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



10968
Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.10
NaN


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

17 results
1. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 11-16, 9-10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

2. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 11-16, 9-10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

3. 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."
4. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9, 2.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

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

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

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

9. Tosefta, Oholot, 4.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

10. Tosefta, Pesahim, 4.13-4.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

11. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

12. 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. "
13. Tosefta, Yevamot, 14.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

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

16a. זו עשירית האיפה שלו דברי רבי יהודה,ר"ש אומר (יחזקאל מד, כז) בבאו יקריב בזמן שראוי לביאה ראוי להקרבה בזמן שאינו ראוי לביאה אינו ראוי להקרבה,אמר רבא מנלן דמשדרין שליחא דבי דינא ומזמנינן ליה לדינא דכתיב (במדבר טז, יב) וישלח משה לקרא לדתן ולאבירם בני אליאב ומנלן דמזמנינן לדינא דכתיב (במדבר טז, טז) ויאמר משה אל קרח אתה וכל עדתך,לקמי גברא רבה דכתיב (במדבר טז, טז) לפני ה' את ופלניא דכתיב אתה והם ואהרן דקבעינן זימנא דכתיב מחר זימנא בתר זימנא דכתיב (ירמיהו מו, יז) קראו שם פרעה מלך מצרים שאון העביר המועד,ומנלן דאי מתפקר בשליחא דבי דינא ואתי ואמר לא מיתחזי כלישנא בישא דכתיב (במדבר טז, יד) העיני האנשים ההם תנקר,ומנלן דמשמתינן דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) אורו מרוז דהכי סברא דגברא רבה דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) אמר מלאך ה' ומנלן דמחרמינן דכתיב אורו ארור,דאכיל ושתי בהדיה וקאי בארבע אמות דידיה דכתיב יושביה ומנלן דפרטינן חטאיה בציבורא דכתיב (שופטים ה, כג) כי לא באו לעזרת ה',ואמר עולא בד' מאה שיפורי שמתיה ברק למרוז איכא דאמרי גברא רבה הוה ואיכא דאמרי כוכבא הוה שנאמר (שופטים ה, כ) מן שמים נלחמו הכוכבים,ומנלן דמפקרינן נכסיה דכתיב (עזרא י, ח) וכל אשר לא יבא לשלשת הימים בעצת השרים והזקנים יחרם כל רכושו והוא יבדל מקהל הגולה,ומנלן דנצינן ולייטינן ומחינן ותלשינן שיער ומשבעינן דכתיב (נחמיה יג, כה) ואריב עמם ואקללם ואכה מהם אנשים ואמרטם ואשביעם,ומנלן דכפתינן ואסרינן ועבדינן הרדפה דכתיב (עזרא ז, כו) הן למות הן לשרושי הן לענש נכסין ולאסורין מאי לשרושי אמר אדא מרי אמר נחמיה בר ברוך אמר רב חייא בר אבין אמר רב יהודה הרדפה מאי הרדפה אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב מנדין לאלתר ושונין לאחר ל' ומחרימין לאחר ששים,א"ל רב הונא בר חיננא הכי אמר רב חסדא מתרין ביה שני וחמישי ושני ה"מ לממונא אבל לאפקירותא לאלתר,ההוא טבחא דאיתפקר ברב טובי בר מתנה אימנו עליה אביי ורבא ושמתוהו לסוף אזל פייסיה לבעל דיניה אמר אביי היכי ליעביד לישרי ליה לא חל שמתא עליה תלתין יומין לא לישרי ליה קא בעו רבנן למיעל,א"ל לרב אידי בר אבין מידי שמיע לך בהא א"ל הכי אמר רב תחליפא בר אבימי אמר שמואל טוט אסר וטוט שרי אמר ליה ה"מ לממונא אבל לאפקירותא עד דחיילא שמתא עליה תלתין יומין,אלמא קסבר אביי הני בי תלתא דשמיתו לא אתו תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,דאיבעיא להו הני בי תלתא דשמיתו מהו למיתי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה ת"ש מנודה לרב מנודה לתלמיד מנודה לתלמיד אינו מנודה לרב,מנודה לעירו מנודה לעיר אחרת מנודה לעיר אחרת אינו מנודה לעירו מנודה לנשיא מנודה לכל ישראל מנודה לכל ישראל אינו מנודה לנשיא רשב"ג אומר אחד מן התלמידים שנידה ומת חלקו אינו מופר,ש"מ תלת שמע מינה תלמיד שנידה לכבודו נידויו נידוי ושמע מינה כל אחד ואחד מיפר חלקו וש"מ הני בי תלתא דשמיתו לא אתו תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,אמר אמימר הלכתא הני בי תלתא דשמיתו אתו בי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה א"ל רב אשי לאמימר והא תניא רשב"ג אומר אחד מן התלמידים שנידה ומת חלקו אינו מופר מאי לאו אינו מופר כלל לא עד דאתו בי תלתא אחריני ושרו ליה,ת"ר אין נידוי פחות מל' יום ואין נזיפה פחות מז' ימים ואף על פי שאין ראיה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (במדבר יב, יד) ואביה ירק ירק בפניה הלא תכלם שבעת ימים,אמר רב חסדא נידוי שלנו כנזיפה שלהן ונזיפה דידהו שבעה ותו לא והא ר"ש בר רבי ובר קפרא הוו יתבי וקא גרסי קשיא להו שמעתא א"ל ר"ש לבר קפרא דבר זה צריך רבי א"ל בר קפרא לר"ש ומה רבי אומר בדבר זה,אזל א"ל לאבוה איקפד אתא בר קפרא לאיתחזויי ליה א"ל בר קפרא איני מכירך מעולם ידע דנקט מילתא בדעתיה נהג נזיפותא בנפשיה תלתין יומין,שוב פעם אחד גזר רבי שלא ישנו לתלמידים בשוק מאי דרש (שיר השירים ז, ב) חמוקי ירכיך כמו חלאים מה ירך בסתר 16a. bthis isthe meal-offering of ba tenth of an ephahof flour, which every priest would bring on the day he began serving in the Temple. But as long as he is ritually impure, whether because he had come into contact with a corpse or due to leprosy, he may not send his offerings to the Temple; this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b, bRabbi Shimon says:The verse states: “And on the day that bhe goes intothe Sanctuary, into the inner court, to minister in the Sanctuary bhe shall sacrificehis sin offering.” This teaches that bwhen he is fit to enterthe Sanctuary, bhe is fit to sacrificean offering. But bwhen he is not fit to go intothe Sanctuary, i.e., when he is ritually impure, bhe is not fit to sacrificean offering. This implies that a leper may not send his offerings to the Temple to be sacrificed on the altar, as he himself is not fit to enter the Temple.,§ Having discussed some of the restrictions applying to a person who was ostracized, the Gemara explains some of the basic principles relating to ostracism: bRava said: From where do wederive bthat a court agent is sent to summonthe defendant btoappear before the bcourtbefore he is ostracized? bAs it is written: “And Moses sent to call Dathan and Abiram, the sons of Eliab”(Numbers 16:12). bAnd from where do wederive bthat we summonthe defendant, that he himself must appear before the bcourt? As it is written: “And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregationbefore the Lord, you and they, and Aaron, tomorrow” (Numbers 16:16).,From where is it derived that the defendant must be told that he is being summoned to appear bbefore a great man? As it is written:“And Moses said to Korah: Be you and all your congregation bbefore the Lord”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that the summons must mention the names of both parties: bYou and so-and-so,the plaintiff? bAs it is written: “You, and they, and Aaron”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived bthat we set a datefor the court proceedings? bAs it is written: “Tomorrow”(Numbers 16:16). From where is it derived that a second bdatemust be set bafterthe first bdate,if the defendant did not heed the first summons? bAs it is written: “They did cry there, Pharaoh, king of Egypt is but a noise; he has passed the time appointed… /bSurely as Tabor is among the mountains, and as Carmel by the sea, so shall he come” (Jeremiah 46:17). Although a time had been appointed and it had passed, it was not canceled entirely but pushed off to a later date., bAnd from where do wederive bthat ifthe summoned person bbehaves disrespectfully toward the agent of the court, andthe agent bcomesback band reportshis conduct, that bthis is not considered slander? As it is written: “Will you put out the eyes of these men?”(Numbers 16:14). Dathan and Abiram spoke these words to the messenger that Moses had sent to them, and the messenger reported them back to Moses., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we ostracizeone who does not obey a court summons? bAs it is written: “Curse Meroz”(Judges 5:23), who was ostracized for not coming to battle after having been summoned. From where is it derived that the ostracized person must be told bthat itwas bthe decision of a great manto ostracized him? bAs it is written:“Curse Meroz, bsaid the messenger of the Lord”(Judges 5:23). bAnd from where do wederive bthat,if he fails to mend his ways, bwe excommunicatesuch a person more harshly, putting him under the most severe form of excommunication? bAs it is written:“Curse Meroz… bcurse bitterlyits inhabitants” (Judges 5:23), implying that one curse is followed by another, i.e., lesser ostracism is followed by harsh excommunication.,From where is it derived bthatthe curse applies to anyone who beats or drinks with, or stands within, four cubits ofthe ostracized person? bAs it is written:“Curse bitterly bits inhabitants”(Judges 5:23), in reference to all those sitting together with Meroz. bAnd from where do wederive bthat we detail his sin in public? As it is written:“Curse bitterly its inhabitants, bbecause they did not come to the help of the Lord”(Judges 5:23)., bAnd Ulla said: Barak ostracized Meroz withthe blowing of bfour hundred ishofarot /idue to his failure to come. As for the identification of Meroz, bsome saythat bhe was a great manand that he was ostracized because he did not join in the war effort. bAnd others saythat the reference is to ba starand not a human being, and that it did not aid the Jewish people in their battle, bas it is stated: “The stars fought from heaven;in their courses they fought against Sisera,” (Judges 5:20). This star, which did not help the Jewish people, was cursed., bAnd from where do wederive bthatthe court bmay declare the property ofone who does not obey its orders bas ownerless? As it is written: “And that whoever would not come within three days, according to the counsel of the princes and the Elders, all his substance shall be forfeited [ iyaḥoram /i] and himself separated from the congregation of the exiles”(Ezra 10:8). “Shall be forfeited” is referring to excommunication., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we may contend withsuch a person, band cursehim, band beathim, band pull outhis bhair, and makehim btake an oathin order to prevent him from sinning? bAs it is written: “And I contended with them, and cursed them, and beat some of them, and pulled out their hair, and made them take oathby God” (Nehemiah 13:25)., bAnd from where do wederive bthat we may shacklehis hands and feet, bchainhim, band apply pressure? As it is written: “Whether it be for death, or for banishment [ ilishroshi /i], or for confiscation of goods, or for imprisonment”(Ezra 7:26). The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the word b“ ilishroshi /i,”translated here as banishment? bAdda Mari saidthat bNeḥemya bar Baruch saidthat bRav Ḥiyya bar Avin saidthat bRav Yehuda said:This is bpressure.Since this expression is also unclear, the Gemara asks: bWhatis bpressure? Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Ravthat this term refers to the following series of actions: bThey ostracizehim bimmediately, andthen once bagain after thirtydays, and if he still does not repent, bthey excommunicate him after sixtydays., bRav Huna bar Ḥina said to him: Rav Ḥisda said as follows:Before excommunicating a person, the court bwarns himthree times, on bMonday, Thursday, andthe following bMonday.The Gemara notes: bThis appliesin a case where one ignores ba monetary judgmentthat was issued against him. He is warned three times that he must repay his debt. bButin a case where one bbehaves disrespectfullytoward a Torah scholar, he is bimmediatelyostracized.,§ The Gemara relates that ba certain butcher behaved disrespectfully toward Rav Tuvi bar Mattana. Abaye and Rava were appointedto the case band ostracized him. In the endthe butcher bwent and appeased his disputant,Rav Tuvi. bAbaye said: What should we doin this case? Shall bhe be releasedfrom his decree of ostracism? bHisdecree of bostracism has notyet bbeen in effect forthe usual bthirty days.On the other hand, bshall he not be releasedfrom ostracism? But bthe Sages wish to enterhis shop and purchase meat, and they are presently unable to do so. What, then, is the most appropriate course of action?, bHe said to Rav Idi bar Avin:Have byou heard anything with regard to sucha case? Rav Idi bar Avin bsaid toAbaye: bRav Taḥlifa bar Avimi saidthat bShmuel said as follows:A ishofar bblastat the time of the ostracism bmakesit bbinding, anda ishofar bblast releasesit. In other words, the ishofarshould be sounded now, as it had been sounded when the decree of ostracism was pronounced, and it should be canceled, although thirty days have not passed. Abaye bsaid to him: This appliesin a case where one ignores ba monetary judgmentthat was issued against him; bbutin a case where one bbehaves disrespectfully,there must be no release buntil thedecree of bostracism has been in effect for thirty days. /b,The Gemara comments: bApparently, Abaye maintainsthat if bthreepeople bostracizedone, bthree others may not come and release him.This is derived from the fact that Abaye was concerned about releasing the butcher from ostracism and did not delegate the task to someone else., bAs a dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If bthreepeople bostracizedsomeone, bwhat isthe ihalakhawith regard to bthree others coming and releasing himfrom his decree of ostracism? The Gemara suggests: bComeand bheara proof from that which is taught in a ibaraita /i: bOne who was ostracized by the teacherof Torah for having acted disrespectfully toward him bisconsidered bostracized with regard to the student,and the latter must keep his distance from him. However, bone who was ostracized by the student is notconsidered bostracized with regard to the teacher. /b, bOne who was ostracized by hisown bcity isconsidered bostracized with regard to another city.However, bone who was ostracized by another city is notconsidered bostracized with regard to hisown bcity. One who was ostracized by the iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin bisconsidered bostracized with regard to all the Jewish people;but bone who was ostracized by all the Jewish people is notconsidered bostracized with regard to the iNasi /iof the Sanhedrin. bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:If bone of the studentssitting as a judge on the court bhad ostracizedsomeone, band he diedbefore releasing him from the decree of ostracism, bhis portionof the decree of ostracism bis not nullified. /b,The Gemara says: bLearn three ihalakhot bfrom this ibaraita /i. bLearn from thisthat in the case of ba student who ostracizessomeone bdue toan insult to bhis dignityand not because the ostracized person was guilty of some transgression, bhisdecree of bostracism is valid.Were the case one where one was ostracized due to sin, everyone is required to respect the decree of ostracism, even the student’s teacher. bAnd learn from thisthat beach and every onewho participated in the decree of ostracism bnullifies hisown bportionof the decree of ostracism, as the ibaraitaspeaks of: His portion. bAnd learn from thisthat if bthreepeople bostracizedanother person, bthree otherpeople bmay not come and nullifythe decree of ostracism. Were this not the case, it wouldn’t matter if a certain person’s portion was not nullified. His portion could be nullified by someone else., bAmeimar said: The ihalakhaisthat if bthreepeople bostracizeanother person, bthree others may come and nullifythe decree of ostracism. bRav Ashi said to Ameimar: But isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel says:If bone of the students had ostracizedanother person, band he diedbefore releasing him from the decree of ostracism, bhis portion is not nullified? What, is it notthat bit is not nullified at all,i.e., it cannot be nullified by another person? The Gemara rejects this argument: bNo,this means that the decree of ostracism remains in force buntil three other people come and nullifyit.,§ bThe Sages taughtthe following ibaraita /i: bOstracism does notapply bfor less thana period of bthirty days, and admonition,which is less severe than ostracism, bdoes notapply bfor less thana period of bseven days. And although there is no proof with regard to the matter,i.e., the standard duration of admonition, there is ban allusion to the matter, as it is stated: “If her father had but spit in her face, should she not be ashamed for seven days?”(Numbers 12:14). This implies that admonition lasts for seven days., bRav Ḥisda said: Ourdecree of bostracismin Babylonia has the power bof their admonitionin Eretz Yisrael. Since the authorities in Eretz Yisrael are ordained with the title Rabbi, their admonition carries more weight than a decree of ostracism issued in Babylonia. The Gemara asks: Is btheir admonitionin Eretz Yisrael only bsevendays band no more? But isn’tit related that bRabbi Shimon, son of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, band bar Kappara were sitting and studying,and they posed ba difficulty witha certain ihalakha /i. Rabbi Shimon said to bar Kappara: This issue requiresmy father, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, to explain it. bBar Kappara said to Rabbi Shimon,somewhat mockingly: bAnd what canyour father, bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bsay about thisissue? What can he add and teach us about it?,Rabbi Shimon bwent and told his father,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, what bar Kappara had said, and Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bbecame angrywith him. When bbar Kappara cameat some later point bto visit,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaid to him: Bar Kappara, I do not know you at all.Bar Kappara bunderstood thatRabbi Yehuda HaNasi bhad takenhis bstatement to heart,i.e., was insulted. He subsequently bbehavedas if he had been badmonished,as a self-imposed punishment, bfor thirty days. /b, bOnce again, on another occasion, RabbiYehuda HaNasi bdecreed that students not be taught in the marketplacebut only in a study hall. bWhatverse did he bexpoundto serve as the basis for this decree? The verse states: b“Your rounded thighs are like jewels,the work of the hands of an artist” (Song of Songs 7:2). bJustas ba thigh isordinarily bhiddenand kept covered with clothes
16. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

49a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ארבעה עשר שחל להיות בשבת מבערין את הכל מלפני השבת דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים בזמנו ר"א בר צדוק אומר תרומה מלפני השבת וחולין בזמנן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תניא ר"א בר צדוק אומר פעם אחת שבת אבא ביבנה וחל ארבעה עשר להיות בשבת ובא זונין ממונה של ר"ג ואמר הגיע עת לבער את החמץ והלכתי אחר אבא וביערנו את החמץ:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ההולך לשחוט את פסחו ולמול את בנו ולאכול סעודת אירוסין בבית חמיו ונזכר שיש לו חמץ בתוך ביתו אם יכול לחזור ולבער ולחזור למצותו יחזור ויבער ואם לאו מבטלו בלבו,להציל מן הנכרים ומן הנהר ומן הלסטים ומן הדליקה ומן המפולת יבטל בלבו ולשבות שביתת הרשות יחזור מיד,וכן מי שיצא מירושלים ונזכר שיש בידו בשר קדש אם עבר צופים שורפו במקומו ואם לאו חוזר ושורפו לפני הבירה מעצי המערכה,ועד כמה הן חוזרין ר"מ אומר זה וזה בכביצה ר' יהודה אומר זה וזה בכזית וחכמים אומרים בשר קדש בכזית וחמץ בכביצה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורמינהו ההולך לאכול סעודת אירוסין בבית חמיו ולשבות שביתת הרשות יחזור מיד,א"ר יוחנן לא קשיא הא ר' יהודה הא רבי יוסי דתניא סעודת אירוסין רשות דברי ר' יהודה רבי יוסי אומר מצוה,והשתא דאמר רב חסדא מחלוקת בסעודה שניה אבל בסעודה ראשונה דברי הכל מצוה אפילו תימא הא והא ר' יהודה ולא קשיא הא בסעודה ראשונה הא בסעודה שניה,תניא אמר רבי יהודה אני לא שמעתי אלא סעודת אירוסין אבל לא סבלונות אמר לו ר' יוסי אני שמעתי סעודת אירוסין וסבלונות,תניא רבי שמעון אומר כל סעודה שאינה של מצוה אין תלמיד חכם רשאי להנות ממנה,כגון מאי א"ר יוחנן כגון בת כהן לישראל ובת תלמיד חכם לעם הארץ דא"ר יוחנן בת כהן לישראל אין זווגן עולה יפה,מאי היא אמר רב חסדא או אלמנה או גרושה או זרע אין לה במתניתא תנא קוברה או קוברתו או מביאתו לידי עניות,איני והא א"ר יוחנן הרוצה שיתעשר ידבק בזרעו של אהרן כל שכן שתורה וכהונה מעשרתן לא קשיא הא בת"ח הא בעם הארץ,ר' יהושע נסיב כהנתא חלש אמר לא ניחא ליה לאהרן דאדבק בזרעיה דהוי ליה חתנא כי אנא,רב אידי בר אבין נסיב כהנתא נפקו מיניה תרי בני סמיכי רב ששת בריה דרב אידי ור' יהושע בריה דרב אידי אמר ר"פ אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא לא איעתרי,אמר רב כהנא אי לא נסיבנא כהנתא לא גלאי אמרו ליה והא למקום תורה גלית לא גלאי כדגלי אינשי,אמר רבי יצחק כל הנהנה מסעודת הרשות לסוף גולה שנא' (עמוס ו, ד) ואוכלים כרים מצאן ועגלים מתוך מרבק וכתיב לכן עתה יגלו בראש גולים:,ת"ר כל ת"ח המרבה סעודתו בכל מקום סוף מחריב את ביתו ומאלמן את אשתו ומייתם את גוזליו ותלמודו משתכח ממנו ומחלוקות רבות באות עליו ודבריו אינם נשמעים ומחלל שם שמים ושם רבו ושם אביו וגורם שם רע לו ולבניו ולבני בניו עד סוף כל הדורות,מאי היא אמר אביי קרו ליה בר מחים תנורי רבא אמר בר מרקיד בי כובי רב פפא אמר בר מלחיך פינכי רב שמעיה אמר בר מך רבע:,ת"ר לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת ת"ח שאם מת או גולה מובטח לו שבניו ת"ח ואל ישא בת ע"ה שאם מת או גולה בניו ע"ה,ת"ר לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת ת"ח וישיא בתו לת"ח משל לענבי הגפן בענבי הגפן דבר נאה ומתקבל ולא ישא בת עם הארץ משל לענבי הגפן בענבי הסנה דבר כעור 49a. strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bthe fourteenthof Nisan bthat occurs on Shabbat, one removes allleaven from his possession, whether it is iterumaor non-sacred food, bbefore Shabbat,except for that which will be eaten during the first part of Shabbat. In that case, one cannot remove leaven from his possession on the fourteenth of Nisan itself as he does in other years. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say:One may remove the leaven bat itsusual btimeon the fourteenth of Nisan by throwing it away or declaring it ownerless. bRabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: iTeruma /ishould be removed bbefore Shabbat,as only a few people are permitted to eat it and therefore one can presume that it will remain uneaten during Shabbat. However, bnon-sacredfoods should be removed bat theirusual btime,on the fourteenth of Nisan itself., strongGEMARA: /strong bIt was taughtin the iToseftathat bRabbi Eliezer bar Tzadok says: One time my father,Rabbi Tzadok, bspent Shabbat in Yavne, and the fourteenthof Nisan boccurred onthat bShabbat. Zonin,who was bthe appointee of Rabban Gamliel, came and said: The time has come to remove leavened bread; and I went with my father and we removed the leavened bread.This story serves as anecdotal evidence that leaven is removed at the usual time on the fourteenth of Nisan, even on Shabbat., strongMISHNA: /strong bOne who is travelingon the eve of Passover bto slaughter his Paschal lamb, to circumcise his son, or to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house, and he remembers that he has leavened bread in his house, if he is able to returnto his house band removethe leaven and afterward breturn to the mitzvatoward which he was traveling, bhe should returnhome band removehis leaven. bBut ifthere is not enough time for him to go home and remove the leaven, and still complete the mitzva that he already began, bhe should nullify it in his heart,as by Torah law this is sufficient.,If one was traveling bto saveJews from an attack by bgentiles, from aflooding briver, from bandits, from a fire, or from a collapsedbuilding, he should not even attempt to return, and instead bhe should nullifythe leaven bin his heart.This applies even if he could remove his leaven and still return to his previous activity. If he went bto establish his Shabbatresidence in order to adjust his Shabbat limit for an boptionalpurpose, rather than in order to fulfill a commandment, bhe should return immediatelyto remove his leaven., bAnd so too,the same ihalakhaapplies to bone who left Jerusalem and remembered that there was consecrated meat in his hand.Meat that is taken out of Jerusalem becomes disqualified, and one is required to burn it in proximity to the Temple. bIf he passedthe area of Mount bScopus[iTzofim /i],beyond which one cannot see Jerusalem, bhe burnsthe meat bat the sitewhere bheis located; band ifhe has bnottraveled that far, bhe must return and burn it before the Temple with wood from the arrangementon the altar, which was designated for burning consecrated items that were disqualified.,The mishna asks: For bhow muchleaven or consecrated meat is one required bto return? Rabbi Meir says:In both bthiscase band thatcase, one must return for ban egg-bulk. Rabbi Yehuda says:In both bthiscase band thatcase, one must return for ban olive-bulk. And the Rabbis saythat the amount depends on the case: With regard to bconsecrated meat,he is required to return if he has ban olive-bulk, butin a case where he remembers that he has bleavened bread,he required to return only bfor an egg-bulk. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara braises a contradictionbetween this mishna and another source. It was taught in a ibaraita /i: bOne who is traveling to eat a betrothal feast in his father-in-law’s house or to establish his Shabbatresidence for an boptionalpurpose, bmust return immediatelyto remove his leaven. This contradicts the mishna, which states that one who is going to a betrothal feast may nullify the leaven without returning for it, because the meal is considered a mitzva., bRabbi Yoḥa said:This is bnot difficult,as there is a tannaitic dispute with regard to the issue. bThissource, the ibaraita /i, is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,while bthatsource, the mishna, is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yosei. As it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA betrothal feast is optional;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says:It is a bmitzva. /b, bAnd now that Rav Ḥisda said: The disputebetween Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei applies to bthe secondbetrothal feast, where the groom takes part in an additional meal with the bride’s family, bbut everyone agrees that the firstbetrothal bfeast is a mitzva,the contradiction between the mishna and the ibaraitacan be resolved differently. bEven if you say that thismishna and bthat ibaraitaare both in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,it is bnot difficult. Thismishna, which relates to the meal as a mitzva, is referring to bthe first meal. That ibaraita /i, which assumes that the meal is not a mitzva, is referring to bthe second meal. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehuda said: I heard onlythat there is a mitzva with regard to a bbetrothal feastitself, bbut notwith regard to the feast of the bgifts [ isivlonot /i],when the groom would present gifts to the bride. While a festive meal was eaten on this occasion, it was not considered to be a mitzva. bRabbi Yosei said to him: I heardthat both ba betrothal feast andthe feast of the bgiftsare considered mitzvot.,Having discussed whether a betrothal feast is a mitzva, the Gemara addresses a related issue. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon says: A Torah scholar may notderive bbenefit frompartaking in bany feast that is not a mitzva. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn what casedoes this statement apply? bRabbi Yoḥa said: In a casewhere bthe daughter of a priestmarries ban Israelite,or where bthe daughter of a Torah scholarmarries ban ignoramus.Although a wedding feast is generally a mitzva, it is not in this case, bas Rabbi Yoḥa said:When bthe daughter of a priestmarries ban Israelite their union will not be auspicious,as it is disgraceful for the priesthood when the daughter of a priest marries an Israelite.,The Gemara asks: bWhat ismeant by bthisstatement that their union will be inauspicious? bRav Ḥisda said:The inauspicious nature of such a marriage can be identified based on the verse describing the return of a daughter of a priest to her father’s house after marrying a non-priest. The verse is understood as mentioning that the marriage will result in one of three possibilities: she will beither be a widow, a divorcee, or without children(see Leviticus 22:13). bIt was taught in a ibaraita /i:Either her husband bwill bury her or she will bury him,because one of them will die young, bor she will cause him to become poor. /b,The Gemara asks: bIs that so? Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥahimself bsay: One who wishes to become wealthy should cling to the descendants of Aaron,and ball the more soshould the merit of the bTorahand the bpriesthood cause them to become wealthy.The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult,as bthiscase, where he becomes wealthy, brefers to a Torah scholarwho marries a woman of priestly lineage. In that case their union will be a successful one. bThatcase, where their union will not be auspicious, refers to ban ignoramuswho marries a woman of priestly lineage.,The Gemara relates that bRabbi Yehoshua married a daughter of a priestand bbecame ill. He said:Apparently, bit is not satisfactory to Aaronthe priest bthat I cling to his descendants, so that he has a son-in-law like me. /b,The Gemara also relates that bRav Idi bar Avin married a daughter of a priest. Two sonswho were bordainedto decide halakhic matters bcame from him,namely bRav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, and Rabbi Yehoshua, son of Rav Idi.Similarly, bRav Pappa said: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have become wealthy. /b,On the other hand, bRav Kahana,who was not a priest, bsaid: Had I not married a daughter of a priest, I would not have been exiled,as Rav Kahana was forced to flee from Babylonia to Eretz Yisrael. bThey said to him: But you were exiled to a place of Torah,which is not a punishment at all. He answered: bI was not exiled as people aregenerally bexiled,i.e., I did not emigrate of my own free will; rather, I was forced to flee from the authorities., bRabbi Yitzḥak said: Anyone who benefits frompartaking in ban optional feast,which is not a mitzva, bwill ultimately be exiled, as it is stated: “And eat the lambs of the flock and the calves out of the midst of the stall”(Amos 6:4), band it is written: “Therefore now they shall go into exile at the head of the exiles;and the revelry of those who stretched themselves out shall pass away” (Amos 6:7).,The Gemara continues discussing a Torah scholar who benefits from optional feasts. bThe Sages taught: Any Torah scholar who feasts excessively everywheredegrades himself and brings suffering upon himself. He will bultimately destroy his house, widow his wife, orphan his chicks,i.e., his children, band his studies will be forgotten. Much dispute will come upon him, his words will not be heeded, and he will desecrate God’s name and the name of his master and the name of his father. And he will cause a bad name for himself, his children, and his descendants throughout future generations. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is thisbad reputation that he causes to himself and his descendants? bAbaye said:His son bis called the son[ibar/b] bof the one who heats ovens,since this person continually heated ovens in order to prepare food for feasts. bRava said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who dancesin binns [ ibei kuvei /i],as he seems to be invited to every feast to entertain the guests. bRav Pappa said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who licks bowls [ ipinkhei /i]. Rav Shemaya said:His son will be called bthe son of the one who foldshis garment band crouches,i.e., falls asleep drunk.,On the topic of proper marriage partners, the Gemara cites the following discussion. bThe Sages taught: One should alwaysbe willing to bsell all he hasin order to bmarry the daughter of a Torah scholar, as if he dies orif he bis exiledand he cannot raise his children, bhe can be assured that his sons will be Torah scholars,since their mother will ensure that they are well educated. bAnd one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus, as if he dies or is exiled, his sons will be ignoramuses. /b,Furthermore, bthe Sages taught: One should alwaysbe willing to bsell all he hasin order to bmarry the daughter of a Torah scholar andin order to bmarry off his daughter to a Torah scholar.This type of marriage can be bcompared to grapes of a vinethat become intertwined bwith grapes of a vine, somethingwhich is bbeautiful and acceptableto God and man. bAnd one should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus.This type of marriage can be bcompared to grapes of a vinethat have become intertwined bwith berries of a bramble,which is bsomething unseemly /b
17. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 3

3. It was my devotion to the pursuit of religious knowledge that led me to undertake the embassy to the man I have mentioned, who was held in the highest esteem by his own citizens and by others both for his virtue and his majesty and who had in his possession documents of the highest value to the Jews in his own country and in foreign lands for the interpretation of the divine law, for their


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
aggada Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
ammei ha aretz, and rabbis Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 291
gender Keener, First-Second Corinthians (2005) 119
halakhah, as modality of tradition Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188
history of halakha Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
nineteenth century (scholarship) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
pharisaic-rabbinic (tradition) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
pharisaic tradition/halakha Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
philosophy Keener, First-Second Corinthians (2005) 119
qumran halakha Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
rabbinic education, study always oral Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 291
rabbis, and the masses' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 291
rabbis Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3
torah, oral and written Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 188
wissenschaft des judentums Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 3