוב הראשון דלדידן לא דחי ולדידהו דחי 43b. b“You shall reside,” “you shall reside,”by means bof a verbal analogy. It is stated here,with regard to isukka /i: b“You shall residein isukkotseven days” (Leviticus 23:42), band it is stated with regard to the inaugurationof the Tabernacle: “And at the door of the Tent of Meeting byou shall resideday and night seven days” (Leviticus 8:35). bJust as there,with regard to the inauguration, the meaning is bdays and even nights, so too here,with regard to isukka /i, the meaning is bdays and even nights. /b,§ The mishna continues: The altar is encircled with the bwillow branchfor bsevendays. bHowso? If the seventh day of performing the mitzva of the willow branch occurs on Shabbat, since on that day the mitzva of the willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law, it overrides Shabbat and the mitzva of the willow branch is then performed seven days. The Gemara asks: With regard to the mitzva of the bwillow branch on the seventhday, bwhat is the reasonthat bit overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Yoḥa said:It is bin order to publicize that it isa mitzva that bapplies by Torahlaw, since it is not written explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara raises an objection: bIf so, ilulavtoo should overrideShabbat in the Temple on the other days of iSukkotas well and not only on the first day bin order to publicize that it isa mitzva bby Torahlaw all seven days, since that too is not written explicitly in the Torah.,The Gemara answers: One is prohibited from taking the ilulav /ion Shabbat by rabbinic bdecree due tothe concern expressed bby Rabba(42b) lest he take the ilulavin his hand and go to an expert to learn how to wave the ilulavand thereby carry it in the public domain. The Gemara objects: bIf so,with regard to the bwillow branch as well let us issue a decreedue to the same concern. The Gemara answers: The two cases are different. With regard to the bwillow branch, agents of the court bring itto the priests who perform the mitzva in the Temple, and they carefully prepare the willow branch prior to the onset of Shabbat and will not come to carry it in a prohibited manner on Shabbat. However, performance of the mitzva of ilulavis incumbent upon every individual.Therefore, there is concern lest one unwittingly perform the prohibited labor of carrying on Shabbat.,The Gemara objects: bIf so,i.e., because the willow branch is supplied by agents of the court there is no concern that Shabbat will be desecrated, bletthe mitzva of the willow branch boverrideShabbat on bevery dayof the Festival bas well.The Gemara answers: In that case people bwould come to raise doubts aboutthe significance of the mitzva of ilulav /i,as, unlike the mitzva of the willow branch, it would override Shabbat on only one day of the Festival and not on all seven. The Gemara asks: bAnd letthe mitzva of the willow branch boverrideShabbat bon the first day of the Festival,just as the mitzva of ilulavdoes, and not on the seventh day. The Gemara answers: bThe matterof publicizing that the mitzva of willow branch is a mitzva by Torah law bwould not be apparent,as people bwould saythat bit isreally the mitzva of ilulavthat overridesShabbat, and once ilulavis permitted the willow branch is permitted as well.,The Gemara asks: bAnd letthe mitzva of the willow branch boverrideShabbat bon one of theseother days of iSukkot /i; why specifically the seventh day? The Gemara answers: bOnce you moved it from the firstday, bestablish it on the seventhday, which is also a unique day of iSukkot /i, and not on one of the other intermediate days of iSukkot /i.,The Gemara asks: bIf so,i.e., if the mitzva of the willow branch is so significant that it overrides Shabbat, blet it overrideShabbat btoday as well,even though the Temple is not standing. The Gemara answers: bWe do not knowwhen precisely bthe establishment of the monthwas determined by the court. Therefore, it is possible that the day observed as the seventh day of iSukkotis not the seventh day at all. Certainly, one does not violate the rabbinic decree to fulfill a mitzva that is not definitely a mitzva by Torah law.,The Gemara asks: If so, with regard to the people of Eretz Yisrael, bwho know the establishment of the month, let them overrideShabbat for the mitzva of willow branch on the seventh day of iSukkoteven today. bWhen bar Hedya camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia bhe said:That is not a practical question, as the seventh day bdoes not coincidewith Shabbat, since the Sages fixed the calendar to avoid that possibility. bWhen Ravin and all thoseemissaries bwho descendedto Babylonia, or who originally left Babylonia for Eretz Yisrael and returned, bcame, they said: It does coincidewith Shabbat, bbut it does not overrideShabbat.,The Gemara asks: bButthen it is bdifficult;why doesn’t the mitzva of the willow branch override Shabbat on the seventh day today? bRav Yosef said: Who will say to usdefinitively bthatthe mitzva of bthe willow branchis performed bby takingit? bPerhaps it isperformed bby standingthe branches buprightagainst the altar. Since there is no altar today, the mitzva does not override Shabbat., bAbaye raised an objection toRav Yosef from the mishna, which states: The ilulav /iis taken bandthe altar is encircled with bthe willow brancheither bsix or sevendays. bWhat, is it notlearned from the juxtaposition of these mitzvot in the mishna that the mitzva of the willow branch is blikethe mitzva of ilulav /iin that bjust asthe mitzva of ilulav /iis performed bby takingit, bso too,the mitzva of the bwillow branchis performed bby takingit and not by standing it upright? He answered him: bAre the casesnecessarily bcomparable?Perhaps bthismitzva of ilulavis bas it is,by means of taking, band thismitzva of the willow branch is bas it is,by means of standing it upright., bAbaye raised an objection toRav Yosef from a mishna: bOn every daythe people bcircle the altar one time, andon bthat day,the seventh day of the willow branch, they circle it bseven times. What, isthe mishna bnotreferring to circling the altar bwith the willow branchin hand? He answered him: bNo,it is referring to circling the altar bwith a ilulav /i.Abaye objects: bBut didn’t Rav Naḥman saythat bRabba bar Avuh said:They would circle the altar bwith the willow branch?Rav Yosef bsaid to him: He said to you with the willow branch;however, my authority is no less than his, as we are both iamora’im /i, band I saythat they circle the altar bwith a ilulav /i. It was statedthat this was the subject of dispute between other iamora’imas well. bRabbi Elazar says:They circle the altar bwith a ilulav /i. Rav Shmuel bar Natan saidthat bRabbi Ḥanina said:They circle the altar bwith the willow branch. And likewise, Rav Naḥman saidthat bRabba bar Avuh said:They would circle the altar bwith the willow branch. /b, bRava said to Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana: Son of Torah [ ibar urya /i], come and I will tell you an outstanding statement that your father would say.With regard to bthat which we learnedin a mishna: On bevery daythe people bcircle the altar one time, and on that day,the seventh day of the willow branch, bthey circle the altar seven times; thisis what byour father said in the name of Rabbi Elazar:They circle the altar bwith a ilulav /i. /b,Abaye braised an objection toRav Yosef from the iTosefta( iSukka3:1): The mitzva of ilulavoverrides Shabbat atthe bstartof the Festival, band the willow branchoverrides it batthe bendof the Festival. bOne time, the seventhday bofthe bwillow branch occurred on Shabbat, and they brought branches ofthe bwillowtree bon Shabbat eve,before Shabbat, band placed them in theTemple bcourtyardfor use on Shabbat. The bBoethusiansin the Temple, who disagreed with the Sages and held that there is no mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of the Festival, bnoticed them and took them and concealed them underthe bstones.This was an attempt to prevent fulfillment of the mitzva, as they knew that the Sages would prohibit moving the stones, which are set-aside on Shabbat., bThe next day,some of bthe ignoramuses noticedthe branches concealed under the stones. bAndsince the ignoramuses identified with the opinion of the Sages, and at the same time were ignorant of the details of the mitzvot, bthey extracted them from under the stones. And the priests brought them and stood them upright at the sides of the altar.This happened bbecausethe bBoethusians do not concede that waving the willow branch overrides Shabbat. /b, bApparently,based on the conclusion of the incident, the mitzva of the willow branch bisfulfilled bby takingit, as it is referring to waving the willow branch and not just standing it upright at the sides of the altar. The Gemara notes: Indeed, it is ba conclusive refutationof Rav Yosef’s opinion.,Given the refutation of Rav Yosef’s opinion, the original question is difficult: bRather, let themin Eretz Yisrael boverrideShabbat for the mitzva of the willow branch on the seventh day of iSukkotnowadays as well. The Gemara answers: bSince wein the Diaspora bdo not overrideShabbat for this purpose, btheyin Eretz Yisrael balso do not overrideit. The Gemara objects: bBut doesn’t the first day of the Festivalrefute that contention, as bfor usin the Diaspora it bdoes not overrideShabbat and we do not take the ilulav /i, band for themin Eretz Yisrael bit overridesShabbat and they take the ilulav /i?
53. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said:
54. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 4.22 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

55. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 35, 5, 18 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)



Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
agency, of high priest Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
akiba, rabbi Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
alexander jannaeus Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
altar Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
apostolic constitutions Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
aramaic Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 326
authority Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
bannus, josephus description Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
bannus Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
bar kokhba (bar koziba) Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
ben zakkai, yoḥanan Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 189
berkowitz, beth Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (2013) 177
boethus Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
boethus (dynasty of) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
boethusians Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (2013) 47
boethusians (baytosim) Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 178, 189
boyarin, d. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
court, the Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (2013) 47
day of atonement, and atonement/purification Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
day of atonement Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122
day of atonement narrative, and court authority Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (2013) 47
day of atonement ritual, and sectarianism Cohn, The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis (2013) 47
dedication Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
eating Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
elders Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
epiphanius, and essene identity Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
epstein, j.n. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
essenes, name sources and variants Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 189
essenes Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 6
eusebius, and translation of hegesippus Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
fox, h. Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
gamaliel Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
goodman, m. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
hegesippus, seven schools of jewish law Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
hegesippus Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
hemerobaptists Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
heretic arguments, answered by, minim Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 326
herod the great Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
herodians, use of term, identification with the essenes Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
herodians, use of term Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
high (chief) priest Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
high priest Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
hillel the elder Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
historical tradition Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
janneus Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature (2018) 131
jerusalem talmud (yt), homiletic innovations Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature (2018) 131
jesus (christ) (see also yeshu) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
jewish law/legal schools, and the hakhamim (sages) Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
jewish law/legal schools, mishnah, schools of interpretation Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
jewish law/legal schools Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 178
john the baptist Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
josephus Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
josephus essenes, name of Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
joy, rejoicing Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
judaea, region of, rabbinic Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 189
justin martyr Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178, 189
knohl, israel Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
luke Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
mareotis, lake, use of the word herodian Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
mishnah, narratives in, compared with tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 293
multiform (~ judaism, pharisaism) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
myth Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
naeh, shlomo Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
narratives, compared, in mishnah and tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 293
narratives, miscellaneous, in tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 289
narratives, scriptural amplification, in tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 289
narratives, temple-incidents, in tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 289
narratives, types and forms of, in tosefta Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 289
new testament Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
oral or written ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
oral tradition Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
parables (genre) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
perushim, essenes link with Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
perushim, meanings ascribed to Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
perushim, pharisees as Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
pharisaic-rabbinic (tradition) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
pharisaic tradition/halakha Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
pharisees Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 180; Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140; Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
philo Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
philos essenes, name origin, analysis of Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
pluralism (hillelite) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
preservation of life on ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
priest Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
priesthood Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122
priests, versus rabbis Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
purity and purification rituals, morning immersers Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
purity and purification rituals Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 178
quakers Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
qumran and pharmacological production, rabbinic literature Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
qumran documents Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
qumran halakha Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
rabbis, authority of Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
rabbis Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
rain Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
revolt/war, under nero (great ~) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613
rivkin, e. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
sabbath Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
sadducaean priesthood Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122
sadducean Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
sadducees Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
sadducees (tsedukim/tseduqim) Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171, 189
scribes, rabbinic Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 183
shema Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 326
simhat beit hashoeva Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
stemberger, g. Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
sukkot (tabernacles) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
synoptic, tradition Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
system, halakhic ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51
tabernacle Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
temple, personnel Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 214
temple Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 140
temple ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 51, 613
torah, oral and written Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 183
tosefta, narrative types and forms in Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 289
tosefta, narratives in, compared with mishnah Neusner, Rabbinic Narrative: The Precedent and the Parable in Diachronic View (2003) 293
water-libation Poorthuis and Schwartz, A Holy People: Jewish And Christian Perspectives on Religious Communal Identity (2006) 122
water libation ceremony' Noam, Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature (2018) 131
yoha, rabbi, document Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 189
yoha, rabbi, zadokites Taylor, The Essenes, the Scrolls, and the Dead Sea (2012) 171
zealot, zealots Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 613