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



10964
Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.13-4.14
NaN
NaN


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

18 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 9.2, 10.8, 28.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

9.2. וְיַעֲשׂוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַפָּסַח בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃ 9.2. וְיֵשׁ אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה הֶעָנָן יָמִים מִסְפָּר עַל־הַמִּשְׁכָּן עַל־פִּי יְהוָה יַחֲנוּ וְעַל־פִּי יְהוָה יִסָּעוּ׃ 10.8. וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים יִתְקְעוּ בַּחֲצֹצְרוֹת וְהָיוּ לָכֶם לְחֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם׃ 28.2. וּמִנְחָתָם סֹלֶת בְּלוּלָה בַשָּׁמֶן שְׁלֹשָׁה עֶשְׂרֹנִים לַפָּר וּשְׁנֵי עֶשְׂרֹנִים לָאַיִל תַּעֲשׂוּ׃ 28.2. צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם אֶת־קָרְבָּנִי לַחְמִי לְאִשַּׁי רֵיחַ נִיחֹחִי תִּשְׁמְרוּ לְהַקְרִיב לִי בְּמוֹעֲדוֹ׃ 9.2. ’Let the children of Israel keep the passover in its appointed season." 10.8. And the sons of Aaron, the priests, shall blow with the trumpets; and they shall be to you for a statute for ever throughout your generations." 28.2. Command the children of Israel, and say unto them: My food which is presented unto Me for offerings made by fire, of a sweet savour unto Me, shall ye observe to offer unto Me in its due season."
2. Tosefta, Berachot, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5.2. It happened [once] that Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi we reclining [and eating] in Akko [on Friday afternoon], and the day was over (i.e. it became dark and Shabbat began). Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel said to Rebbi Yossi, “Let us stop [eating because of] Shabbat.” He said [back] to him, “Everyday you prefer my words in front of Yehudah, [and] now you prefer the words of Yehudah in front of me. ‘Do you also want to kidnap the queen with me in the house?’ (Esther 7:8)” He said [back] to him, “If so, let us not stop [eating because of Shabbat, because] may be [if our students will see us stopping] the Halacha (law) will be established for generations [like Rebbi Yehudah].” They (i.e. their students) [later] said that they (i.e. Rabban Shimon Ben Gamliel, Rebbi Yehudah and Rebbi Yossi) did not move from there until they have established the Halacha like Rebbi Yossi."
3. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

4. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

6. Tosefta, Nazir, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

7. Tosefta, Niddah, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

9. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.1, 7.10-7.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

10. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

7.11. A person might think: 'since the Academy of Shammai declares unclean that which the Academy of Hillel declares clean, one prohibits that which the other permits, how, then, can I learn Torah?' This is way Torah repeats: \"words...the words...these are the words...\" All of the words have been given by a single Shepherd, one God fashioned them, one Provider gave them, Source of all deeds, blessed be God, has spoken them. So make for yourself a heart with many rooms, and bring into it the words of the Academy of Shammai and the words of the Academy of Hillel, the words of who declare unclean and those that declare clean. "
11. Tosefta, Yevamot, 14.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

13. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 75 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

14. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, 6.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

15. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, 3.3 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

16. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

62b. אכולהו והא ששה חדשים קאמר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,א"ל רבה בר רב חנן לאביי חמר ונעשה גמל מאי א"ל רוצה אשה בקב ותיפלות מעשרה קבין ופרישות:,הספנים אחת לששה חדשים דברי ר' אליעזר: אמר רב ברונא אמר רב הלכה כר"א אמר רב אדא בר אהבה אמר רב זו דברי ר' אליעזר אבל חכמים אומרים התלמידים יוצאין לת"ת ב' וג' שנים שלא ברשות אמר רבא סמכו רבנן אדרב אדא בר אהבה ועבדי עובדא בנפשייהו,כי הא דרב רחומי הוה שכיח קמיה דרבא במחוזא הוה רגיל דהוה אתי לביתיה כל מעלי יומא דכיפורי יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא הוה מסכיא דביתהו השתא אתי השתא אתי לא אתא חלש דעתה אחית דמעתא מעינה הוה יתיב באיגרא אפחית איגרא מתותיה ונח נפשיה,עונה של תלמידי חכמים אימת אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מע"ש לע"ש (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו אמר רב יהודה ואיתימא רב הונא ואיתימא רב נחמן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,יהודה בריה דר' חייא חתניה דר' ינאי הוה אזיל ויתיב בבי רב וכל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה וכי הוה אתי הוה קא חזי קמיה עמודא דנורא יומא חד משכתיה שמעתא כיון דלא חזי ההוא סימנא אמר להו רבי ינאי כפו מטתו שאילמלי יהודה קיים לא ביטל עונתו הואי (קהלת י, ה) כשגגה שיוצא מלפני השליט ונח נפשיה,רבי איעסק ליה לבריה בי רבי חייא כי מטא למיכתב כתובה נח נפשה דרביתא אמר רבי ח"ו פסולא איכא יתיבו ועיינו במשפחות רבי אתי משפטיה בן אביטל ורבי חייא אתי משמעי אחי דוד,אזיל איעסק ליה לבריה בי ר' יוסי בן זימרא פסקו ליה תרתי סרי שנין למיזל בבי רב אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו ניהוו שית שנין אחלפוה קמיה אמר להו איכניס והדר איזיל הוה קא מכסיף מאבוה א"ל בני דעת קונך יש בך,מעיקרא כתיב (שמות טו, יז) תביאמו ותטעמו ולבסוף כתיב (שמות כה, ח) ועשו לי מקדש ושכנתי בתוכם,אזיל יתיב תרתי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתא איעקרא דביתהו אמר רבי היכי נעביד נגרשה יאמרו ענייה זו לשוא שימרה נינסיב איתתא אחריתי יאמרו זו אשתו וזו זונתו בעי עלה רחמי ואיתסיאת:,רבי חנניה בן חכינאי הוה קאזיל לבי רב בשילהי הלוליה דר"ש בן יוחאי א"ל איעכב לי עד דאתי בהדך לא איעכבא ליה אזל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי רב עד דאתי אישתנו שבילי דמתא ולא ידע למיזל לביתיה,אזל יתיב אגודא דנהרא שמע לההיא רביתא דהוו קרו לה בת חכינאי בת חכינאי מלי קולתך ותא ניזיל אמר ש"מ האי רביתא דידן אזל בתרה הוה יתיבא דביתהו קא נהלה קמחא דל עינה חזיתיה סוי לבה פרח רוחה אמר לפניו רבש"ע ענייה זו זה שכרה בעא רחמי עלה וחייה,רבי חמא בר ביסא אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שני בבי מדרשא כי אתא אמר לא איעביד כדעביד בן חכינאי עייל יתיב במדרשא שלח לביתיה אתא ר' אושעיא בריה יתיב קמיה הוה קא משאיל ליה שמעתא חזא דקא מתחדדי שמעתיה חלש דעתיה אמר אי הואי הכא הוה לי זרע כי האי,על לביתיה על בריה קם קמיה הוא סבר למשאליה שמעתתא קא בעי אמרה ליה דביתהו מי איכא אבא דקאים מקמי ברא קרי עליה רמי בר חמא (קהלת ד, יב) החוט המשולש לא במהרה ינתק זה ר' אושעיא בנו של רבי חמא בר ביסא,ר"ע רעיא דבן כלבא שבוע הוה חזיתיה ברתיה דהוה צניע ומעלי אמרה ליה אי מקדשנא לך אזלת לבי רב אמר לה אין איקדשא ליה בצינעה ושדרתיה שמע אבוה אפקה מביתיה אדרה הנאה מנכסיה אזיל יתיב תרי סרי שנין בבי רב כי אתא אייתי בהדיה תרי סרי אלפי תלמידי שמעיה לההוא סבא דקאמר לה עד כמה 62b. the itannataught us a ihalakha bwith regard to all of them,not only a man of leisure or a laborer. He asked him: bButwith regard to a sailor bit saidthat the set interval for conjugal relations is bsix months;why, then, should he have to divorce her if he vowed to forbid these relations for only a week? He answered him: It is well known that bone who has bread in his basket is not comparable to one who does not have bread in his basket.On a fast day, one who does not have bread available in his basket suffers more than one who does have bread available and knows that he will be able to eat later. In this case as well, when a woman knows that marital relations are forbidden to her due to a vow, her suffering from waiting for her husband to return is increased., bRabba bar Rav Ha said to Abaye: If a donkey driverwho is already married wants to bbecome a camel driver, whatis the ihalakha /i? Is he permitted to change his profession in order to earn more money from his work, even though this will mean he reduces the frequency with which he engages in conjugal relations with his wife? bHe answered him: A woman prefers a ikav /i,i.e., modest means, bwith conjugal relations to ten ikavwith abstinence.Consequently, he is not allowed to change his profession without her permission.,§ The mishna stated: For bsailors,the set interval for conjugal relations is bonce every six months. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer. Rav Berona saidthat bRav said:The ihalakhais in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Eliezer. Rav Adda bar Ahava saidthat bRav said: This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer, but the Rabbis say: Students may leavetheir homes bto study Torahfor as long as btwo or three years without permissionfrom their wives. bRava said: The Sages relied on Rabbi Adda bar Ahava’sopinion band performed an actionlike this bthemselves,but the results were sometimes fatal.,This is basit is related babout Rav Reḥumi, who would commonlystudy bbefore Rava in Meḥoza: He was accustomed to comeback bto his home everyyear on the beve of Yom Kippur. One day he wasparticularly bengrossed inthe ihalakha /ihe was studying, and so he remained in the study hall and did not go home. bHis wife was expecting himthat day and continually said to herself: bNow he is coming, now he is coming.But in the end, bhe did not come. She was distressedby this and ba tear fell from her eye.At that exact moment, Rav Reḥumi bwas sitting on the roof. The roof collapsed under him and he died.This teaches how much one must be careful, as he was punished severely for causing anguish to his wife, even inadvertently.,§ bWhenis btheideal btime for Torah scholarsto fulfill their conjugal obligations? bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said:The appropriate time for them is bfrom Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve,i.e., on Friday nights. Similarly, it is stated with regard to the verse b“that brings forth its fruit in its season”(Psalms 1:3): bRav Yehuda said, and some saythat it was bRav Huna, and some saythat it was bRav Naḥman: Thisis referring to one bwho engages in marital relations,bringing forth his fruit, bfrom Shabbat eve to Shabbat eve. /b,It is related further that bYehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyyaand bson-in-law of Rabbi Yannai, would go and sit in the study hall, and everyShabbat eve bat twilight he would come to his house. When he would come,Rabbi Yannai bwould see a pillar of fire preceding himdue to his sanctity. bOne day he was engrossed inthe ihalakha /ihe was studying, and he stayed in the study hall and did not return home. bWhen Rabbi Yannai did not see that signpreceding him, bhe said tothe family: bTurn his bed over,as one does at times of mourning, since he must have died, reasoning that bif Yehuda were alive he would not have missed his set intervalfor conjugal relations and would certainly have come home. What he said bbecame “like an error that proceeds from a ruler”(Ecclesiastes 10:5), bandYehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, bdied. /b,It is related further that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi barranged for his sonto marry a daughter of bthe household of Rabbi Ḥiyya. When he came to write the marriage contract, the girl died. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: Is there, Heaven forbid, some disqualificationin these families, as it appears that God prevented this match from taking place? bThey sat and looked into the families’ancestry and found that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bwas descended from Shefatya ben Avital,the wife of David, whereas bRabbi Ḥiyya was descended from Shimi, David’s brother. /b, bHe went and arranged for his sonto marry a daughter bof the household of Rabbi Yosei ben Zimra. They agreed for himthat they would support him for btwelve years to go to study in the study hall.It was assumed that he would first go to study and afterward get married. bThey passedthe girl bin front ofthe groom and when he saw her bhe said: Let it bejust bsix years. They passed her in front of himagain and bhe said to them: I will marry hernow band then goto study. bHe wasthen bashamedto see bhis father,as he thought he would reprimand him because when he saw the girl he desired her and could not wait. His father placated him and bsaid to him: My son, you have your Maker’s perception,meaning you acted the same way that God does.,The proof for this is that binitially it is written: “You bring them and plant themin the mountain of Your inheritance, the place that You, O Lord, have made for You to dwell in” (Exodus 15:17), which indicates that God’s original intention was to build a Temple for the Jewish people after they had entered Eretz Yisrael. bAnd ultimately it is written: “And let them make Me a Sanctuary, that I may dwell among them”(Exodus 25:8), i.e., even while they were still in the desert, which indicates that due to their closeness to God, they enjoyed greater affection and He therefore advanced what would originally have come later.,After his wedding bhe went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back his wife had become infertile,as a consequence of spending many years without her husband. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: Whatshould we bdo? If he will divorce her,people bwill say: This poor woman waitedand hoped bfor naught. If he will marry another womanto beget children, people bwill say: This one,who bears him children, bis his wife and that one,who lives with him, bis his mistress.Therefore, her husband bpleadedwith God bto have mercy on her and she was cured. /b, bRabbi Ḥaya ben Ḥakhinai went to the study hall at the end of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai’s wedding feast.Rabbi Shimon bsaid to him: Wait for me until Ican bcome with you,after my days of celebration are over. However, since he wanted to learn Torah, bhe did not waitand bwent and sat for twelve years in the study hall. By the time he came back, all the paths of his city had changed and he did not know how to go to his home. /b, bHe wentand bsat on the bank of the river and heard people calling to a certain girl: Daughter of Ḥakhinai, daughter of Ḥakhinai, fill your pitcher and come up. He said: I can conclude from this that this is our daughter,meaning his own daughter, whom he had not recognized after so many years. bHe followed herto his house. bHis wife was sitting and sifting flour. She lifted her eyes up, saw himand recognized him, band her heart flutteredwith agitation and bshe passed awayfrom the emotional stress. Rabbi Ḥaya bsaid beforeGod: bMaster of the universe, is this the reward of this poor woman? He pleaded for mercy for her and she lived. /b, bRabbi Ḥama bar Bisa went and sat for twelve years in the study hall. When he cameback to his house, bhe said: I will not do what the son of Ḥakhinai,who came home suddenly with tragic consequences for his wife, bdid. He went and sat in the study hallin his hometown, band senta message bto his housethat he had arrived. While he was sitting there bhis son Rabbi Oshaya,whom he did not recognize, bcame and sat before him.Rabbi Oshaya basked himquestions about ihalakha /i, andRabbi Ḥama bsaw that the ihalakhotofRabbi Oshaya bwere incisive,i.e., he was very sharp. Rabbi Ḥama bwas distressed and said: If I had been hereand had taught my son bI would have had a child like this. /b,Rabbi Ḥama bwent in to his houseand bhis son went inwith him. Rabbi Ḥama then bstood up before himto honor a Torah scholar, since bhe thoughtthat bhe wanted to ask him a matter of ihalakha /i. His wife said to him: Is there a father who stands up before his son?The Gemara comments: bRami bar Ḥama readthe verse babout him: “A threefold cord is not quickly broken”(Ecclesiastes 4:12). bThisis referring to bRabbi Oshaya, son of Rabbi Ḥama bar Bisa,as he represented the third generation of Torah scholars in his family.,The Gemara further relates: bRabbi Akiva was the shepherd of ben Kalba Savua,one of the wealthy residents of Jerusalem. The bdaughterof Ben Kalba Savua bsaw that he was humble and refined. She said to him: If I betroth myself to you, will you go to the study hallto learn Torah? bHe said to her: Yes. She became betrothed to him privately and sent himoff to study. bHer father heardthis and became angry. bHe removed her from his houseand took a bvowprohibiting her from bbenefiting from his property.Rabbi Akiva bwentand bsat for twelve years in the study hall. When he cameback to his house bhe brought twelve thousand studentswith him, and as he approached bhe heard an old man saying tohis wife: bFor how long /b
17. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

66a. אמר לו רבי עקיבא או חלוף מה אם הזאה שהיא משום שבות אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שהיא משום מלאכה אינו דין שלא תדחה את השבת אמר לו ר' אליעזר עקיבא עקרת מה שכתוב בתורה (במדבר ט, ב) במועדו בין בחול בין בשבת,אמר לו רבי הבא לי מועד לאלו כמועד לשחיטה כלל אמר רבי עקיבא כל מלאכה שאפשר לעשותה מערב שבת אינה דוחה את השבת שחיטה שאי אפשר לעשותה מע"ש דוחה את השבת:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן הלכה זו נתעלמה מבני בתירא פעם אחת חל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת שכחו ולא ידעו אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו כלום יש אדם שיודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמרו להם אדם אחד יש שעלה מבבל והלל הבבלי שמו ששימש שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון ויודע אם פסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו שלחו וקראו לו אמרו לו כלום אתה יודע אם הפסח דוחה את השבת אם לאו אמר להם וכי פסח אחד יש לנו בשנה שדוחה את השבת והלא הרבה יותר ממאתים פסחים יש לנו בשנה שדוחין את השבת,אמרו לו מנין לך אמר להם נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר (במדבר כח, ב) מועדו בתמיד מה מועדו האמור בתמיד דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח דוחה את השבת,ועוד ק"ו הוא ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת פסח שענוש כרת אינו דין שדוחה את השבת,מיד הושיבוהו בראש ומינוהו נשיא עליהם והיה דורש כל היום כולו בהלכות הפסח התחיל מקנטרן בדברים אמר להן מי גרם לכם שאעלה מבבל ואהיה נשיא עליכם עצלות שהיתה בכם שלא שמשתם שני גדולי הדור שמעיה ואבטליון,אמרו לו ר' שכח ולא הביא סכין מע"ש מהו אמר להן הלכה זו שמעתי ושכחתי אלא הנח להן לישראל אם אין נביאים הן בני נביאים הן,למחר מי שפסחו טלה תוחבו בצמרו מי שפסחו גדי תוחבו בין קרניו ראה מעשה ונזכר הלכה ואמר כך מקובלני מפי שמעיה ואבטליון,אמר מר נאמר מועדו בפסח ונאמר מועדו בתמיד מה מועדו האמור בתמיד דוחה את השבת אף מועדו האמור בפסח דוחה שבת ותמיד גופיה מנלן דדחי שבת אילימא משום דכתיב ביה במועדו פסח נמי הא כתיב ביה מועדו,אלא מועדו לא משמע ליה הכא נמי מועדו לא משמע ליה אלא אמר קרא (במדבר כח, י) עולת שבת בשבתו על עולת התמיד מכלל [עולה] דתמיד קרבה בשבת,אמר מר ועוד ק"ו ומה תמיד שאין ענוש כרת דוחה את השבת פסח שענוש כרת אינו דין שדוחה את השבת איכא למיפרך מה לתמיד שכן תדיר וכליל ק"ו אמר להו ברישא ופרכוה והדר אמר להו גזירה שוה,וכי מאחר דגמר גזירה שוה ק"ו למה לי אלא לדידהו קאמר להו בשלמא גזירה שוה לא גמריתו דאין אדם דן גזירה שוה מעצמו אלא ק"ו דאדם דן מעצמו איבעי לכו למידן אמרו ליה קל וחומר פריכא הוא:,אמר מר למחר מי שפסחו טלה תוחב לו בצמרו גדי תוחב לו בין קרניו 66a. bRabbi Akiva said toRabbi Eliezer: bOrperhaps we can breversethe order of your argument and say the opposite: bIf,as we know by accepted tradition, bsprinklingthe purifying water on Shabbat, bwhich isprohibited only bdue to rabbinic decree, does not override Shabbat,then with regard to bslaughter, which isprohibited bas abiblically prohibited blabor, is it not right that it should not override Shabbat?Therefore, it should be prohibited to slaughter the Paschal lamb when the eve of Passover occurs on Shabbat. bRabbi Eliezer said to him: Akiva,how can you say this? bYou havethus buprooted what is written in the Torah:“Let the children of Israel offer the Paschal lamb bin its appointed time”(Numbers 9:2); the phrase “at its appointed time” indicates that the offering must be brought on that day, bwhether it is a weekday or Shabbat. /b,Rabbi Akiva bsaid toRabbi Eliezer: bMy teacher, bring me an appointed timestated in the Torah bfor thesetasks, namely, carrying the animal or bringing it from outside the Shabbat limits, blike the appointed timestated bwith respect to slaughter.The Paschal lamb must be slaughtered on the fourteenth of Nisan, but there is no fixed time when the animal must be brought to the Temple, and it is therefore possible to transport it before Shabbat. bRabbi Akiva stated a principle: Any prohibited laborrequired for the offering of the sacrifice bthat can be performed on the eve of Shabbat does not override Shabbat; slaughter, which cannot be performed on the eve of Shabbat, overrides Shabbat. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughta ibaraitawith regard to the basic ihalakhagoverning the eve of Passover that boccurson Shabbat: bThis law was forgotten by the sons of Beteira,who were the leaders of their generation. bThe fourteenthof Nisan bonce occurred on Shabbat,and bthey forgot and did not know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not. They said: Is there any person who knows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? They said to them: There is a certain manin Jerusalem bwho came up from Babylonia, and Hillel the Babylonian is his name.At one point, bhe served the twomost beminentscholars bof the generation, Shemaya and Avtalyon, andhe certainly bknows whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not.The sons of Beteira bsentmessengers band called for him. They said to him: Do you know whether the Paschal lamb overrides Shabbat or not? He said to them: Have webut bone Paschal lamb during the year that overrides Shabbat? Do we not have many more than two hundred Paschal lambs,i.e., sacrifices, bduring the year that override Shabbat? /b, bThey said to him: From where do youknow this? bHe said to them: “Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” isalso bstated with regard to the daily offering,for the verse says: “Command the children of Israel and say to them, My offering, the provision of My sacrifice made with fire, for a sweet savor to Me, shall you observe to offer Me at its appointed time” (Numbers 28:2). From here we learn that the daily offering is brought even on Shabbat. Thus, the daily morning and afternoon offerings are brought on more than fifty iShabbatotover the course of the year, and two sheep are offered every Shabbat as additional offerings, for a total of more than two hundred sacrifices a year that override Shabbat. bJust asthe expression b“its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat. /b, bAnd furthermore, it is an ia fortiori /iinference: bIf the daily offering,the neglect of which bis not punishable by ikaret /i, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb,the neglect of which bis punishable by ikaret /i, should override Shabbat? /b,After Hillel brought these proofs, bthey immediately seated him at the head and appointed him iNasiover them, and he expounded the laws of Passover that entire day.In the course of his teaching, bhe began rebuking them [ imekanteran /i] them with words. He said to them: What causedthis to happen bto you, that I should come up from Babylonia and become iNasiover you?It was bthe laziness in youthat byou did not serve the twomost beminentscholars bof the generationliving in Eretz Yisrael, bShemaya and Avtalyon. /b, bThey said toHillel: bOur teacher,if one bforgot and did not bring a knife on the eve of Shabbatand cannot slaughter his Paschal lamb, bwhat isthe law? Since he could have brought the knife before Shabbat, he cannot bring it on Shabbat; but what should he do in this situation? bHe said to them: Ionce bheard this ihalakha /ifrom my teachers bbut I have forgottenit. bBut leaveit bto the Jewish people; if they are not prophetsto whom God has revealed His secrets, bthey are the sons of prophets,and will certainly do the right thing on their own., bThe next day,on Shabbat that was the eve of Passover, bone whose Paschal offering was a lambtook the knife and bstuck it in its wool;and bone whose Paschal offering was a goat,which does not have wool, bstuck it between its horns.Hillel bsaw the incident and remembered the ihalakha /ithat he had once learned band said: Thisis the tradition bI received from the mouths of Shemaya and Avtalyon,meaning that this is in fact the proper course of action. This concludes the text of the ibaraitaand the Gemara will begin to elucidate it., bThe Master saidabove: b“Its appointed time” is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb and “its appointed time” is stated with regard to the daily offering. Just as “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the daily offering,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat, so too “its appointed time,” which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb,indicates that it boverrides Shabbat. And from where do wederive bthat the daily offering itself overrides Shabbat? If we say because “in its appointed time” is written in its regard, “in its appointed time” is also written with regard to the Paschal lamb.Were it possible to derive from this expression that the sacrifice is offered even on Shabbat, it would not be necessary to derive the law governing the Paschal lamb from a verbal analogy between the daily offering and the Paschal lamb., bRather,you must conclude that the expression b“its appointed time,”which is stated with regard to the Paschal lamb, bdoes not indicate toHillel that the Torah was so particular about the timing of the Paschal lamb that its slaughter overrides Shabbat. bHere too,with regard to the daily offering, you must say that b“its appointed time” does not indicate to himthat it is brought on Shabbat, and so this expression is not the source of this law. bRather,the law is derived from bthe versethat bstates: “The burnt-offering of Shabbat on its Shabbat, beside the continual burnt-offeringand its libation” (Numbers 28:10), from which bit may be inferred that the daily burnt-offering is broughteven bon Shabbat. /b,The Gemara raises another question: bThe Master saidin that same ibaraita /i: bAnd furthermore, it is an ia fortioriinference: If the daily offering,the neglect of which bis not punishable by ikaret /i, overrides Shabbat, is it not right that the Paschal lamb,the neglect of which bis punishable by ikaret /i, should override Shabbat?The Gemara points out that bthere is room to refutethe logic of this argument: bWhatis unique about bthe daily offeringthat enables it to override Shabbat? bThat it is frequent,and something that is frequent always takes precedence; bandalso that it is totally bconsumedon the altar, unlike the Paschal lamb, most of which is eaten by human beings. The Gemara explains that this is what happened: Hillel bfirst told them the ia fortioriinference, but they refuted itand proved that it was not reliable, as explained above; band then he told them the verbal analogy,and a verbal analogy is based on an oral tradition originating from Moses at Sinai and must be accepted.,The Gemara asks: bBut sinceHillel blearnedthis bverbal analogyfrom his teachers, bwhy do Ineed ban ia fortiori /iinference? Why did he add a logical argument of his own if he had an explicit verbal tradition that this was the ihalakha /i? The Gemara answers: bRather, he said it for them,to show that they had not sufficiently exerted themselves in clarifying this ihalakha /i: bGranted, you did not learn the verbal analogyon your own, because you acted according to the principle that bone may not expound a verbal analogy on one’s own.Since there is no limit to the laws that one can extract using this method of derivation, such a derivation is only legitimate if it has been transmitted as part of the oral tradition, and apparently they did not learn this verbal analogy from their teachers. bBut an ia fortiori /iinference, bwhich one can derive on one’s own, you should have derivedand you would then have known how to resolve this question. bThey said to him: It is a faulty ia fortiori /iinference, as we have shown that it can be easily refuted., bThe Master saidfurther in the ibaraita /i: bThe next day, one whose Paschal offering was a lamb stuckthe knife bin its wool,and one whose Paschal offering was a bgoat stuck it between its hornsso as to avoid carrying the knife on Shabbat.
18. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

46a. עובד כוכבים גופא לא קני ליה מאי דקני ליה הוא דמקני ליה לישראל וכיון דקדם וטבל לשם בן חורין אפקעיה לשעבודיה,כדרבא דאמר רבא הקדש חמץ ושחרור מפקיעין מידי שעבוד,מתיב רב חסדא מעשה בבלוריא הגיורת שקדמו עבדיה וטבלו לפניה ובא מעשה לפני חכמים ואמרו קנו עצמן בני חורין לפניה אין לאחריה לא,אמר רבא לפניה בין בסתם בין במפורש לאחריה במפורש אין בסתם לא,אמר רב אויא לא שנו אלא בלוקח מן העובד כוכבים אבל עובד כוכבים גופיה קני,דכתיב (ויקרא כה, מה) וגם מבני התושבים הגרים עמכם מהם תקנו אתם קונים מהם ולא הם קונים מכם ולא הם קונים זה מזה,ולא הם קונים מכם למאי אילימא למעשה ידיו אטו עובד כוכבים לא קני ליה לישראל למעשה ידיו והכתיב (ויקרא כה, מז) או לעקר משפחת גר ואמר מר משפחת גר זה העובד כוכבים אלא לאו לגופיה וקאמר רחמנא אתם קונין מהם אפילו גופיה,פריך רב אחא אימא בכספא ובטבילה קשיא,אמר שמואל וצריך לתקפו במים,כי האי דמנימין עבדיה דרב אשי בעא לאטבולי מסריה ניהלייהו לרבינא ולרב אחא ברי' דרבא אמר להו חזו דמינייכו קבעית ליה רמו ליה ארויסא בצואריה ארפו ליה וצמצמו ליה,ארפו ליה כי היכי דלא להוי חציצה צמצמו ליה כי היכי דלא לקדים ולימא להו לשם בן חורין אני טובל בהדי דדלי רישיה ממיא אנחו ליה זולטא דטינא ארישיה ואמרו ליה זיל אמטי לבי מרך,א"ל רב פפא לרבא חזי מר הני דבי פפא בר אבא דיהבי זוזי לאינשי לכרגייהו ומשעבדי בהו כי נפקי צריכי גיטא דחירותא או לא,א"ל איכו שכיבי לא אמרי לכו הא מילתא הכי א"ר ששת מוהרקייהו דהני בטפסא דמלכא מנח ומלכא אמר מאן דלא יהיב כרגא משתעבד למאן דיהיב כרגא,ר' חייא בר אבא איקלע לגבלא חזא בנות ישראל דמעברן מגרים שמלו ולא טבלו וחזא חמרא דישראל דמזגי עובדי כוכבים ושתו ישראל וחזא תורמוסין דשלקי עובדי כוכבים ואכלי ישראל ולא אמר להו ולא מידי,אתא לקמיה דר' יוחנן א"ל צא והכרז על בניהם שהם ממזרים ועל יינם משום יין נסך ועל תורמוסן משום בישולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה,על בניהן שהם ממזרים ר' יוחנן לטעמיה דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן לעולם אין גר עד שימול ויטבול וכיון דלא טביל עובד כוכבים הוא ואמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן עובד כוכבים ועבד הבא על בת ישראל הולד ממזר,ועל יינם משום יין נסך משום לך לך אמרין נזירא סחור סחור לכרמא לא תקרב,ועל תורמוסן משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים לפי שאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי והאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל הנאכל כמות שהוא חי אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים והא תורמוס אינו נאכל כמות שהוא חי ויש בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים,ר' יוחנן כאידך לישנא סבירא ליה דאמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק משמי' דרב כל שאין עולה על שולחן מלכים לאכול בו את הפת אין בו משום בשולי עובדי כוכבים וטעמא דאינן בני תורה הא בני תורה שרי,ת"ר גר שמל ולא טבל ר"א אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באבותינו שמלו ולא טבלו טבל ולא מל ר' יהושע אומר הרי זה גר שכן מצינו באמהות שטבלו ולא מלו וחכמים אומרים טבל ולא מל מל ולא טבל אין גר עד שימול ויטבול,ורבי יהושע נמי נילף מאבות ור"א נמי נילף מאמהות וכי תימא אין דנין אפשר משאי אפשר,והתניא ר"א אומר מנין לפסח דורות שאין בא אלא מן החולין נאמר פסח במצרים ונאמר פסח בדורות מה פסח האמור במצרים אין בא אלא מן החולין אף פסח האמור לדורות אין בא אלא מן החולין,א"ל ר' עקיבא וכי דנין אפשר משאי אפשר א"ל אע"פ שאי אפשר ראיה גדולה היא ונלמד הימנה,אלא 46a. His previous bgentileowner bdid not have ownership of theslave’s bbody,since a gentile is unable to have ownership of another’s body; rather, he had rights to only the slave’s labor. And only bthat which he owned in him was heable to bsell tothe bJew.Therefore, before immersion, the Jew had rights to only the slave’s labor, but not ownership of his body, bandtherefore, boncethe slave bpreemptedhis owner band immersed for the sake ofconversion to make him ba freeman, he abrogateshis master’s blienupon him.,The Gemara notes: This explanation is bin accordance withthe opinion bof Rava, as Rava said: Consecrationof an item to the Temple, the prohibition of bleavened breadtaking effect upon a leavened food, bandthe bemancipationof a slave babrogateany blienthat exists upon them., bRav Ḥisda raised an objectionfrom a ibaraita /i: There was ban incident involving Beloreya the female convert in which her slaves preemptedher band immersed before herown immersion for her own conversion. bAndthe details of the bincident came before the Sages, and they said:The slaves bacquired themselvesand became bfreemen.Rav Ḥisda explains how the ibaraitaposes a challenge: The ibaraitaimplies that only because the slaves immersed bbefore her,while she was still a gentile, that byes,they became freemen; however, had they immersed bafter her,i.e., after she had already converted, then bno,they would not have become freemen. The reason for this is presumably that upon her conversion she attains the rights to her slaves’ bodies, and therefore their immersion for the sake of becoming freemen would be ineffective. However, this contradicts the Gemara’s explanation above that when a Jew gains ownership of a slave from a gentile, he has a right to only the slave’s labor.,To resolve the challenge bRava said:When the ibaraitasays that because they immersed bbefore herthey acquired themselves, that is bwhetherthey immersed bwithout a specifiedintention bor whetherthey immersed bwith explicitintention to convert and become freemen. However, had they immersed bafter her,if they did so bwith explicitintention to convert, then byes,the immersion would achieve that end, but if they did so bwithout a specifiedintention, then bno,their immersion would, by default, be considered for the sake of slavery and they would not become free., bRav Avya said: They taughtthat one acquires only the rights to the slave’s labor bonly with regard toa Jew bwho purchaseda slave bfrom a gentileslave owner, bbutif ba gentilesold bhisown bbodyas a slave directly to a Jew, then the Jew bacquireshis body., bAs it is written: “Moreover, of the children of the strangers that sojourn among you, of them you may acquire”(Leviticus 25:45). The verse states only that byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,i.e., a gentile slave, bbut they cannot acquirea slave bfrom you,i.e., a Jewish slave, band they cannot acquirea slave bfrom one another. /b,When it is derived that: bBut they cannot acquireslaves bfrom you, to whattype of acquisition is it referring? bIf we sayit is bfor his labor, is that to saythat ba gentile cannot acquire a Jew for his labor? Isn’t it written:“And if a stranger who is a settler with you becomes rich, and your brother becomes poor beside him, and he sells himself to the stranger who is a settler with you, bor to the offshoot of a stranger’s family”(Leviticus 25:47), band the Master saidin explanation of the phrase b“a stranger’s family”that bthisis referring to ba gentile.If so, the verse explicitly states that a Jew can sell himself as a slave to a gentile. bRather, is it notthat the reference is btoselling bhis body, and the Merciful One statesthat byou,i.e., Jews, bcan acquirea slave bfrom them,which means beven his body.Accordingly the verse indicates that a Jew can acquire a gentile slave’s body, but a gentile is unable to acquire ownership of another’s body, even that of another gentile., bRav Aḥa refutesRav Avya’s explanation: bSaythat the verse is referring to acquiring a gentile slave by both purchasing him bwith money andthen bby immersinghim for the purpose of slavery, and only in that case does it teach that a Jew acquires the gentile slave’s body. However, until he has been immersed the acquisition is not fully complete, and therefore if the slave immerses himself with the intention to become free, then his immersion would achieve that end. The Gemara concedes: This is bdifficult. /b, bShmuel said: Andif one wishes to ensure that one’s slave does not declare the immersion to be for the sake of conversion, then bone needs to hold him tightly in the waterin a way that demonstrates the owner’s domice over the slave at that time, thereby defining the immersion as one for the sake of slavery.,That is basdemonstrated bin thisincident binvolving Minyamin, Rav Ashi’s slave:When bhe wished to immersehim, bhe passed him to Ravina and Rav Aḥa, son of Rava,to perform the immersion on his behalf, and bhe said to them: Be aware that I will claimcompensation bfor him from youif you do not prevent my slave from immersing for the sake of conversion. bThey placed a bridle [ iarvisa /i] upon his neck,and at the moment of immersion bthey loosened it andthen immediately btightened itagain while he was still immersed.,The Gemara explains their actions: bTheyinitially bloosened it in order that there should not be any interpositionbetween the slave and the water during the immersion, which would invalidate it. bTheyimmediately btightened itagain bin order thatthe slave bshould not preemptthem band say to them: I am immersing for the sake ofbecoming ba freeman. When he lifted his head from the water they placed a bucket of clay upon his head and said to him: Goand bbringthis bto the house of your master.They did this in order to demonstrate that the immersion had been successful and that he was still a slave., bRav Pappa said to Rava:Has bthe Master seen those of the house of Pappa bar Abba who give moneyto the tax-collectors bon behalf ofpoor bpeople topay bfor their poll tax [ ikarga /i], andas a result bthey would enslave them.Anyone who did not pay the tax would be taken as a slave for the king. By paying for such people’s taxes, the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba essentially purchased those people, who had become the king’s slaves, for themselves. Rav Pappa asked: bWhenthose slaves bgo free, do they require a bill of emancipation,because the members of the house of Pappa bar Abba actually attained ownership of the slaves’ bodies, bor not,as they were owned only for the sake of their labor?, bHe said to him: Were I dead I could not say this matter to you,so it is good that you have asked me while I am still alive, as I know that bthisis what bRav Sheshet saidwith regard to the matter: bThe writ of slavery [ imoharkayehu /i] of theseresidents of the kingdom brests in the treasury [ itafsa /i] of the king,and in fact all the residents of the kingdom are considered to be full slaves of the king, i.e., he owns their bodies, irrespective of whether they pay their taxes. bAndso when bthe king says: One who does not give the poll tax is to be enslaved to the one whodoes bgive the poll taxon his behalf, the king’s decree is fully effective in making those residents full slaves of those who paid for them. As such, they will require a bill of emancipation when they are freed.,§ The Gemara relates: bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abbaonce bhappenedto come bto Gavla. He saw Jewish womenthere bwho had become pregt from converts who were circumcised but hadstill bnot immersedto complete their conversion process; band he saw wine of Jews that gentiles were pouring, and Jews were drinkingit; band he saw lupines [ iturmusin /i] that gentiles were cooking, and Jews were eatingthem; bbut he did not say anything to them. /b,Later, bhe came before Rabbi Yoḥaand told him what he had witnessed. bRabbi Yoḥa said to him: Go and makea public bdeclaration concerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, and concerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibation, and concerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentiles.One should be stringent and make such a declaration bbecause they are notwell-versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually transgress Torah prohibitions.,The Gemara explains: With regard to the declaration bconcerning their children that they are imamzerim /i, Rabbi Yoḥaconforms bto hisstandard line of breasoningin two ihalakhot /i: The first is bas Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:One bis neverconsidered to be ba convert until he has been circumcised and has immersed. And sincethe convert in the case in Gavla bhad not immersed, he isstill considered ba gentile. Andthe second ihalakhais as bRabba bar bar Ḥana saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With regard to ba gentile or a slave who engaged in intercourse with a Jewish woman, the offspringof that union bis a imamzer /i. /b, bAndthe reason to declare bconcerning their winethat it is forbidden bbecauseit is like bwine poured as anidolatrous blibationis that although their wine was not actually poured as an idolatrous libation, it was prohibited by rabbinic decree bdue tothe maxim that: bGo, go, we say to a nazirite, go around and go around,but bdo not come near to the vineyard.Although a nazirite is prohibited only from eating produce of the vine, he is warned not even to come into close proximity of a vineyard as a protective measure to ensure that he will not transgress this prohibition. So too, in many cases, the Sages decreed certain items and actions to be prohibited because they understood that if people would partake of them, they would eventually transgress Torah prohibitions., bAndthe final declaration bconcerning their lupinesthat they are forbidden bbecausethey are bfood cooked by gentilesis issued bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah.The Gemara expresses astonishment: Does this imply that bwere they students of the Torahtheir lupines would bbe permitted? Didn’t Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak say in the name of Rav: Anyfood item bthat is eaten as it is, raw, is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles,even when cooked by them? bBut a lupine is not eaten as it is, raw, andtherefore bit is subject tothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles. /b,The Gemara explains that bRabbi Yoḥa holdsin this matter bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe other versionof what bRav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said in the name of Rav: Anyfood item that lacks sufficient importance such that it bdoes not appear on the table of kingsin order bto eat bread with it is notsubject btothe prohibition of bfood cooked by gentiles.Lupines lack importance and are therefore permitted even if cooked by gentiles. bAndconsequently, btheonly breasonto make a declaration prohibiting the residents of Gavla from eating them is bbecause they are notwell versed bin Torah,and if they are left to be lax in this regard they will eventually become lax in actual Torah prohibitions; by inference, to those well versed bin Torah, it is permitted.br§ During their sojourn in Egypt, the children of Israel had the halakhic status of gentiles. At the revelation at Sinai they entered into a national covet with God in which they attained their status of the Jewish people. This transformation was essentially the mass conversion of the people, and so their preparation for the revelation provides a paradigm of the process required for conversion for all generations. The itanna’imdisagree as to which aspects of that original conversion are to be derived for all generations., bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba convert who was circumcised but did not immerse, Rabbi Eliezer saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our forefathersfollowing the exodus from Egypt bthat they were circumcised but were not immersed.With regard to one who bimmersed but was not circumcised, Rabbi Yehoshua saysthat bthis is a convert, as so we found with our foremothers that they immersed but were not circumcised. And the Rabbis say:Whether bhe immersed but was not circumcisedor whether bhe was circumcised but did not immerse, he is not a convert until he is circumcised and he immerses. /b,The Gemara questions the opinions in the ibaraita /i: bBut let Rabbi Yehoshua also derivewhat is required for conversion bfromour bforefathers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd let Rabbi Eliezer also derivethe ihalakha bfromour bforemothers;why didn’t he do so? bAnd if you would saythat Rabbi Eliezer did not derive the ihalakhafrom our foremothers because he holds bone cannot derivethe bpossible fromthe bimpossible,i.e., one cannot derive that men do not require circumcision from the ihalakhathat women do not require it, because for women it is a physical impossibility, that claim may be refuted.,It would appear that Rabbi Eliezer does not accept that principle, as bisn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: From whereis it derived with regard btothe bPaschal lambbrought throughout the bgenerations that it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals? bA Paschal lamb is statedin the Torah binreference to the lamb that the Jewish people brought prior to the exodus from bEgypt, and a Paschal lamb is stated inreference to the yearly obligation throughout the bgenerations.The association between them teaches that bjust as the Paschal lamb stated inreference to bEgypt was only brought from non-sacredanimals, since prior to the giving of the Torah there was no possibility to consecrate property, bso too,with regard to bthe Paschal lamb statedin reference btothe obligation throughout the bgenerations, it may be brought only from non-sacredanimals., bRabbi Akiva said to him: But can one derivethe bpossible,i.e., the ihalakhafor the Paschal lamb throughout the generations, where a possibility exists to bring it from consecrated animals, bfromthe bimpossible,i.e., from the Paschal lamb in Egypt, where it was not a possibility? Rabbi Eliezer bsaid to him: Although it was impossibleto bring the Paschal lamb in Egypt from consecrated animals, nevertheless, bit isstill ba great proof, and we may learn from it.It is apparent, then, that Rabbi Eliezer holds that one can derive the possible from the impossible. Therefore the original question stands: Why didn’t Rabbi Eliezer derive from the foremothers that circumcision is not essential for conversion?,The Gemara concedes: bRather,the ibaraitamust be reinterpreted as follows:


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
aaron Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 200
abot, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
analogy Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
aquila Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
calendar Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
daily offering (tamid) Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
extirpation (karet) Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
halakhah, as modality of tradition Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188
hillel Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 142, 143; Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 200
hillel and shammai Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
hiyya bar abba Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
memorization Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 200
metaphors, literal representation of Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
metaphors, rod Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
mishnah, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
moses Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 200
passover (pesah)̣, and sabbath Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 142, 143
pentateuch, passover in Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
rahumi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
repetition Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 200
sabbath, and passover Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 142, 143
sages, rabbinic, first encounters with torah Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
sifra, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
sifre to deuteronomy, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
sifré to numbers, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
time' Balberg, Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature (2017) 143
torah, oral and written Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188
torah, sages first encounters with Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
tosefta, exemplarity of sages lives in Neusner, The Idea of History in Rabbinic Judaism (2004) 171
yehoshua ben levi Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
yehuda the son of rabbi hiiyya Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123
yohanan Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 123