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



10969
Tosefta, Shabbat, 15.17
NaN


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

23 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 6.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

6.5. וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃ 6.5. And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might."
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.5, 22.32 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

18.5. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־חֻקֹּתַי וְאֶת־מִשְׁפָּטַי אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָם הָאָדָם וָחַי בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 22.32. וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם׃ 18.5. Ye shall therefore keep My statutes, and Mine ordices, which if a man do, he shall live by them: I am the LORD." 22.32. And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD who hallow you,"
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 16.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

16.21. הִבָּדְלוּ מִתּוֹךְ הָעֵדָה הַזֹּאת וַאַכַלֶּה אֹתָם כְּרָגַע׃ 16.21. ’Separate yourselves from among this congregation, that I may consume them in a moment.’"
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 1.1-1.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

1.1. אַשְׁרֵי־הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא הָלַךְ בַּעֲצַת רְשָׁעִים וּבְדֶרֶךְ חַטָּאִים לֹא עָמָד וּבְמוֹשַׁב לֵצִים לֹא יָשָׁב׃ 1.2. כִּי אִם בְּתוֹרַת יְהוָה חֶפְצוֹ וּבְתוֹרָתוֹ יֶהְגֶּה יוֹמָם וָלָיְלָה׃ 1.1. HAPPY IS the man that hath not walked in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful." 1.2. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in His law doth he meditate day and night."
5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 11.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

6. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 11.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

7. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 8.2-8.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

8.2. They besought the Lord to look upon the people who were oppressed by all, and to have pity on the temple which had been profaned by ungodly men,' 8.3. and to have mercy on the city which was being destroyed and about to be leveled to the ground, and to hearken to the blood that cried out to him,' 8.4. and to remember also the lawless destruction of the innocent babies and the blasphemies committed against his name, and to show his hatred of evil.' 8.5. As soon as Maccabeus got his army organized, the Gentiles could not withstand him, for the wrath of the Lord had turned to mercy.' 8.6. Coming without warning, he would set fire to towns and villages. He captured strategic positions and put to flight not a few of the enemy.'
8. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 3.1, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.1. All images are prohibited because they are worshipped once a year, according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir; But the Sages say: [an image] is not prohibited except one that has a staff or bird or orb in its hand. Rabban Shimon b. Gamaliel says: any [image] which has anything in its hand [is prohibited]." 3.6. If [a Jew] has a house next to an idolatrous shrine and it collapsed, he is forbidden to rebuild it. What should he do? He withdraws a distance of four cubits into his own ground and build there. [If the wall] belonged both to him and the shrine, it is judged as being half and half. Its stones, timber and rubbish defile like a creeping thing, as it says, “you shall utterly detest it” (Deut. 7:26). ] Rabbi Akiba says: [it defiles] like a menstruous woman, as it says, “[and you will treat as unclean the silver overlay of your images and the golden plating of your idols]. You will cast them away like a menstruous woman. Out, you will call to them” (Isaiah 30:22), just as a menstruous woman impurifies [an object] by carrying it, so also an idolatrous object defiles by its being carried."
9. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

7.6. He who engages in idol-worship [is executed]. This includes the one whoserves it, sacrifices, offers incense, makes libations, bows to it, accepts it as a god, or says to it, “You are my god.” But he who embraces, kisses it, sweeps or sprinkles the ground before it, washes it, anoints it, clothes it, or puts shoes on it, he transgresses a negative commandment [but is not executed]. He who vows or swears by its name, violates a negative commandment. He who uncovers himself before Baal-Peor [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped. He who casts a stone on Merculis [is guilty and is to be stoned for] this is how it is worshipped."
11. Mishnah, Shabbat, 9.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

9.1. Rabbi Akiva said: From where do we know that an idol defiles by being carried like a menstruant? Because it is said, “You shall cast them [the idols] away as a menstruous woman. Out! You will say to them” (Isaiah 30:22): just as a menstruant defiles by being carried, so does an idol defile by being carried."
12. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 2.6-2.7, 6.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

13. Tosefta, Shabbat, 13.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

14. Tosefta, Zavim, 5.6-5.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

15. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

16. Palestinian Talmud, Sheviit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

17. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

18b. ומי יימר דהכי איכא [א"ל השתא חזית] הוו הנהו כלבי דהוו קא אכלי אינשי שקל קלא שדא בהו הוו קאתו למיכליה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני שבקוה ויהבה ליה,לסוף אשתמע מילתא בי מלכא אתיוה אסקוה לזקיפה אמר אלהא דמאיר ענני אחתוה אמרו ליה מאי האי אמר להו הכי הוה מעשה,אתו חקקו לדמותיה דר' מאיר אפיתחא דרומי אמרי כל דחזי לפרצופא הדין לייתיה יומא חדא חזיוהי רהט אבתריה רהט מקמייהו על לבי זונות איכא דאמרי בשולי עובדי כוכבים חזא טמש בהא ומתק בהא איכא דאמרי אתא אליהו אדמי להו כזונה כרכתיה אמרי חס ושלום אי ר' מאיר הוה לא הוה עביד הכי,קם ערק אתא לבבל איכא דאמרי מהאי מעשה ואיכא דאמרי ממעשה דברוריא:,תנו רבנן ההולך לאיצטדינין ולכרקום וראה שם את הנחשים ואת החברין בוקיון ומוקיון ומוליון ולוליון בלורין סלגורין הרי זה מושב לצים ועליהם הכתוב אומר (תהלים א, א) אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך וגו' כי אם בתורת ה' חפצו הא למדת. שדברים הללו מביאין את האדם לידי ביטול תורה,ורמינהי [הולכין] לאיצטדינין מותר מפני שצווח ומציל ולכרקום מותר מפני ישוב מדינה ובלבד שלא יתחשב עמהם ואם נתחשב עמהם אסור קשיא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא כרקום אכרקום,בשלמא כרקום אכרקום ל"ק כאן במתחשב עמהן כאן בשאין מתחשב עמהן אלא איצטדינין אאיצטדינין קשיא,תנאי היא דתניא אין הולכין לאיצטדינין מפני מושב לצים ור' נתן מתיר מפני שני דברים אחד מפני שצווח ומציל ואחד מפני שמעיד עדות אשה להשיאה,תנו רבנן אין הולכין לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות מפני שמזבלין שם זיבול לעבודת כוכבים דברי ר' מאיר וחכמים אומרים מקום שמזבלין אסור מפני חשד עבודת כוכבים ומקום שאין מזבלין שם אסור מפני מושב לצים,מאי בינייהו אמר ר' חנינא מסורא נשא ונתן איכא בינייהו,דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי מאי דכתיב אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים ובדרך חטאים לא עמד ובמושב לצים לא ישב וכי מאחר שלא הלך היכן עמד ומאחר שלא עמד היכן ישב ומאחר שלא ישב היכן לץ,אלא לומר לך שאם הלך סופו לעמוד ואם עמד סופו לישב ואם ישב סופו ללוץ ואם לץ עליו הכתוב אומר (משלי ט, יב) אם חכמת חכמת לך ואם לצת לבדך תשא,א"ר אליעזר כל המתלוצץ יסורין באין עליו שנאמר (ישעיהו כח, כב) ועתה אל תתלוצצו פן יחזקו מוסריכם אמר להו רבא לרבנן במטותא בעינא מינייכו דלא תתלוצצו דלא ליתו עלייכו יסורין,אמר רב קטינא כל המתלוצץ מזונותיו מתמעטין שנאמר (הושע ז, ה) משך ידו את לוצצים אמר רבי שמעון בן לקיש כל המתלוצץ נופל בגיהנם שנאמר (משלי כא, כד) זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון ואין עברה אלא גיהנם שנאמר (צפניה א, טו) יום עברה היום ההוא,אמר ר' אושעיא כל המתייהר נופל בגיהנם שנאמר זד יהיר לץ שמו עושה בעברת זדון ואין עברה אלא גיהנם שנאמר יום עברה היום ההוא אמר רבי חנילאי בר חנילאי כל המתלוצץ גורם כלייה לעולם שנאמר ועתה אל תתלוצצו פן יחזקו מוסריכם כי כלה ונחרצה שמעתי,אמר רבי אליעזר קשה היא שתחילת' יסורין וסופו כלייה דרש ר' שמעון בן פזי אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות של עובדי כוכבים ובדרך חטאים לא עמד זה שלא עמד בקנגיון ובמושב לצים לא ישב שלא ישב בתחבולות,שמא יאמר אדם הואיל ולא הלכתי לטרטיאות ולקרקסיאות ולא עמדתי בקנגיון אלך ואתגרה בשינה ת"ל ובתורתו יהגה יומם ולילה,אמר רב שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן אשרי האיש אשר לא הלך בעצת רשעים זה 18b. bAnd who can say that this isthe case, that I will be saved by this utterance? Rabbi Meir bsaid to him: You will now see. There were thesecarnivorous bdogs that would devour people;Rabbi Meir btook a clodof earth, bthrewit bat them,and when bthey came to devour him, he said: God of Meir answer me!The dogs then bleft himalone, bandafter seeing this the guard bgavethe daughter of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Teradyon btoRabbi Meir., bUltimately the matter was heardin bthe king’s court,and the guard, who bwas brought and taken to be hanged, said: God of Meir answer me!They then blowered him down,as they were unable to hang him. bThey said to him: What is this? He said to them: This was the incidentthat occurred, and he proceeded to relate the entire story to them., bTheythen bwentand bengraved the image of Rabbi Meir at the entrance of Romewhere it would be seen by everyone, and they bsaid: Anyone who seesa man with bthis face should bring himhere. bOne day,Romans bsawRabbi Meir and bran after him,and bhe ran away from themand bentered a brothelto hide. bSome sayhe then escaped capture because bhe sawfood bcooked by gentilesand bdipped [ itemash /i] thisfinger binthe food band tastedit bwith thatother finger, and thereby fooled them into thinking that he was eating their food, which they knew Rabbi Meir would not do. And bsome saythat he escaped detection because bElijah came, appeared to them as a prostituteand bembracedRabbi Meir. The Romans who were chasing him bsaid: Heaven forbid, if this were Rabbi Meir, he would not actin bthatmanner.,Rabbi Meir barose, fled,and barrived in Babylonia.The Gemara notes: bThere arethose bwho saythat he fled because bof this incident, and there arethose bwho saythat he fled due to embarrassment bfrom the incident involvinghis wife bBerurya. /b,§ bThe Sages taught:With regard to bone who goes to stadiums [ ile’itztadinin /i]where people are killed in contests with gladiators or beasts, bor to a camp of besiegers [ iulkharkom /i]where different forms of entertainment are provided for the besieging army, bandhe bsees therethe acts of bthe diviners and those who cast spells,or the acts of the clowns known as ibukiyon /i, or imukiyon /i, or imuliyon /i, or iluliyon /i,or ibelurin /i,or isalgurin /i, this iscategorized as b“the seat of the scornful”; and with regard tosuch places bthe verse states: “Happy is the man that has not walkedin the council of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful. bBut his delight is in the Torah of the Lord”(Psalms 1:1–2). bYou learnfrom here bthat these matters bring a person to derelictionof the study bof Torah,since had he not sat in “the seat of the scornful,” he would delight in the study of Torah., bAndthe Gemara braises a contradictionfrom another ibaraita /i: bOne is permittedto bgo to stadiums, because he can scream and savethe life of a Jew who would otherwise be killed there; band it is permittedto go bto a camp of besiegers, becauseat times one can provide for the public bwelfareby petitioning the besiegers and saving the residents of the btown, provided that he is not countedas one bof them; but if he is countedas one bof them, it is prohibited.This is bdifficult,as there is a contradiction between the statement about attending bstadiumsin the first ibaraitaand the statement baboutattending bstadiumsin the second ibaraita /i, and is similarly bdifficultas there is a contradiction between the statement about ba camp of besiegersin the first ibaraitaand the statement babout a camp of besiegersin the second ibaraita /i.,The Gemara continues: bGranted,the apparent contradiction between one statement about ba camp of besiegersand the other statement babout a camp of besiegersis bnot difficult,as bhere,the first ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he is countedas one bof them,and bthere,the second ibaraitais referring to a case bwhere he is not countedas one bof them. Butwith regard to the contradiction between the ruling about attending bstadiumsin the first ibaraitaand the ruling baboutattending bstadiumsin the second ibaraita /i, it is bdifficult. /b,The Gemara answers: This issue bisa dispute between itanna’im /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOne may not go to stadiums, becausethey are considered b“the seat of the scornful.” And Rabbi Natan permitsattending stadiums bdue to tworeasons; boneis bbecause he can scream and savethe life of someone who would otherwise be killed, bandthe other boneis bbecauseeven if he cannot save the man’s life, bhe can provide testimonythat ba woman’shusband died, which will enable her bto marryagain., bThe Sages taught: One may not go to theaters [ iletarteiot /i] or circuses [ iulkirkaseiot /i] because they sacrifice offerings there toobjects of bidol worship;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: It is prohibitedto go to ba place where they sacrificeofferings, bdue to a suspicion of idol worship, and it isalso bprohibitedto go to ba place where they do not sacrificeofferings, bdue toit being considered b“the seat of the scornful.” /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe practical difference bbetweenthe opinion of the Rabbis and that of Rabbi Meir? After all, according to both opinions it is prohibited to attend theaters or circuses. bRabbi Ḥanina of Sura said:The difference bbetween themarises in the case of one who bengaged in businessthere. According to Rabbi Meir, the profits are forbidden as the proceeds of idol worship, as Rabbi Meir maintains that the gentiles certainly worship idols at theaters or circuses. Conversely, according to the Rabbis, the profits are forbidden only if it is established that they worshipped idols there.,§ Apropos the earlier discussion of the evils of scornfulness, the Gemara cites several statements that criticize such behavior. bRabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked, nor stood in the way of sinners, nor sat in the seat of the scornful”(Psalms 1:1)? bSince he did not walkin the counsel of the wicked, bhowcould bhe standwith them? bAnd since he did not stand, howcould bhe sitwith them? bAnd since he did not sitwith them, bhowcould bhehave bscorned?Since he never joined the company of the wicked, he would have no reason to be involved with them in any manner., bRather,the verse serves bto say to you that if he walkedwith the wicked, bhe will ultimately standwith them. bAnd if he stoodwith them, bhe will ultimately sitin their company, band if he sat, he will ultimately scornalong with them. bAnd if he scorned, the verse says about him: “If you are wise, you are wise for yourself; and if you scorn, you alone shall bear it”(Proverbs 9:12)., bRabbi Eliezer says:Concerning banyone who scoffs, suffering will befall him, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong”(Isaiah 28:22). Similarly, bRava said to the Sageswho were sitting before him: bPlease, I ask of you that you not scoff, so that suffering will not befall you. /b, bRav Ketina says:Concerning banyone who scoffs, his sustece is lessened, as it is stated: “He stretches out his hand with scorners”(Hosea 7:5), meaning that God withdraws His providence from scoffers and does not provide for them. bRabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: Anyone who scoffs falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath”(Proverbs 21:24). bAnd wrathmeans bnothing other than Gehenna, as it is statedwith regard to the Day of Judgment: b“That day is a day of wrath”(Zephaniah 1:15)., bRabbi Oshaya says,based on the same verse: bAnyone who is haughty falls into Gehenna, as it is stated: “A proud and haughty man, scorner is his name, he acts in arrogant wrath”(Proverbs 21:24). bAnd wrath means nothing other than Gehenna, as it is stated: “That day is a day of wrath”(Zephaniah 1:15). bRabbi Ḥanilai bar Ḥanilai says: Anyone who scoffs causes exterminationto be wrought bupon the world, as it is stated: “Now therefore do not be scoffers, lest your suffering be made strong; for an extermination wholly determined have I heardfrom the Lord, the God of hosts, upon the whole land” (Isaiah 28:22)., bRabbi Eliezer says:Scoffing bis a severesin, bas at firstone is punished with bsuffering, and ultimatelyone is punished with bextermination. Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi taught: “Happy is the man that has not walkedin the counsel of the wicked,” this is referring btothe btheaters and circuses of gentiles; “nor stood in the way of sinners,” thisis referring to bone who has not stoodas an observer bat bestial contests [ ibekinigiyyon /i]; “nor sat in the seat of the scornful,”this is referring to bone who has not sat in the bad companyof people who engage in scoffing and jeering., bLest a person say: Since I did not go to theaters and circuses, and did not stand in bestial contests, I will go and indulge in sleep, the verse states: “And he meditates in His law day and night”(Psalms 1:2). This demonstrates that it is not sufficient simply to avoid transgressions; rather, it is necessary to engage actively in Torah study.,§ The Gemara relates an alternative homiletic interpretation of the verse discussed above. bRav Shmuel bar Naḥmani saysthat bRabbi Yonatan says: “Happy is the man that has not walked in the counsel of the wicked”(Psalms 1:1); bthis /b
18. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

61b. ריאה שואבת כל מיני משקין כבד כועס מרה זורקת בו טפה ומניחתו טחול שוחק קרקבן טוחן קיבה ישנה אף נעור נעור הישן ישן הנעור נמוק והולך לו תנא אם שניהם ישנים או שניהם נעורים מיד מת,תניא רבי יוסי הגלילי אומר צדיקים יצר טוב שופטן שנאמר (תהלים קט, כב) ולבי חלל בקרבי רשעים יצר רע שופטן שנאמר (תהלים לו, ב) נאם פשע לרשע בקרב לבי אין פחד אלהים לנגד עיניו בינונים זה וזה שופטן שנאמר (תהלים קט, לא) יעמוד לימין אביון להושיע משופטי נפשו,אמר רבא כגון אנו בינונים אמר ליה אביי לא שביק מר חיי לכל בריה,ואמר רבא לא איברי עלמא אלא לרשיעי גמורי או לצדיקי גמורי אמר רבא לידע אינש בנפשיה אם צדיק גמור הוא אם לאו אמר רב לא איברי עלמא אלא לאחאב בן עמרי ולר' חנינא בן דוסא לאחאב בן עמרי העולם הזה ולרבי חנינא בן דוסא העולם הבא:,ואהבת את י"י אלהיך: תניא ר' אליעזר אומר אם נאמר בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך אלא אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאדך רבי עקיבא אומר בכל נפשך אפילו נוטל את נפשך,תנו רבנן פעם אחת גזרה מלכות הרשעה שלא יעסקו ישראל בתורה בא פפוס בן יהודה ומצאו לרבי עקיבא שהיה מקהיל קהלות ברבים ועוסק בתורה אמר ליה עקיבא אי אתה מתירא מפני מלכות,אמר לו אמשול לך משל למה הדבר דומה לשועל שהיה מהלך על גב הנהר וראה דגים שהיו מתקבצים ממקום למקום אמר להם מפני מה אתם בורחים אמרו לו מפני רשתות שמביאין עלינו בני אדם אמר להם רצונכם שתעלו ליבשה ונדור אני ואתם כשם שדרו אבותי עם אבותיכם אמרו לו אתה הוא שאומרים עליך פקח שבחיות לא פקח אתה אלא טפש אתה ומה במקום חיותנו אנו מתיראין במקום מיתתנו על אחת כמה וכמה אף אנחנו עכשיו שאנו יושבים ועוסקים בתורה שכתוב בה (דברים ל, כ) כי הוא חייך ואורך ימיך כך אם אנו הולכים ומבטלים ממנה עאכ"ו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שתפסוהו לר"ע וחבשוהו בבית האסורים ותפסו לפפוס בן יהודה וחבשוהו אצלו אמר לו פפוס מי הביאך לכאן אמר ליה אשריך רבי עקיבא שנתפסת על דברי תורה אוי לו לפפוס שנתפס על דברים בטלים,בשעה שהוציאו את ר' עקיבא להריגה זמן ק"ש היה והיו סורקים את בשרו במסרקות של ברזל והיה מקבל עליו עול מלכות שמים אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו עד כאן אמר להם כל ימי הייתי מצטער על פסוק זה בכל נפשך אפילו נוטל את נשמתך אמרתי מתי יבא לידי ואקיימנו ועכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו היה מאריך באחד עד שיצתה נשמתו באחד יצתה ב"ק ואמרה אשריך ר"ע שיצאה נשמתך באחד,אמרו מלאכי השרת לפני הקב"ה זו תורה וזו שכרה (תהלים יז, יד) ממתים ידך י"י ממתים וגו' אמר להם חלקם בחיים יצתה בת קול ואמרה אשריך ר"ע שאתה מזומן לחיי העוה"ב:,לא יקל אדם את ראשו כנגד שער המזרח שהוא מכוון כנגד בית קדשי הקדשים וכו': אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא אמרו אלא מן הצופים ולפנים וברואה איתמר נמי א"ר אבא בריה דרבי חייא בר אבא הכי אמר רבי יוחנן לא אמרו אלא מן הצופים ולפנים וברואה ובשאין גדר ובזמן שהשכינה שורה,ת"ר הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ובגליל לא יפנה אלא מזרח ומערב ורבי יוסי מתיר שהיה ר' יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה ובמקום שאין שם גדר ובזמן שהשכינה שורה וחכמים אוסרים,חכמים היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו צדדין,תניא אידך הנפנה ביהודה לא יפנה מזרח ומערב אלא צפון ודרום ובגליל צפון ודרום אסור מזרח ומערב מותר ורבי יוסי מתיר שהיה רבי יוסי אומר לא אסרו אלא ברואה רבי יהודה אומר בזמן שבית המקדש קיים אסור בזמן שאין בית המקדש קיים מותר רבי עקיבא אוסר בכל מקום,רבי עקיבא היינו ת"ק איכא בינייהו חוץ לארץ,רבה הוו שדיין ליה לבני מזרח ומערב אזל אביי שדנהו צפון ודרום על רבה תרצנהו אמר מאן האי דקמצער לי אנא כר' עקיבא סבירא לי דאמר בכל מקום אסור: 61b. and the blungs draw all kinds of liquids,the bliver becomes angry,the bgallbladder binjects a dropof gall bintothe liver and ballaysanger, the bspleen laughs,the bmaw grindsthe food, and the bstomachbrings bsleep,the bnose awakens.If they reversed roles such that btheorgan which brings on bsleepwere to bawaken,or btheorgan which bawakenswere to bring on bsleep,the individual bwould gradually deteriorate. It was taught: If bothbring on bsleep or both awaken,the person bimmediately dies. /b,With regard to one’s inclinations, bit was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yosei HaGelili says: The good inclination rules the righteous, as it is stated: “And my heart is dead within me”(Psalms 109:22); the evil inclination has been completely banished from his heart. The bevil inclination rules the wicked, as it is stated: “Transgression speaks to the wicked, there is no fear of God before his eyes”(Psalms 36:2). bMiddling people are ruled by boththe good and evil inclinations, bas it is stated: “Because He stands at the right hand of the needy, to save him from them that rule his soul”(Psalms 109:31)., bRabba said:People blike usare bmiddling. Abaye,his student and nephew, bsaid to him:If bthe Masterclaims that he is merely middling, he bdoes not leaveroom for bany creature to live.If a person like you is middling, what of the rest of us?, bAnd Rava said: The world was created only forthe sake of bthe full-fledged wicked or the full-fledged righteous;others do not live complete lives in either world. bRava said: One should know of himself whether or not he is completely righteous,as if he is not completely righteous, he knows that his life will be a life of suffering. bRav said: The world was only created forthe wicked bAhab ben Omri and for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa.The Gemara explains: For bAhab ben Omri, this worldwas created, as he has no place in the World-to-Come, bandfor bRabbi Ḥanina ben Dosa, the World-to-Comewas created.,We learned in our mishna the explanation of the verse: b“And you shall love the Lord your Godwith all your heart and all your soul and all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). This was elaborated upon when bit was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated: “With all your soul,” why does it state: “With all your might”?Conversely, bif it stated: “With all your might,” why does it state: “With all your soul”? Rather,this means that bif one’s body is dearer to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul”;one must give his soul in sanctification of God. bAnd if one’s money is dearer to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might”;with all your assets. bRabbi Akiva says: “With all your soul”means: bEven ifGod btakes your soul. /b,The Gemara relates at length how Rabbi Akiva fulfilled these directives. bThe Sages taught: One time,after the bar Kokheva rebellion, bthe evil empireof Rome bdecreed that Israel may not engage inthe study and practice of bTorah. Pappos ben Yehuda came and found Rabbi Akiva, who was convening assemblies in public and engaging in Torahstudy. Pappos bsaid to him: Akiva, are you not afraid of the empire? /b,Rabbi Akiva banswered him: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared?It is like ba fox walking along a riverbank when he sees fish gatheringand fleeing bfrom place to place. brThe fox bsaid to them: From what are you fleeing? br bThey said to him:We are fleeing bfrom the nets that people cast upon us. br bHe said to them: Do you wish to come up onto dry land, and we will reside together just as my ancestors resided with your ancestors? brThe fish bsaid to him: You are the one of whom they say, he is the cleverest of animals? You are not clever; you are a fool. If we are afraid inthe water, bournatural bhabitatwhich gives us blife,then bin a habitatthat causes our bdeath, all the more so. brThe moral is: bSo too, weJews, bnow that we sit and engage in Torahstudy, babout which it is written: “For that is your life, and the length of your days”(Deuteronomy 30:20), we fear the empire bto this extent; if we proceed tosit bidle from itsstudy, as its abandonment is the habitat that causes our death, ball the more sowill we fear the empire.,The Sages bsaid: Not a few days passed until they seized Rabbi Akiva and incarcerated him in prison, and seized Pappos ben Yehuda and incarcerated him alongside him.Rabbi Akiva bsaid to him: Pappos, who brought you here?Pappos breplied: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, for you were arrested onthe charge of engaging in bTorahstudy. bWoe unto Pappos who was seized onthe charge of engaging in bidle matters. /b,The Gemara relates: bWhen they took Rabbi Akiva out to be executed, it was time for the recitation of iShema /i. And they were raking his flesh with iron combs, and he wasreciting iShema /i, thereby baccepting upon himself the yoke of Heaven. His students said to him: Our teacher, even now,as you suffer, you recite iShema /i? bHe said to them: All my days I have been troubled by the verse: With all your soul,meaning: bEven if God takes your soul. I saidto myself: bWhen will theopportunity bbe afforded me to fulfill thisverse? bNow that it has been afforded me, shall I not fulfill it? He prolongedhis uttering of the word: bOne, until his soul lefthis body as he uttered his final word: bOne. A voice descendedfrom heaven band said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, that your soul leftyour body basyou uttered: bOne. /b, bThe ministering angels said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: This is Torah and this its reward?As it is stated: b“From death, by Your hand, O Lord, from deathof the world” (Psalms 17:14); Your hand, God, kills and does not save. God bsaidthe end of the verse btothe ministering angels: b“Whose portion is in this life.”And then ba Divine Voice emerged and said: Happy are you, Rabbi Akiva, as you are destined for life in the World-to-Come,as your portion is already in eternal life.,We learned in the mishna that bone may not act irreverently opposite the Eastern Gate, which is aligned with the Holy of Holies.Limiting this ihalakha /i, bRav Yehuda saidthat bRav said: They only saidthis ihalakhawith regard to irreverent behavior bfromMount bScopus [ iTzofim /i] and within, andspecifically areas from where bone can seethe Temple. bIt is also stated: Rabbi Abba, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, said: Rabbi Yoḥa said the following: They only saidthis ihalakhawith regard to Mount bScopus and within,when bone can see, and when there is no fenceobstructing his view, band when the Divine Presence is restingthere, i.e., when the Temple is standing.,In this context, bthe Sages taught: One who defecates in Judea should not defecatewhen facing beast and west,for then he is facing Jerusalem; bratherhe should do so bfacing north and south. But in the Galileewhich is north of Jerusalem, bone should only defecatefacing beast and west. Rabbi Yosei permitsdoing so, bas Rabbi Yosei was wont to say: They only prohibiteddoing so when bone can seethe Temple, bwhere there is no fence, and when the Divine Presence is restingthere. bAnd the Rabbis prohibitdoing so.,The Gemara argues: But the opinion of the bRabbis,who prohibit this, bisidentical to that of the bfirstanonymous itanna, /iwho also prohibits doing so. The Gemara replies: The practical difference bbetween them iswith regard to bthe sides,i.e., a place in Judea that is not directly east or west of Jerusalem, or a place in the Galilee that is not directly north of Jerusalem. According to the first itanna /i, it is prohibited; according to the Rabbis, it is permitted., bIt was taughtin banother ibaraita /i: bOne who defecates in Judea should not defecatewhen facing beast and west; rather,he should only do so facing bnorth and south. And in the Galilee,defecating while facing bnorth and south is prohibited,while beast and west is permitted. And Rabbi Yosei permitteddoing so, bas Rabbi Yosei was wont to say: They only prohibiteddoing so when bone can seethe Temple. bRabbi Yehuda says: When the Temple is standing, it is prohibited,but bwhen the Temple is not standing, it is permitted.The Gemara adds that bRabbi Akiva prohibitsdefecating banywherewhile facing east and west.,The Gemara challenges this: bRabbi Akiva’sposition bis identical tothat of bthe first,anonymous itanna /i,who also prohibits doing so. The Gemara responds: The practical difference bbetween themis with regard to places boutside of EretzYisrael b,as according to Rabbi Akiva, even outside of Eretz Yisrael, defecating while facing east and west is prohibited.,The Gemara relates that in bRabba’sbathroom, bthe bricks were placed east and westin order to ensure that he would defecate facing north and south. bAbaye wentand bplaced them north and south,to test if Rabba was particular about their direction or if they had simply been placed east and west incidentally. bRabba enteredand bfixed them. He said: Who is the one that is upsetting me? I hold in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva,who bsaid: It is prohibited everywhere. /b
19. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

5a. משום חשבונות,אמר ליה אביי וחשבונות של מצוה מי אסירי והא רב חסדא ורב המנונא דאמרי תרוייהו חשבונות של מצוה מותר לחשבן בשבת וא"ר אלעזר פוסקין צדקה לעניים בשבת ואמר ר' יעקב אמר ר' יוחנן הולכין לבתי כנסיות ולבתי מדרשות לפקח על עסקי רבים בשבת ואמר רבי יעקב בר אידי אמר רבי יוחנן מפקחין פיקוח נפש בשבת,ואמר רב שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יונתן הולכין לטרטייאות ולקרקייאות לפקח על עסקי רבים בשבת ותנא דבי מנשיא משדכין על התינוקת ליארס בשבת ועל התינוק ללמדו ספר וללמדו אומנות,אלא אמר רבי זירא גזירה שמא ישחוט בן עוף א"ל אביי אלא מעתה יום הכפורים שחל להיות בשני בשבת ידחה גזירה שמא ישחוט בן עוף התם דלנפשיה לא טריד הכא דלאחרים טריד אי נמי התם אית ליה רווחא הכא לית ליה רווחא,השתא דאתית להכי ערב שבת נמי גזירה שמא ישחוט בן עוף,איבעיא להו בתולה נשאת ברביעי ונבעלת ברביעי ולא חיישינן לאיקרורי דעתא או דלמא בתולה נשאת ברביעי ונבעלת בחמישי דחיישינן לאיקרורי דעתא,ת"ש דתני בר קפרא בתולה נשאת ברביעי ונבעלת בחמישי הואיל ונאמרה בו ברכה לדגים אלמנה נשאת בחמישי ונבעלת בששי הואיל ונאמרה בו ברכה לאדם טעמא משום ברכה אבל משום איקרורי דעתא לא חיישינן,אי הכי אלמנה נמי תיבעל בחמישי הואיל ונאמרה בו ברכה לדגים ברכה דאדם עדיפא ליה,ואי נמי משום שקדו דתניא מפני מה אמרו אלמנה נשאת בחמישי ונבעלת בששי שאם אתה אומר תיבעל בחמישי למחר משכים לאומנתו והולך לו שקדו חכמים על תקנת בנות ישראל שיהא שמח עמה שלשה ימים חמישי בשבת וערב שבת ושבת,מאי איכא בין ברכה לשקדו איכא בינייהו אדם בטל אי נמי יום טוב שחל להיות בערב שבת,דרש בר קפרא גדולים מעשה צדיקים יותר ממעשה שמים וארץ דאילו במעשה שמים וארץ כתיב (ישעיהו מח, יג) אף ידי יסדה ארץ וימיני טפחה שמים ואילו במעשה ידיהם של צדיקים כתיב (שמות טו, יז) מכון לשבתך פעלת ה' מקדש אדני כוננו ידיך,השיב בבלי אחד ור' חייא שמו (תהלים צה, ה) ויבשת ידיו יצרו ידו כתיב והכתיב יצרו א"ר נחמן בר יצחק יצרו אצבעותיו כדכתיב (תהלים ח, ד) כי אראה שמיך מעשה אצבעותיך ירח וכוכבים אשר כוננת,מיתיבי (תהלים יט, ב) השמים מספרים כבוד אל ומעשה ידיו מגיד הרקיע הכי קאמר מעשה ידיהם של צדיקים מי מגיד הרקיע ומאי ניהו מטר,דרש בר קפרא מאי דכתיב (דברים כג, יד) ויתד תהיה לך על אזנך אל תקרי אזנך אלא על אוזנך שאם ישמע אדם דבר שאינו הגון 5a. It is bdue to calculationsperformed on Shabbat to prepare for the wedding. He would thereby engage in weekday matters on Shabbat., bAbaye said to him: And are calculations for a mitzva prohibitedon Shabbat? bBut wasn’t it Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna who both said:With regard to bcalculations for a mitzva,it is bpermitted to reckon them on Shabbat? And Rabbi Elazar said: One may allocate charity to the poor on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya’akov saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One goes to synagogues and study halls to supervise mattersaffecting the bmultitudes on Shabbat. And Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One supervises matters of saving a life on Shabbat. /b, bAnd Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: One goes to theaters [ itartiyyaot /i] and circuses [ ikarkiyyaot /i] to supervise mattersaffecting the bmultitudes on Shabbat,because the fate of the Jewish people or of individual Jews is often decided there and one’s presence could prevent calamity. bAndthe Sage bof the school of Menashya taught:One bmakes matches [ imeshadkhin /i]among the families concerned bfor a young girl to be betrothed on Shabbat, andsimilarly one may make arrangements bfor a young boy to teach him Torah and to teach him a craft.Apparently, calculations for a mitzva may be reckoned on Shabbat, including calculations for a wedding. Therefore, this cannot be the reason for the prohibition against marrying at the conclusion of Shabbat., bRather, Rabbi Zeira said: It is a decree lest one slaughter a young fowl onShabbat, due to his preoccupation with the preparations for that night’s wedding feast. bAbaye said to him: Ifthat is bso, Yom Kippur that occurs on Monday should be postponedwhen fixing the calendar, due to ba decree lest one slaughter a young fowlon Shabbat for the meal on Yom Kippur eve, which is a mitzva. The Gemara distinguishes between the cases. bThere,with regard to Yom Kippur eve, when one is preparing a meal bfor himself, he is not preoccupied,and he will not overlook the fact that it is Shabbat. bHere,in the case of a wedding, one is preparing a meal bfor othersand is bpreoccupied. Alternatively, there,on Yom Kippur eve, bhe has an intervalof time during which he can slaughter the bird, as the mitzva is to eat the meal on Yom Kippur eve the next day. bHere, he does not have an intervalof time, because the wedding and the feast take place at night at the conclusion of Shabbat.,The Gemara says: bNow that we have come to thisunderstanding of the prohibition against marrying at the conclusion of Shabbat, the prohibition not to engage in sexual intercourse on bShabbat evening, too,is not due to the intercourse. Rather, it is ba decree lest one slaughter a young fowlfor the wedding feast.,§ The Gemara braises a dilemma: Is a virgin married on Wednesday anddoes she bengage in intercourse onthat bWednesday, and we are not concernedlest bhis resolveto take his bride to court upon discovering that she was not a virgin bcoolovernight? Rather, he will certainly go to court the next morning. bOr perhaps, a virgin is married on Wednesday but engages in intercourse on Thursday, as we are concerned that his resolve will cool. /b, bCome and hearproof, bas bar Kappara taught: A virgin is married on Wednesday and engages in intercourse on Thursday, since the blessing to the fish:Be fruitful and multiply, bwas statedon the fifth day of Creation. bA widow is married on Thursday and engages in intercourse on Friday, since the blessingof procreation bwas stated to manon the sixth day of Creation. It may be inferred that bthe reason is due to the blessing, but with regard tothe possibility lest bhis resolve cool, we are not concerned. /b,The Gemara asks: bIf so, a widow should also engage in intercourse on Thursday, since the blessing to the fish was stated then.The Gemara answers: Since there is the option to postpone engaging in relations to the day on which bthe blessing of manwas stated, doing so bis preferable for him. /b, bAlternatively,that day was established as the day for a widow to engage in sexual relations bdue tothe fact that the Sages bwere assiduousin seeing to the well-being of Jewish women, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhy didthe Sages bsay that a widow is married on Thursday and engages in intercourse on Friday?It is bbecause if you say that she should engage in intercourse on Thursday, on the next daythe groom will bgo toply bhis craft earlyand leave his wife alone. When a man marries a widow, there is no observance of the seven days of rejoicing, whose legal status is like that of a Festival, during which he does not go to work. Therefore, bthe Sages were assiduous in seeing to the well-being of Jewish womenand ensured bthatthe groom brejoice with herfor bthree days: Thursday,the day of the wedding; band Shabbat eve,the day when they engage in sexual relations; band Shabbat. /b, bWhatpractical difference bis there betweenthe two reasons given to engage in relations on Friday, i.e., the bblessingof procreation for man bandthe fact that the Sages bwere assiduous?The Gemara answers: bThere isa practical difference bbetween themin the case of ban idle person,who has no job, in which case the reason of blessing applies and the reason that the Sages were assiduous does not, as no matter what he will not go to work early. bAlternatively,there is a practical difference in the case of ba Festival that occurs on Shabbat eve.There too, the reason of blessing applies but the Sages’ assiduousness does not apply, as one does not work on a Festival.,§ The Gemara cites additional aggadic statements of bar Kappara. bBar Kappara taught: The handiwork of the righteous is greater than the creation of heaven and earth, as with regard to the creation of heaven and earth it is written: “My hand also has laid the foundation of the earth, and My right hand has spanned the heavens”(Isaiah 48:13). There, hand is written in the singular. bWhereas with regard to the handiwork of the righteous it is written: “The place which You have made for Yourself to dwell in, Lord, the Sanctuary, Lord, which your hands have established” (Exodus 15:17).The reference is to the Temple, which is the handiwork of man, and hand is written in the plural., bA certain Babylonian, and his name is Rabbi Ḥiyya, respondedwith a challenge. It is written with regard to creation of the earth: b“And His hands formed the dry land”(Psalms 95:5). The Gemara answers: b“His hand”is the way it bis written.Although the word is vocalized in the plural, it is written in the singular, without the letter iyod /i. bBut isn’t it written: “Formed,”in the plural? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The plural is referring to bHis fingers, as it is written: “When I see Your heavens, the work of Your fingers, the moon and stars, which You have established”(Psalms 8:4)., bThe Gemara raises an objection: “The heavens declare the glory of God, and the firmament proclaims the work of His hands”(Psalms 19:2). The heavens were created by His hands. The Gemara answers that bthisis what the verse bis saying: Who attests to the handiwork of the righteous,that they are performing the will of God? It is bthe heavens. And what isthe avenue through which the heavens do so? It is by means of brainthat falls due to the prayers of the righteous., bBar Kappara taught: What isthe meaning of that which bis written: And you shall have a peg among your weapons [ iazenekha /i]”(Deuteronomy 23:14)? bDo not readit as: bYour weapons [ iazenekha /i]. Rather,read it: bOn your ear [ ioznekha /i],meaning bthat if a person hears an inappropriate matter, /b
20. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

25a. מה לערלה שכן לא היתה לה שעת הכושר תאמר בבשר בחלב שהיתה לו שעת הכושר חמץ בפסח יוכיח שהיה לו שעת הכושר ואסור בהנאה,מה לחמץ בפסח שכן ענוש כרת תאמר בבשר בחלב שאינו ענוש כרת כלאי הכרם יוכיחו שאין ענוש כרת ואסור בהנאה,ואם איתא ניפרוך מה לכלאי הכרם שכן לוקין עליהן אפילו שלא כדרך הנאתן,ואביי תאמר במאי תאמר בבשר בחלב שאין לוקין עליו אלא דרך הנאתו אטו בבשר בחלב אכילה כתיבה ביה,ואידך דקא מותיב לה סבר להכי קא גמר מנבילה מה נבילה דרך הנאתה אף בשר בחלב דרך הנאתו,ואביי להכי לא כתב אכילה בגופו לומר שלוקין עליו אפי' שלא כדרך הנאתו,וליפרוך מה לכלאי הכרם שכן לא היתה לו שעת הכושר א"ר אדא בר אהבה זאת אומרת כלאי הכרם עיקרן נאסרין הואיל והיתה להן שעת הכושר קודם השרשה,מתיב רב שמעיה המעביר עציץ נקוב בכרם אם הוסיף מאתים אסור הוסיף אין לא הוסיף לא,אמר רבא תרי קראי כתיבי כתיב (דברים כב, ט) הזרע וכתיב המלאה הא כיצד זרוע מעיקרו בהשרשה זרוע ובא הוסיף אין לא הוסיף לא,א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן בכל מתרפאין חוץ מעצי אשירה היכי דמי אי נימא דאיכא סכנה אפילו עצי אשירה נמי ואי דליכא סכנה אפילו כל איסורין שבתורה נמי לא,לעולם דאיכא סכנה ואפי' הכי עצי אשירה לא דתניא ר' אליעזר אומר אם נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל נפשך למה נאמר בכל מאודך ואם נאמר בכל מאודך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אלא לומר לך אם יש אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ויש אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר בכל מאודך,כי אתא רבין אמר רבי יוחנן בכל מתרפאין חוץ מע"ז וגילוי עריות 25a. The Gemara rejects this inference: bWhatcomparison can be made bto iorla /i,which is more stringent than meat in milk, bas it never had a time when it was fit?Can byou saythe same bwith regard to meat in milk, which had a time when it was fit?Unlike iorlafruits, which were prohibited from the beginning of their existence, both meat and milk were permitted on their own before they were cooked together. Therefore, the Gemara brings other proofs: bLet leavened bread on Passover provethat this issue is not a factor, bas it had a time when it was fit,before Passover, bandyet bit is prohibitedto derive bbenefitfrom it.,The Gemara rejects this: bWhatcomparison can be made to bleavened bread on Passover,which is a stringent prohibition, basone who eats it bis punished with ikaret /i?Can byou saythe same bwith regard toone who eats bmeat in milk, who is not punished with ikaret /i?The Gemara answers: bLetthe case of bdiverse kindsplanted bin the vineyard provethat this is not relevant, basone who violates that prohibition bis not punished with ikaret /i, andyet bit is prohibitedto derive bbenefitfrom the resulting mixtures.,The Gemara returns to the issue of Abaye’s statement with regard to the unique stringency of diverse kinds planted in a vineyard: bAnd if it is sothat one is flogged for deriving benefit from diverse kinds planted in a vineyard, even if one derives benefit from them in an unusual manner, bwe can challengethis last proof: How can one compare meat in milk to diverse kinds in a vineyard, baswith regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard, bone is flogged even if hederives bbenefit from them in an unusual manner? /b, bAndhow would bAbayerespond to this question? When one draws this challenge to its logical conclusion with the phrase: Can byou say,and explains in detail how the prohibition of meat in milk differs from that of diverse kinds in a vineyard, bwith regard to whatdifference would the challenge be raised? bYoumay bsaythat bwith regard to meat in milk one is flogged only forderiving bbenefit in the usual manner,as opposed to the ihalakhawith regard to diverse kinds, according to which one is flogged even for deriving benefit in an unusual manner. However, bis that to saythat the term beating is writtenin the Torah bwith regard to meat in milk?The basis for this ihalakhawith regard to diverse kinds in a vineyard is the lack of the term eating in the verse; however, the prohibition of meat in milk is also missing that term. Therefore, there are no grounds for this challenge: If the lack of the word eating leads to the conclusion that one is flogged even when deriving benefit in an unusual manner, logically that punishment should apply to both diverse kinds and meat in milk.,The Gemara asks: bAnd the otherSage, bwho raised this objection,holds that bfor thisreason Isi ben Yehuda bderivesthis aspect of the prohibition bfromthe case of ban animal carcass. Just aswith regard to ban animal carcassone is flogged only bwhenderiving bbenefit in the usual manner,as the verse that prohibits it uses the term eating, bso too,with regard to bmeat in milk,one is flogged only when deriving bbenefit in the usual manner.Despite what is written in the Gemara, the fact that one is flogged only for deriving benefit from the animal in the usual manner is not derived from the carcass of an unslaughtered animal but from itereifa /i, an animal with a condition that will cause it to die within twelve months. With regard to itereifait is written: “And you shall be holy men unto Me; therefore you shall not eat any flesh that is torn of beasts in the field [ itereifa /i]; you shall cast it to the dogs” (Exodus 22:30). From the fact that one may cast it to the dogs it can be derived that one may derive benefit in any manner other than the usual manner, i.e., eating., bAnd Abayeholds that bfor thisreason it bdid not writethe term beatingin the verse bitselfwith regard to the prohibition of meat in milk: In order bto say that one is flogged evenwhen deriving bbenefit in an unusual manner. /b,The Gemara continues. bLetIsi ben Yehuda bchallenge: Whatcomparison can be made bto diverse kinds in a vineyard, asthe forbidden produce bhad no time that it was fitbecause the prohibition came into effect as soon as the produce began to grow? bRabbi Adda bar Ahava said:Apparently, since this question was not asked, bthat is to say thatwith regard to bdiverse kinds in a vineyard, their roots are forbiddenas well, including the seeds and saplings from which the mature plants grow. Therefore, no challenge can be raised, bsince they had a time when they were fit, before taking root. /b, bRav Shemaya raised an objectionbased on what was taught in a mishna: With regard to bone who transfers a perforated potwith seeds in it binto a vineyard, ifthe size of the seeds growing in the pot bincreasesby one btwo-hundredthof their previous size, such that the permitted portion is not two hundred times the forbidden, newly grown portion, then the mixture bis prohibiteddue to the prohibition against planting diverse kinds in a vineyard. The forbidden portion is nullified only if it comprises less than one two-hundredth of the mixture. The Gemara reads precisely: bIf it increases, yes,it is prohibited; bif it does not increase, no,it is not prohibited. Apparently, only additional growth is prohibited, and not the seeds themselves., bRava said: Two verses are writtenabout this ihalakha /i, i.e., two separate terms in one verse indicate two separate prohibitions. The verse states: “You shall not sow your vineyard with two kinds of seed; lest the fullness of the seed which you have sown be forfeited together with the increase of the vineyard” (Deuteronomy 22:9). bIt is written: “The seed,”indicating that it is prohibited once it is planted and takes root, band it is written: “The fullness,”indicating that it is prohibited only if it has grown. bHowcan bthesetwo terms be reconciled? If it were bplanted initiallyin the vineyard, it becomes prohibited immediately bupon taking root.If it were bplantedelsewhere band broughtinto the vineyard later, such as in a perforated pot, then the following distinction applies: If bitssize bincreasesin the vineyard, byes,it is prohibited; if bitssize bdoes not increase, no,it is not prohibited.,The Gemara discusses another matter pertaining to deriving benefit. bRabbi Ya’akov saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa saidwith regard to objects from which it is prohibited to derive benefit: bOnemay bheal oneself with any substance except for wood of a tree designated for idolatry [ iasheira /i].The Gemara asks: bWhat are the circumstances? If we sayit is a case in which bthere is dangerto a person’s life, then it is permitted to use beven the wood of an iasheira /i. And ifit is a situation bwhere there is no danger,then ball the prohibitedsubstances bin the Torah alsomay bnotbe used, as one may not derive benefit from them.,The Gemara answers: bActually,it is referring to a case where bthere is danger, and even so,one my bnotderive benefit from bthe wood of an iasheira /i. As it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated:“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, band with all your soul,” why is it stated: “And with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5)? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it stated: “With all your soul”?One of these statements appears to be superfluous., bRather,it is bto tell youthat bif there is a person whose body is more beloved to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul.”The verse teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd there is a person whose property is more beloved to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might.”Rabbi Eliezer understands the phrase: “With all your might,” to mean: With all your possessions. Apparently, there are circumstances in which a person must be prepared to die rather than be healed with a prohibited substance., bWhen Ravin camefrom the Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he bsaidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: Onemay bheal oneself with any substancefrom which one may not derive benefit, bexcept for idolatry or forbidden sexual relations /b
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

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

132a. שכן אם עבר זמנה בטלה אלא היינו טעמא דרבי אליעזר דאמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ג) וביום השמיני ימול בשר ערלתו ואפילו בשבת,וליכתוב רחמנא במילה וליתו הנך וליגמור מיניה משום דאיכא למיפרך מה למילה שכן נכרתו עליה שלש עשרה בריתות:,ע"כ לא פליגי רבנן עליה אלא במכשירי מילה אבל מילה גופה דברי הכל דוחה שבת מנלן אמר עולא הלכה וכן אמר רבי יצחק הלכה,מיתיבי מניין לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת רבי אלעזר בן עזריה אומר מה מילה שהיא אחת מאיבריו של אדם דוחה את השבת קל וחומר לפיקוח נפש שדוחה את השבת,ואי סלקא דעתך הלכה קל וחומר מהלכה מי אתי והתניא אמר לו רבי אלעזר (בן עזריה) עקיבא עצם כשעורה מטמא הלכה ורביעית דם קל וחומר ואין דנין קל וחומר מהלכה,אלא אמר רבי אלעזר אתיא אות אות,אלא מעתה תפילין דכתיב בהן אות לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא ברית ברית,גדול דכתיב ביה ברית לידחי שבת,אלא אתיא דורות דורות,ציצית דכתיב ביה דורות לידחי שבת,אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דנין אות ברית ודורות מאות ברית ודורות לאפוקי הנך דחד חד הוא דכתיב בהן,ור' יוחנן אמר אמר קרא ביום ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר ליה ריש לקיש לרבי יוחנן אלא מעתה מחוסרי כפרה דכתיב בהו ביום הכי נמי דדחו שבת ההוא מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה,האי נמי מיבעי ליה ביום ולא בלילה ההוא מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,האי נמי מביום צוותו נפקא,אע"ג דנפקא מביום צוותו אצטריכא סד"א הואיל וחס רחמנא עליה לאתויי בדלות בלילה נמי ליתי קמ"ל,מתקיף לה רבינא אלא מעתה יהא זר כשר בהן ויהא אונן כשר בהן הא אהדריה קרא,רב אחא בר יעקב אמר אמר קרא שמיני שמיני אפילו בשבת,האי שמיני מיבעי ליה למעוטי שביעי שביעי מבן שמנת ימים נפקא,ואכתי מיבעי ליה חד למעוטי שביעי וחד למעוטי תשיעי דאי מחד הוה אמינא שביעי הוא דלא מטא זמניה אבל משמיני ואילך זמניה הוא אלא מחוורתא כדרבי יוחנן,תניא כוותיה דרבי יוחנן ודלא כרב אחא בר יעקב שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים (שמות לא, יד) מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכות חוץ ממילה או אינו אלא אפי' מילה ומה אני מקיים שמיני ימול חוץ משבת ת"ל ביום אפילו בשבת,אמר רבא האי תנא מעיקרא מאי קא ניחא ליה ולבסוף מאי קא קשיא ליה,הכי קאמר שמיני ימול אפילו בשבת ומה אני מקיים מחלליה מות יומת בשאר מלאכו' חוץ ממילה אבל מילה דחיא,מ"ט ק"ו הוא ומה צרע' שדוחה את העבודה 132a. in each, bas if its time passed, it is void,unlike the mitzva of circumcision, which can be fulfilled at a later date if the child is not circumcised on the eighth day. bRather, this is the reasonfor the opinion bof Rabbi Eliezer, as the verse says: “And on the eighth day the flesh of his foreskin shall be circumcised”(Leviticus 12:3), indicating that he is circumcised on the eighth day bevenif it falls bon Shabbat. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd let the Torah writethis principle only bwith regard tothe mitzva of bcircumcision, and let theseother mitzvot bcome and derivetheir ihalakhot bfrom it.The Gemara answers: bBecausethis suggestion bcan be refuted: Whatis unique about the mitzva of bcircumcision? That thirteen covets were established over it,as the word covet is mentioned thirteen times in the passage dealing with the circumcision of Abraham (Genesis 17). Owing to its great significance, other mitzvot cannot be derived from it.,The Gemara departs from the facilitators of circumcision to the ihalakhaof circumcision itself and asks: bThe Rabbis only disagree withRabbi Eliezer bwith regard to actions that facilitate circumcision,which, in their view, do not override Shabbat; bhowever,with regard to bcircumcision itself, everyone agreesthat it boverrides Shabbat. From where do wederive this ihalakha /i? bUlla said:This is ba ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, but there is no biblical basis for it. bAnd so too, Rabbi Yitzḥak said:It is ba ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai.,The Gemara braises an objectionfrom that which was taught in the iTosefta /i: bFrom whereis it derived bthat saving a life overrides Shabbat? Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya saysit is derived from the mitzva of circumcision: bJust as circumcision, whichpertains to only bone of a person’s limbs, overrides Shabbat,all the more so it is an ia fortioriinferencethat bsaving a life,which is a mitzva that pertains to the entire person, boverrides Shabbat. /b, bAnd if it should enter your mindto say that circumcision may be performed on Shabbat based on a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, bis an ia fortioriinference derived from a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai? bWasn’t it taughtexplicitly in a ibaraitathat an ia fortioriinference cannot be derived from a ihalakhatransmitted to Moses from Sinai? Rabbi Akiva sought to derive that a nazirite who comes into contact with a quarter ilogof blood from a corpse becomes ritually impure and is required to shave his hair. He sought to do this based on an ia fortioriinference from the ihalakhaof the bone from a dead person the size of a grain of barley, as he had a received tradition that a nazirite is required to shave his hair due to that contact. bRabbi Elazar ben Azarya said to him: Akiva,the ihalakhathat ba bone the size of agrain of bbarley transmits ritual impurity is a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai, bandyou would derive from it that ba quarterof a ilog bof bloodtransmits ritual impurity based upon ban ia fortioriinference, and one does not derive an ia fortioriinference from a ihalakha /itransmitted to Moses from Sinai. The iToseftaexplicitly states that Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya himself derived an ia fortioriinference from the ihalakhaof circumcision on Shabbat. Clearly, then, it is derived from the Torah itself and not from a ihalakhatransmitted to Moses from Sinai., bRather, Rabbi Elazar said:This ihalakhais bderivedby means of a verbal analogy between the word bsignthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and bsignthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “However, you shall keep My iShabbatot /i, for it is a sign between Me and you throughout your generations” (Exodus 31:13). From this verbal analogy, it is derived that circumcision, which is a sign, may be performed even on Shabbat, which is itself a sign.,The Gemara asks: bBut ifwhat you say is bso, phylacteries, with regard to whichthe term bsign isalso bwritten:“And it shall be for a sign on your hand and for frontlets between your eyes” (Exodus 13:16), bshouldalso boverride Shabbat,and they should be donned on that day., bRather,this principle is bderivedby means of a different verbal analogy from the word bcovetthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And you shall be circumcised in the flesh of your foreskin; and it shall be a sign of the covet between Me and you” (Genesis 17:11), and the word bcovetthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “The children of Israel shall keep the Shabbat, to observe the Shabbat throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16).,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If this is so, then the circumcision of ban adultshould also be permitted on Shabbat and it should not be limited to a child on the eighth day, basthe term bcovet is written with regard to himas well, as it applies to any Jewish male not yet circumcised. Therefore, blethis circumcision boverride Shabbat.The ihalakha /i, however, is that only circumcision at its proper time on the eighth day overrides Shabbat., bRather,this ihalakha bis derivedby means of a verbal analogy between the word bgenerationsthat appears with regard to Shabbat: “Throughout their generations for a perpetual covet” (Exodus 31:16), and the word bgenerationsthat appears with regard to circumcision: “And I shall establish My covet between Me and you, and between your seed after you throughout their generations, for an everlasting covet” (Genesis 17:7).,The Gemara asks: If so, blet ritual fringestoo, bwith regard to whichthe term bgenerations isalso bwritten, override Shabbat,and it should be permitted to affix ritual fringes to a garment on Shabbat., bRather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:This ihalakhais derived not from one common word alone, but bone derivesit based upon the three words bsign, covet, and generationsthat appear with regard to circumcision, bfrom sign, covet, and generationsthat appear with regard to Shabbat, bto the exclusion of these,i.e., ritual fringes and phylacteries, bthat with regard to each of them, oneof these bis writtenbut not all three words together., bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa said: The verse says:“And bon theeighth day…shall be circumcised” (Leviticus 12:3), which means that the child is circumcised bon theeighth bdaywhenever it occurs, beven on Shabbat. /b, bReish Lakish said to Rabbi Yoḥa: But ifwhat you say is bso,then, with regard to bthose lacking atonement,such as a izavor a healed leper, who must after their immersion still bring an atonement offering in order to complete their purification process, bwith regard to whomthe term bon the day isalso bwritten,as in the verse: “And on the eighth day he shall take two he-lambs without blemish, and one ewe-lamb of the first year without blemish” (Leviticus 14:10), sacrificing their atonement offerings bshould also override Shabbat.Rabbi Yoḥa responded: bThatverse bis necessaryto teach that the sacrifice must be brought bduring the day and not at night. /b,Reish Lakish asked: bThisverse with regard to the mitzva of circumcision bis also necessaryto teach that circumcision must be performed bduring the day and not at night.Rabbi Yoḥa replied: bThatis derived bfroma different verse, which states: “And bhe that is eight days oldshall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12). That circumcision must take place during the day is derived from that verse.,Reish Lakish says: bThatmatter, that the atonement offering must be sacrificed during the day, can balsobe derived bfroma different verse, as it is stated: “This is the law of the burnt-offering, of the meal-offering, and of the sin-offering, and of the guilt-offering, and of the consecration-offering, and of the sacrifice of the peace-offerings; which the Lord commanded Moses at Mount Sinai bon the day He commandedthe children of Israel to present their offerings to the Lord in the wilderness of Sinai” (Leviticus 7:37–38), and from here bit is derivedthat all offerings are sacrificed by day and not at night.,The Gemara answers: bAlthoughthis ihalakha bis derived from: “On the day He commanded,”an additional source bis necessaryfor those lacking atonement. bIt might have entered your mind to saythat bsince the Torah shows him mercyby allowing him bto bringan offering bof poverty,as if one cannot afford to sacrifice the regular atonement offering, the Torah enables him to sacrifice a less costly one, blet him also bring it at night,as perhaps the Torah shows him mercy and allows him to hasten his atonement. Therefore, bit teaches usthat he too must bring his offering only by day and not at night., bRavina strongly objects to thisreasoning: bBut ifwhat you say is bso,that the Torah has compassion on a person lacking atonement and is lenient with regard to the ihalakhotof the atonement offering, ba non-priest should be fitto sacrifice bthem, andsimilarly, a priest who is ban acute mourner,i.e., one whose relative died that same day and has not yet been buried, bshould be fit tosacrifice bthem.The Gemara answers: bThe verse has restored this.The additional verse that teaches that even one lacking atonement must sacrifice during the day, also teaches that the Torah was lenient with regard to this offering only in the ways explicitly stated in the Torah., bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:There is a different proof from the Torah that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat, for bthe verse said:“On the beighthday,” underscoring that circumcision is performed specifically on the beighthday and indicating that it is performed beven on Shabbat. /b,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bThisusage of the term beighth is necessary to excludethe bseventhday, i.e., a child may not be circumcised before the eighth day. The Gemara answers: The fact that one may not circumcise on the bseventhday bis derivedfrom a different verse, as it is stated: “And bhe that is eight days oldshall be circumcised among you throughout your generations” (Genesis 17:12).,The Gemara raises a further difficulty: Both verses are bstill necessary, one to excludethe bseventhday band one to excludethe bninthday. bAs ifit were derived bfrom oneverse alone, bI would have said: It ison the bseventhday that one may not circumcise, since bthe timeto circumcise this child bhas notyet barrivedand the obligation of circumcision is not yet in effect; bhowever, fromthe beighthday band onward is its time,and therefore it is permissible to postpone a circumcision until the ninth day. No answer was found to this question, and the Gemara concludes: bRather,the derivation bis clear according to Rabbi Yoḥa. /b, bIt was taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa and not in accordance withthe opinion of bRav Aḥa bar Ya’akov,as the itannainterprets the phrase: “On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”to mean that the circumcision must be performed beven on Shabbat. And how do I fulfillthe prohibition against performing prohibited labor explicit in the Torah in the verse: “And you shall guard the Shabbat, for it is holy to you; bhe who desecrates it shall surely die”(Exodus 31:14)? That is referring bto other prohibited labors besides circumcision.The itannaquestions his previous statement: bOr perhaps that is notthe case, and the prohibition of performing prohibited labor on Shabbat includes beven circumcision, and,on the contrary, bhow do I fulfillthe verse: “On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”?It applies when the eighth day is any day bother than Shabbat. The verse states: “On the day,”meaning on that very day when he turns eight days old, beven on Shabbat.The itannaof this ibaraitarejects Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov’s proof and accepts Rabbi Yoḥa’s assertion that the phrase “On the day” conclusively establishes that circumcision is performed even on Shabbat.,With regard to this ibaraita /i, bRava said: Initially, whatdid bthis itanna /ifind bacceptable, and ultimately, whatdid bhefind bdifficult?Initially he suggested that: “On the eighth day he shall be circumcised” is a valid source for the fact that circumcision overrides Shabbat, but ultimately, he deemed that difficult and turned to an alternative source, yet provided no reason, neither for his initial statement nor for his second statement.,Rather, we can explain that bthis is what he is saying:“On the beighthday bhe shall be circumcised”applies beven on Shabbat. And how do I fulfill: “He who desecrates it shall surely die”?That is referring to the bother prohibited labors besides circumcision; however, circumcision overridesShabbat., bWhat is the reasonfor this? bIt isderived by means of ban ia fortioriinference: Just as leprosy, which overrides theTemple bservice,as a priest who is a leper may not serve in the Temple and it is prohibited to cut off the symptoms of leprosy
23. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

82a. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big התינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן לפני שנה ולפני שנתיים בשביל שיהיו רגילין במצות, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big השתא בפני שתים מחנכין להו בפני שנה מבעיא אמר רב חסדא לא קשיא הא בחולה הא בבריא,א"ר הונא בן ח' ובן ט' מחנכין אותו לשעות בן י' ובן י"א משלימין מדרבנן בן י"ב משלימין מדאורייתא בתינוקת ורב נחמן אמר בן ט' בן י' מחנכין אותן לשעות בן י"א בן י"ב משלימין מדרבנן בן י"ג משלימין מדאורייתא בתינוק ור' יוחנן אמר השלמה דרבנן ליכא בן י' בן י"א מחנכין אותו לשעות בן י"ב משלימין מדאורייתא,תנן התינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן לפני שנה ולפני שתים בשלמא לרב הונא ורב נחמן לפני שנה ולפני שתים לפני שנה לדבריהן ולפני שתים לדבריהן,אלא לרבי יוחנן קשיא אמר לך רבי יוחנן מאי שנה או שתים סמוך לפירקן,ת"ש דתני רבה בר שמואל תינוקות אין מענין אותן ביוה"כ אבל מחנכין אותן שנה או שתים סמוך לפירקן בשלמא לר' יוחנן ניחא אלא לרב הונא ולרב נחמן קשיא אמרי לך רבנן מאי חינוך נמי דקתני השלמה,ומי קרי לחינוך השלמה והא תניא אי זה חינוך היה רגיל לאכול בשתי שעות מאכילין אותו לשלש בשלש מאכילין אותו בארבע אמר רבא בר עולא תרי חנוכי הוו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big עוברה שהריחה מאכילין אותה עד שתשיב נפשה חולה מאכילין אותו ע"פ בקיאין ואם אין שם בקיאין מאכילין אותו על פי עצמו עד שיאמר די, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר עוברה שהריחה בשר קודש או בשר חזיר תוחבין לה כוש ברוטב ומניחין לה על פיה אם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה רוטב עצמה ואם נתיישבה דעתה מוטב ואם לאו מאכילין אותה שומן עצמו שאין לך דבר שעומד בפני פקוח נפש חוץ מע"ז וגילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים,ע"ז מנלן דתניא ר"א אומר אם נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל נפשך למה נאמר (דברים ו, ה) בכל מאדך ואם נאמר בכל מאדך למה נאמר בכל נפשך,אם יש לך אדם שגופו חביב עליו מממונו לכך נאמר בכל נפשך ואם יש לך אדם שממונו חביב עליו מגופו לכך נאמר ובכל מאדך,גילוי עריות ושפיכת דמים מנא לן דתניא רבי אומר (דברים כב, כו) כי כאשר יקום איש על רעהו ורצחו נפש כן הדבר הזה וכי מה ענין למדנו מרוצח לנערה המאורסה,אלא ה"ז בא ללמד ונמצא למד מה נערה המאורסה ניתן להצילה בנפשו אף רוצח (כו') מה רוצח יהרג ואל יעבור אף נערה המאורסה יהרג ואל יעבור 82a. strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bthe children, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains them one year before or two years beforethey reach majority, by means of a partial fast lasting several hours, bso that they will be accustomed tofulfill bmitzvot. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks about the wording of the mishna: bSinceit is stated that one trains children btwoyears bbeforetheir maturity, is it bnecessary to say that one trains them one year before?This expression in the mishna is superfluous. bRav Ḥisda said:This is bnot difficult. Thisstatement that one trains children one year before their maturity is referring bto a feeblechild; bthatstatement that one trains children two years before their maturity is referring bto a healthychild., bRav Huna said: One trainsa healthy child bof eightyears band nineyears to fast bforseveral bhours;at btenyears band elevenyears, bthey completethe fast bby rabbiniclaw; bat twelveyears bthey completethe fast bby Torahlaw. This applies bto girlswho reach maturity and become obligated in mitzvot at age twelve. bAnd Rav Naḥman said: At nineyears and btenyears bone trains themto fast bforseveral bhours; at eleven and twelveyears bthey completethe fast bby rabbiniclaw; bat thirteenyears bthey completethe fast bby Torahlaw. This applies bto boys. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: There is noobligation with regard to children bcompletingthe fast bby rabbiniclaw. Rather, bat ten and elevenyears, bone trains themto fast bforseveral bhours; and at twelveyears girls are obligated to bcompletetheir fast bby Torahlaw.,§ bWe learnedin the mishna: With regard to bthe children, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains themfor bone year before or twoyears bbeforethey reach maturity. bGranted,this makes sense according to the opinion of bRav Huna and Rav Naḥman,who hold that for one or two years before reaching maturity there is a rabbinic law requiring children to complete the fast. The mishna that states bone year before or twoyears bbeforeshould be understood as follows: A feeble child is obligated to complete the fast on Yom Kippur in the byear beforereaching maturity bby rabbiniclaw, banda healthy child is obligated to complete the fast on Yom Kippur in the btwoyears bbeforereaching maturity bby rabbiniclaw (Vilna Gaon)., bButaccording bto Rabbi Yoḥa,who holds that there is no rabbinic law to complete the fast, this is bdifficult.In his opinion, what is the difference between one year before and two years before? bRabbi Yoḥacould have bsaid to you: Whatis the meaning of bone year or twoyears? One year is referring not to the year before the year preceding their maturity, i.e. the two years preceding it, but actually to the year bpreceding their maturity.The phrase: One or two years, indicates that there is a difference between those who are required for one year and those who required for two, which depends on their health: The healthy child is required to fast two years, but one year is sufficient for a feeble child., bComeand bhear thatwhich bRabba bar Shmuel taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to bchildren, one does not afflict themby withholding food bon Yom Kippur; however, one trains them one yearfor a feeble child bor twoyears for a healthy child bpreceding their maturity. Granted,according btothe opinion of bRabbi Yoḥa, this works out well; butaccording bto Rav Huna and Rav Naḥman,who say that there is an additional year that one is required to complete the fast according to rabbinic law, this is bdifficult. The Rabbiscould bsay to you: What isthis btraining that is also taughtthere? It is referring to fasting ba completeday, which is required by rabbinic law. By rabbinic law, the time of completing the fast for a healthy child is two years before he reaches maturity.,The Gemara asks: bAnd is training called completion?Doesn’t training mean that the child performs only part of the mitzva? bWasn’tit btaughtexplicitly in a ibaraita /i: bWhat is training? Ifthe child bwas accustomed to eatevery day bat the secondhour of the day, bone feeds him at the thirdhour, so he will begin to understand the concept of affliction. If he was accustomed to eat bat the thirdhour, bone feeds him at the fourthhour. bRava bar Ulla said:This is not difficult; bthese are twodifferent types of btraining.There is training of small children to wait slightly longer before eating, and training of older children, in which one habituates them to fasting a full day., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to ba pregt woman who smelledfood and was overcome by a craving to eat it, bone feeds her until she recovers,as failure to do so could lead to a life-threatening situation. If a person is billand requires food due to potential danger, bone feeds him according tothe advice of medical bexpertswho determine that he indeed requires food. bAnd if there are no experts there, one feeds him according to his owninstructions, buntil he saysthat he has eaten benoughand needs no more., strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba pregt woman who smelled consecrated meat or pig meatand craved those specific foods, bone inserts a thin reed into the juiceof that item band places it on her mouth. If her mind become settledwith that, bit is well. And if not, one feeds her the gravy itselfof that forbidden food. bIf her mind becomes settledwith that, bit is well. And if not, one feeds her the fatof the forbidden food bitself, as there is no ihalakha bthat stands in the way of saving a life except forthe prohibitions against bidol worship, and forbidden sexual relationships, and bloodshed. /b,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to the ihalakhathat the prohibition against bidol worshiptakes precedence over saving one’s life, bfrom wheredo bwederive this? bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Eliezer says: If it is stated:“And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, band with all your soul”(Deuteronomy 6:5), bwhy is it statedin the continuation of the verse: b“And with all your might”(Deuteronomy 6:5)? bAnd if it is stated: “With all your might,” why is it stated: “With all your soul”?One of these statements appears to be superfluous.,Rather, it is to teach that bif there is a person whose body is more beloved to him than his property, therefore it is stated: “With all your soul.”The verse teaches that one must be willing to sacrifice his life to sanctify God’s name. bAnd if there is a person whose property is more beloved to him than his body, therefore it is stated: “With all your might.”Rabbi Eliezer understands the phrase “with all your might” to mean: With all your possessions. Therefore, one must be prepared to forfeit his life rather than be saved through idol worship.,§ With regard to the concept that one must surrender his life rather than have bforbidden sexual relations or shed bloodthrough murder, bfrom wheredo bwederive this? bAs it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:It is stated about the rape of a betrothed woman: b“For as when a man rises against his fellow and slays him, even so is this matter”(Deuteronomy 22:26). One might ask: bWhat idea did we learn about a betrothed woman from a murderer?The ihalakhaof a betrothed woman is clear; what new point is learned by comparing it to the ihalakhaof a murderer?, bRather, this ihalakhaabout the murderer, which appears to bcome to teachabout the betrothed woman, bis found toactually be the bsubject of teaching.The inference is as follows: bJust aswith regard to bthe betrothed woman,permission is bgiven to save her atthe cost of the blife ofher attacker, bso too,the bmurderermay be saved from committing the crime at the cost of his life, i.e., one may save the victim by killing the attacker. Another teaching is derived in the opposite direction, from the case of murder to the case of rape. bJust asthe bmurdereris subject to the ihalakhaof blet him be killed, and let him not transgress,i.e., one must even allow himself to be killed rather than take the life of another, bso too,a man must surrender his life rather than engage in forbidden sexual relations with ba betrothed young woman.By inference, the ihalakhaof blet him be killed, and let him not transgress,applies to all forbidden sexual relations.


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
aha, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
akiva, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
apocrypha Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 184
betrothal Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
biblical Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
christianity Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 184
christians & christianity, on roman entertainment Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
circumcision Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
commandment, commandments, abandonment of Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
commandment, commandments Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
commentators Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
cult/cults Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
death penalty Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
discussion Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
drunkenness Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
edah (assembly, quorum), and martyrdom Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 158, 159
edah (assembly, quorum), in rabbinic law' Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 158
edah (assembly, quorum), in rabbinic law Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 159
essenes Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 184
extirpation (karet) Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
forbidden Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
gentile Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 135
gladiatorial combat, rabbinic opposition Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
gladiatorial combat Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
god Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
grounds for divorce Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
hadrian Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
heart Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
hebrew Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
identity, as motive for martyrdom Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
idolatry Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177; Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 135, 145
index of subjects, shammaite) Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
israel Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
kiddush ha-shem, god sanctifying his own name Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
kiddush ha-shem Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 51, 52
law, jewish law Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
laws of minim Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 202
leaven (hametz) Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
libation Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
loyalty conflict, time of persecution Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
martyrdom, defined, life subordinate to identity as faithful Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
martyrdom, defined, voluntary vs. mandated Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
martyrdom, defined, willingness vs. desire to die Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
martyrdom Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 158, 159; Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 145; Schick, Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed (2021) 90
meir, r. Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
middle ages Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
midrash Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
minim, worse than gentiles Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 202
mishnah Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
mosaics Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
motivation for martyrdom, identity Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
motivation for martyrdom, willingness vs. desire to die Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 433
nathan, r. Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
parallels, n Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
participation Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
patriarch, functions of Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 145
persecution, by roman Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 145
persecution Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 135
persecution (gezerat ha-melekh, shaat ha-shemad) Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 158, 159
pinhas Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
preservation of life on ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
public Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
public aspect of kiddush ha-shem and hillul ha-shem Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 51, 52
public demonstration of judaism Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
public vs. private spheres Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
purity, impurity, purification Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
r. yermiyah Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 159
r. yohanan Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 158
rabbi elazar ben dama Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 202
rabbi eliezer Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 202
rabbi ishmael Schremer, Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity (2010) 202
rabbinic halakhah Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
rabbinic tradition/literature, midrash Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
rabbis, as legal scholars Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
rabbis, titles (ḥakham, rabbi) Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
rabinai the brother of r. hiyya bar abba Kanarek, Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law (2014) 159
rashi Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
roman entertainment, christian attitudes Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
roman persecution Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 43
rules Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
scorners, sitting with Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
sculpture, attributes Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
sculpture, ceremonies and rituals for Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
sculpture, in baths Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
sculpture, of gods Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
sculpture Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
shema Balberg, Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture (2023) 139
simeon b. gamaliel, r. Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
sin/sinner Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
stam Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 135, 145
sugya Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 145
talmud, babylonian Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
tannaic literature, early martyrological texts Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 51, 52
tannaic literature, time of persecution Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
tannaim (early rabbis), tannaic Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
temple ~ Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
time of persecution, amoraic concept Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 43
time of persecution, in tannaic texts Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 52
time of persecution Avemarie, van Henten, and Furstenberg, Jewish Martyrdom in Antiquity (2023) 43
tosefta Spielman, Jews and Entertainment in the Ancient World (2020) 168
wall paintings Eliav, A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean (2023) 177
wine Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131
yose, r. Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 306
zimri Binder, Tertullian, on Idolatry and Mishnah Avodah Zarah: Questioning the Parting of the Ways Between Christians and Jews (2012) 131