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



10971
Tosefta, Sotah, 15.11
NaN


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

48 results
1. Septuagint, Tobit, 1.10, 1.13 (10th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

1.10. Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; 1.13. Then the Most High gave me favor and good appearance in the sight of Shalmaneser, and I was his buyer of provisions.
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 17.10-17.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

17.11. כִּי נֶפֶשׁ הַבָּשָׂר בַּדָּם הִוא וַאֲנִי נְתַתִּיו לָכֶם עַל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם כִּי־הַדָּם הוּא בַּנֶּפֶשׁ יְכַפֵּר׃ 17.12. עַל־כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ מִכֶּם לֹא־תֹאכַל דָּם וְהַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכְכֶם לֹא־יֹאכַל דָּם׃ 17.13. וְאִישׁ אִישׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִן־הַגֵּר הַגָּר בְּתוֹכָם אֲשֶׁר יָצוּד צֵיד חַיָּה אוֹ־עוֹף אֲשֶׁר יֵאָכֵל וְשָׁפַךְ אֶת־דָּמוֹ וְכִסָּהוּ בֶּעָפָר׃ 17.14. כִּי־נֶפֶשׁ כָּל־בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ בְנַפְשׁוֹ הוּא וָאֹמַר לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל דַּם כָּל־בָּשָׂר לֹא תֹאכֵלוּ כִּי נֶפֶשׁ כָּל־בָּשָׂר דָּמוֹ הִוא כָּל־אֹכְלָיו יִכָּרֵת׃ 17.10. And whatsoever man there be of the house of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that eateth any manner of blood, I will set My face against that soul that eateth blood, and will cut him off from among his people." 17.11. For the life of the flesh is in the blood; and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that maketh atonement by reason of the life." 17.12. Therefore I said unto the children of Israel: No soul of you shall eat blood, neither shall any stranger that sojourneth among you eat blood." 17.13. And whatsoever man there be of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, that taketh in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it with dust." 17.14. For as to the life of all flesh, the blood thereof is all one with the life thereof; therefore I said unto the children of Israel: Ye shall eat the blood of no manner of flesh; for the life of all flesh is the blood thereof; whosoever eateth it shall be cut off."
3. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 46.17-46.18 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

46.17. וְכִי־יִתֵּן מַתָּנָה מִנַּחֲלָתוֹ לְאַחַד מֵעֲבָדָיו וְהָיְתָה לּוֹ עַד־שְׁנַת הַדְּרוֹר וְשָׁבַת לַנָּשִׂיא אַךְ נַחֲלָתוֹ בָּנָיו לָהֶם תִּהְיֶה׃ 46.18. וְלֹא־יִקַּח הַנָּשִׂיא מִנַּחֲלַת הָעָם לְהוֹנֹתָם מֵאֲחֻזָּתָם מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ יַנְחִל אֶת־בָּנָיו לְמַעַן אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָפֻצוּ עַמִּי אִישׁ מֵאֲחֻזָּתוֹ׃ 46.17. But if he give of his inheritance a gift to one of his servants, it shall be his to the year of liberty; then it shall return to the prince; but as for his inheritance, it shall be for his sons." 46.18. Moreover the prince shall not take of the people’s inheritance, to thrust them wrongfully out of their possession; he shall give inheritance to his sons out of his own possession; that My people be not scattered every man from his possession.’"
4. Septuagint, Tobit, 1.10, 1.13 (4th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

1.10. Now when I was carried away captive to Nineveh, all my brethren and my relatives ate the food of the Gentiles; 1.13. Then the Most High gave me favor and good appearance in the sight of Shalmaneser, and I was his buyer of provisions.
5. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 1.5-1.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)

1.5. וַיְמַן לָהֶם הַמֶּלֶךְ דְּבַר־יוֹם בְּיוֹמוֹ מִפַּת־בַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ וּמִיֵּין מִשְׁתָּיו וּלְגַדְּלָם שָׁנִים שָׁלוֹשׁ וּמִקְצָתָם יַעַמְדוּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ 1.6. וַיְהִי בָהֶם מִבְּנֵי יְהוּדָה דָּנִיֵּאל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה׃ 1.7. וַיָּשֶׂם לָהֶם שַׂר הַסָּרִיסִים שֵׁמוֹת וַיָּשֶׂם לְדָנִיֵּאל בֵּלְטְשַׁאצַּר וְלַחֲנַנְיָה שַׁדְרַךְ וּלְמִישָׁאֵל מֵישַׁךְ וְלַעֲזַרְיָה עֲבֵד נְגוֹ׃ 1.8. וַיָּשֶׂם דָּנִיֵּאל עַל־לִבּוֹ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִתְגָּאַל בְּפַתְבַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ וּבְיֵין מִשְׁתָּיו וַיְבַקֵּשׁ מִשַּׂר הַסָּרִיסִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִתְגָּאָל׃ 1.9. וַיִּתֵּן הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת־דָּנִיֵּאל לְחֶסֶד וּלְרַחֲמִים לִפְנֵי שַׂר הַסָּרִיסִים׃ 1.11. וַיֹּאמֶר דָּנִיֵּאל אֶל־הַמֶּלְצַר אֲשֶׁר מִנָּה שַׂר הַסָּרִיסִים עַל־דָּנִיֵּאל חֲנַנְיָה מִישָׁאֵל וַעֲזַרְיָה׃ 1.12. נַס־נָא אֶת־עֲבָדֶיךָ יָמִים עֲשָׂרָה וְיִתְּנוּ־לָנוּ מִן־הַזֵּרֹעִים וְנֹאכְלָה וּמַיִם וְנִשְׁתֶּה׃ 1.13. וְיֵרָאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ מַרְאֵינוּ וּמַרְאֵה הַיְלָדִים הָאֹכְלִים אֵת פַּתְבַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ וְכַאֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֵה עֲשֵׂה עִם־עֲבָדֶיךָ׃ 1.14. וַיִּשְׁמַע לָהֶם לַדָּבָר הַזֶּה וַיְנַסֵּם יָמִים עֲשָׂרָה׃ 1.15. וּמִקְצָת יָמִים עֲשָׂרָה נִרְאָה מַרְאֵיהֶם טוֹב וּבְרִיאֵי בָּשָׂר מִן־כָּל־הַיְלָדִים הָאֹכְלִים אֵת פַּתְבַּג הַמֶּלֶךְ׃ 1.16. וַיְהִי הַמֶּלְצַר נֹשֵׂא אֶת־פַּתְבָּגָם וְיֵין מִשְׁתֵּיהֶם וְנֹתֵן לָהֶם זֵרְעֹנִים׃ 1.5. And the king appointed for them a daily portion of the king’s food, and of the wine which he drank, and that they should be nourished three years; that at the end thereof they might stand before the king." 1.6. Now among these were, of the children of Judah, Daniel, Haiah, Mishael, and Azariah." 1.7. And the chief of the officers gave names unto them: unto Daniel he gave the name of Belteshazzar; and to Haiah, of Shadrach; and to Mishael, of Meshach; and to Azariah, of Abed-nego." 1.8. But Daniel purposed in his heart that he would not defile himself with the king’s food, nor with the wine which he drank; therefore he requested of the chief of the officers that he might not defile himself." 1.9. And God granted Daniel mercy and compassion in the sight of the chief of the officers." 1.10. And the chief of the officers said unto Daniel: ‘I fear my lord the king, who hath appointed your food and your drink; for why should he see your faces sad in comparison with the youths that are of your own age? so would ye endanger my head with the king.’" 1.11. Then said Daniel to the steward, whom the chief of the officers had appointed over Daniel, Haiah, Mishael, and Azariah:" 1.12. ’Try thy servants, I beseech thee, ten days; and let them give us pulse to eat, and water to drink." 1.13. Then let our counteces be looked upon before thee, and the countece of the youths that eat of the king’s food; and as thou seest, deal with thy servants.’" 1.14. So he hearkened unto them in this matter, and tried them ten days." 1.15. And at the end of ten days their counteces appeared fairer, and they were fatter in flesh, than all the youths that did eat of the king’s food." 1.16. So the steward took away their food, and the wine that they should drink, and gave them pulse."
6. Septuagint, Judith, 2.3-2.4 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE)

2.3. and it was decided that every one who had not obeyed his command should be destroyed. 2.4. When he had finished setting forth his plan, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians called Holofernes, the chief general of his army, second only to himself, and said to him
7. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 65-90, 64 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

64. But since the entertainments of the greatest celebrity are full of such trifling and folly, bearing conviction in themselves, if any one should think fit not to regard vague opinion and the character which has been commonly handed down concerning them as feasts which have gone off with the most eminent success, I will oppose to them the entertainments of those persons who have devoted their whole life and themselves to the knowledge and contemplation of the affairs of nature in accordance with the most sacred admonitions and precepts of the prophet Moses.
8. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.118-2.161 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

2.118. Under his administration it was that a certain Galilean, whose name was Judas, prevailed with his countrymen to revolt, and said they were cowards if they would endure to pay a tax to the Romans and would after God submit to mortal men as their lords. This man was a teacher of a peculiar sect of his own, and was not at all like the rest of those their leaders. 2.119. 2. For there are three philosophical sects among the Jews. The followers of the first of which are the Pharisees; of the second, the Sadducees; and the third sect, which pretends to a severer discipline, are called Essenes. These last are Jews by birth, and seem to have a greater affection for one another than the other sects have. 2.121. They do not absolutely deny the fitness of marriage, and the succession of mankind thereby continued; but they guard against the lascivious behavior of women, and are persuaded that none of them preserve their fidelity to one man. 2.122. 3. These men are despisers of riches, and so very communicative as raises our admiration. Nor is there anyone to be found among them who hath more than another; for it is a law among them, that those who come to them must let what they have be common to the whole order,—insomuch that among them all there is no appearance of poverty, or excess of riches, but every one’s possessions are intermingled with every other’s possessions; and so there is, as it were, one patrimony among all the brethren. 2.123. They think that oil is a defilement; and if anyone of them be anointed without his own approbation, it is wiped off his body; for they think to be sweaty is a good thing, as they do also to be clothed in white garments. They also have stewards appointed to take care of their common affairs, who every one of them have no separate business for any, but what is for the use of them all. 2.124. 4. They have no one certain city, but many of them dwell in every city; and if any of their sect come from other places, what they have lies open for them, just as if it were their own; and they go in to such as they never knew before, as if they had been ever so long acquainted with them. 2.125. For which reason they carry nothing at all with them when they travel into remote parts, though still they take their weapons with them, for fear of thieves. Accordingly, there is, in every city where they live, one appointed particularly to take care of strangers, and to provide garments and other necessaries for them. 2.126. But the habit and management of their bodies is such as children use who are in fear of their masters. Nor do they allow of the change of garments, or of shoes, till they be first entirely torn to pieces or worn out by time. 2.127. Nor do they either buy or sell anything to one another; but every one of them gives what he hath to him that wanteth it, and receives from him again in lieu of it what may be convenient for himself; and although there be no requital made, they are fully allowed to take what they want of whomsoever they please. 2.128. 5. And as for their piety towards God, it is very extraordinary; for before sunrising they speak not a word about profane matters, but put up certain prayers which they have received from their forefathers, as if they made a supplication for its rising. 2.129. After this every one of them are sent away by their curators, to exercise some of those arts wherein they are skilled, in which they labor with great diligence till the fifth hour. After which they assemble themselves together again into one place; and when they have clothed themselves in white veils, they then bathe their bodies in cold water. And after this purification is over, they every one meet together in an apartment of their own, into which it is not permitted to any of another sect to enter; while they go, after a pure manner, into the dining-room, as into a certain holy temple 2.131. but a priest says grace before meat; and it is unlawful for anyone to taste of the food before grace be said. The same priest, when he hath dined, says grace again after meat; and when they begin, and when they end, they praise God, as he that bestows their food upon them; after which they lay aside their [white] garments, and betake themselves to their labors again till the evening; 2.132. then they return home to supper, after the same manner; and if there be any strangers there, they sit down with them. Nor is there ever any clamor or disturbance to pollute their house, but they give every one leave to speak in their turn; 2.133. which silence thus kept in their house appears to foreigners like some tremendous mystery; the cause of which is that perpetual sobriety they exercise, and the same settled measure of meat and drink that is allotted to them, and that such as is abundantly sufficient for them. 2.134. 6. And truly, as for other things, they do nothing but according to the injunctions of their curators; only these two things are done among them at everyone’s own free will, which are to assist those that want it, and to show mercy; for they are permitted of their own accord to afford succor to such as deserve it, when they stand in need of it, and to bestow food on those that are in distress; but they cannot give any thing to their kindred without the curators. 2.135. They dispense their anger after a just manner, and restrain their passion. They are eminent for fidelity, and are the ministers of peace; whatsoever they say also is firmer than an oath; but swearing is avoided by them, and they esteem it worse than perjury for they say that he who cannot be believed without [swearing by] God is already condemned. 2.136. They also take great pains in studying the writings of the ancients, and choose out of them what is most for the advantage of their soul and body; and they inquire after such roots and medicinal stones as may cure their distempers. 2.137. 7. But now, if anyone hath a mind to come over to their sect, he is not immediately admitted, but he is prescribed the same method of living which they use, for a year, while he continues excluded; and they give him also a small hatchet, and the fore-mentioned girdle, and the white garment. 2.138. And when he hath given evidence, during that time, that he can observe their continence, he approaches nearer to their way of living, and is made a partaker of the waters of purification; yet is he not even now admitted to live with them; for after this demonstration of his fortitude, his temper is tried two more years; and if he appear to be worthy, they then admit him into their society. 2.139. And before he is allowed to touch their common food, he is obliged to take tremendous oaths, that, in the first place, he will exercise piety towards God, and then that he will observe justice towards men, and that he will do no harm to any one, either of his own accord, or by the command of others; that he will always hate the wicked, and be assistant to the righteous; 2.141. that he will be perpetually a lover of truth, and propose to himself to reprove those that tell lies; that he will keep his hands clear from theft, and his soul from unlawful gains; and that he will neither conceal anything from those of his own sect, nor discover any of their doctrines to others, no, not though anyone should compel him so to do at the hazard of his life. 2.142. Moreover, he swears to communicate their doctrines to no one any otherwise than as he received them himself; that he will abstain from robbery, and will equally preserve the books belonging to their sect, and the names of the angels [or messengers]. These are the oaths by which they secure their proselytes to themselves. 2.143. 8. But for those that are caught in any heinous sins, they cast them out of their society; and he who is thus separated from them does often die after a miserable manner; for as he is bound by the oath he hath taken, and by the customs he hath been engaged in, he is not at liberty to partake of that food that he meets with elsewhere, but is forced to eat grass, and to famish his body with hunger, till he perish; 2.144. for which reason they receive many of them again when they are at their last gasp, out of compassion to them, as thinking the miseries they have endured till they came to the very brink of death to be a sufficient punishment for the sins they had been guilty of. 2.145. 9. But in the judgments they exercise they are most accurate and just, nor do they pass sentence by the votes of a court that is fewer than a hundred. And as to what is once determined by that number, it is unalterable. What they most of all honor, after God himself, is the name of their legislator [Moses], whom, if anyone blaspheme, he is punished capitally. 2.146. They also think it a good thing to obey their elders, and the major part. Accordingly, if ten of them be sitting together, no one of them will speak while the other nine are against it. 2.147. They also avoid spitting in the midst of them, or on the right side. Moreover, they are stricter than any other of the Jews in resting from their labors on the seventh day; for they not only get their food ready the day before, that they may not be obliged to kindle a fire on that day, but they will not remove any vessel out of its place, nor go to stool thereon. 2.148. Nay, on theother days they dig a small pit, a foot deep, with a paddle (which kind of hatchet is given them when they are first admitted among them); and covering themselves round with their garment, that they may not affront the Divine rays of light, they ease themselves into that pit 2.149. after which they put the earth that was dug out again into the pit; and even this they do only in the more lonely places, which they choose out for this purpose; and although this easement of the body be natural, yet it is a rule with them to wash themselves after it, as if it were a defilement to them. 2.151. They are long-lived also, insomuch that many of them live above a hundred years, by means of the simplicity of their diet; nay, as I think, by means of the regular course of life they observe also. They condemn the miseries of life, and are above pain, by the generosity of their mind. And as for death, if it will be for their glory, they esteem it better than living always; 2.152. and indeed our war with the Romans gave abundant evidence what great souls they had in their trials, wherein, although they were tortured and distorted, burnt and torn to pieces, and went through all kinds of instruments of torment, that they might be forced either to blaspheme their legislator, or to eat what was forbidden them, yet could they not be made to do either of them, no, nor once to flatter their tormentors, or to shed a tear; 2.153. but they smiled in their very pains, and laughed those to scorn who inflicted the torments upon them, and resigned up their souls with great alacrity, as expecting to receive them again. 2.154. 11. For their doctrine is this: That bodies are corruptible, and that the matter they are made of is not permanent; but that the souls are immortal, and continue forever; and that they come out of the most subtile air, and are united to their bodies as to prisons, into which they are drawn by a certain natural enticement; 2.155. but that when they are set free from the bonds of the flesh, they then, as released from a long bondage, rejoice and mount upward. And this is like the opinions of the Greeks, that good souls have their habitations beyond the ocean, in a region that is neither oppressed with storms of rain or snow, or with intense heat, but that this place is such as is refreshed by the gentle breathing of a west wind, that is perpetually blowing from the ocean; while they allot to bad souls a dark and tempestuous den, full of never-ceasing punishments. 2.156. And indeed the Greeks seem to me to have followed the same notion, when they allot the islands of the blessed to their brave men, whom they call heroes and demigods; and to the souls of the wicked, the region of the ungodly, in Hades, where their fables relate that certain persons, such as Sisyphus, and Tantalus, and Ixion, and Tityus, are punished; which is built on this first supposition, that souls are immortal; and thence are those exhortations to virtue, and dehortations from wickedness collected; 2.157. whereby good men are bettered in the conduct of their life by the hope they have of reward after their death; and whereby the vehement inclinations of bad men to vice are restrained, by the fear and expectation they are in, that although they should lie concealed in this life, they should suffer immortal punishment after their death. 2.158. These are the Divine doctrines of the Essenes about the soul, which lay an unavoidable bait for such as have once had a taste of their philosophy. 2.159. 12. There are also those among them who undertake to foretell things to come, by reading the holy books, and using several sorts of purifications, and being perpetually conversant in the discourses of the prophets; and it is but seldom that they miss in their predictions. 2.161. However, they try their spouses for three years; and if they find that they have their natural purgations thrice, as trials that they are likely to be fruitful, they then actually marry them. But they do not use to accompany with their wives when they are with child, as a demonstration that they do not marry out of regard to pleasure, but for the sake of posterity. Now the women go into the baths with some of their garments on, as the men do with somewhat girded about them. And these are the customs of this order of Essenes.
9. Josephus Flavius, Life, 4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

10. Mishnah, Avot, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.16. He [Rabbi Tarfon] used to say: It is not your duty to finish the work, but neither are you at liberty to neglect it; If you have studied much Torah, you shall be given much reward. Faithful is your employer to pay you the reward of your labor; And know that the grant of reward unto the righteous is in the age to come."
11. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

8.1. He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity]."
12. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.3, 4.5-4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.3. A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam." 4.5. One who is half a slave and half free works for his master one day and for himself one day, the words of Beth Hillel. Beth Shammai said to them: you have set things right for the master but you have not set things right for the slave. He cannot marry a female slave because he is already half free, and he cannot marry a free woman because he is half a slave. Shall he then decease [from having children]? But wasn’t the world only made to be populated, as it says, “He did not create it as a waste, he formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18)? Rather because of tikkun olam we compel his master to emancipate him and he writes a document for half his purchase price. Beth Hillel retracted [their opinion and] ruled like Beth Shammai." 4.6. If a man sells his slave to a Gentile or [to someone living] outside the land [of Israel] the slave goes free. Captives should not be redeemed for more than their value, because of tikkun olam. Captives should not be helped to escape, because of tikkun olam. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says [that the reason is] to prevent the ill-treatment of fellow captives. Torah scrolls of the law, tefillin and mezuzoth are not bought from Gentiles at more than their value, because of tikkun olam."
13. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification."
14. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

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

10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival."
16. Mishnah, Moed Qatan, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.6. Rabbi Eliezer says: From the time the Temple was destroyed, Atzeret (Shavuot) is like Shabbat. Rabban Gamaliel says: Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like festivals. The sages say: [the rule is] not according to the words of this one nor that one, rather Atzeret is like the festivals and Rosh Hashanah and Yom Kippur are like Shabbat."
17. Mishnah, Orlah, 2.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.12. Yoezer, master of the temple (Ish Habirah), was one of the disciples of Bet Shammai and he said: I asked Rabban Gamaliel the elder as he was standing at the eastern gate [of the Temple], and he said: it never causes the dough to become prohibited unless there is enough to cause fermentation."
18. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.3. In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]."
19. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4, 9.12, 9.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.4. She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world." 9.12. When the former prophets died, the Urim and Thummim ceased. When Temple was destroyed, the shamir and nopheth zufim ceased. And people of faith ceased, as it says, “Help, O Lord, for the faithful are no more” (Psalms 12:2). Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel in the name of Rabbi Joshua: from the day the Temple was destroyed, there is no day without a curse, the dew has not descended for a blessing, and the flavor has departed from produce. Rabbi Yose says: the fatness was also removed from produce." 9.15. When Rabbi Meir died, the composers of fables ceased. When Ben Azzai died, the diligent students [of Torah] ceased. When Ben Zoma died, the expounders ceased. When Rabbi Joshua died, goodness ceased from the world. When Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel died, locusts come and troubles multiplied. When Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryah died, the sages ceased to be wealthy. When Rabbi Akiba died, the glory of the Torah ceased. When Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa died, men of wondrous deeds ceased. When Rabbi Yose Katnuta died, the pious men (hasidim) ceased and why was his name called Katnuta? Because he was the youngest of the pious men. When Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai died, the splendor of wisdom ceased. When Rabban Gamaliel the elder died, the glory of the torah ceased, and purity and separateness perished. When Rabbi Ishmael ben Fabi died, the splendor of the priesthood ceased. When Rabbi died, humility and fear of sin ceased. Rabbi Phineas ben Yair says: when Temple was destroyed, scholars and freemen were ashamed and covered their head, men of wondrous deeds were disregarded, and violent men and big talkers grew powerful. And nobody expounds, nobody seeks, and nobody asks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Eliezer the Great says: from the day the Temple was destroyed, the sages began to be like scribes, scribes like synagogue-attendants, synagogue-attendants like common people, and the common people became more and more debased. And nobody seeks. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. In the footsteps of the messiah insolence (hutzpah) will increase and the cost of living will go up greatly; the vine will yield its fruit, but wine will be expensive; the government will turn to heresy, and there will be no one to rebuke; the meeting-place [of scholars] will be used for licentiousness; the Galilee will be destroyed, the Gablan will be desolated, and the dwellers on the frontier will go about [begging] from place to place without anyone to take pity on them; the wisdom of the learned will rot, fearers of sin will be despised, and the truth will be lacking; youths will put old men to shame, the old will stand up in the presence of the young, “For son spurns father, daughter rises up against mother, daughter-in-law against mother-in-law a man’s own household are his enemies” (Micah 7:6). The face of the generation will be like the face of a dog, a son will not feel ashamed before his father. Upon whom shall we depend? Upon our father who is in heaven. Rabbi Pinchas ben Yair says, “Heedfulness leads to cleanliness, cleanliness leads to purity, purity leads to separation, separation leads to holiness, holiness leads to modesty, modesty leads to fear of sin, fear of sin leads to piety, piety leads to the Holy Spirit, The Holy Spirit leads to the resurrection of the dead, and the resurrection of the dead comes from Elijah, blessed be his memory, Amen.”"
20. Mishnah, Sukkah, 3.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.12. In earlier times the lulav was taken for seven days in the Temple, and in the provinces for one day only. When the temple was destroyed, Rabbi Yoha ben Zakkai decreed that the lulav should be taken in the provinces for seven days in memory of the Temple, [He also decreed] that on the whole of the day of waving it be forbidden [to eat the new produce]."
21. Mishnah, Taanit, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.6. There were five events that happened to our ancestors on the seventeenth of Tammuz and five on the ninth of Av.On the seventeenth of Tammuz: The tablets were shattered; The tamid (daily) offering was cancelled; The [walls] of the city were breached; And Apostomos burned the Torah, and placed an idol in the Temple. On the ninth of Av It was decreed that our ancestors should not enter the land, The Temple was destroyed the first And the second time, Betar was captured, And the city was plowed up. When Av enters, they limit their rejoicing."
22. Mishnah, Yoma, 5, 2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

23. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)."
24. New Testament, Acts, 15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

25. New Testament, Galatians, 2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

26. New Testament, Romans, 14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

27. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 108.17-108.18 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

28. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.25. Eighteen Berachot (blessings) that the Sages have established [for the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh have been established] corresponding to eighteen mentionings [of God’s name] that are in [the chapter of Tehillim that begins with] “Ascribe to God, children of princes…” (Tehillim 29) And [a person] should include [the Beracha against] the heretics into [the Beracha] for the Rabbinical Jews, and [the Beracha] for the converts into [the Beracha] for the elders, and [the Beracha] for [King] David into [the Beracha] for [the rebuilding of] Jerusalem. But if he said each one of them separately he has fulfilled his obligation [of praying Shemoneh Esreh]."
29. Tosefta, Gittin, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

30. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

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

33. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

34. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

35. Tosefta, Sotah, 15.8, 15.10, 15.12-15.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath."
37. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

38. Anon., Didascalia Apostolorum, 24, 26, 23 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

39. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 112 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

40. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, 5.7 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

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

35b. כאן קודם חזרה כאן לאחר חזרה ומשנה לא זזה ממקומה,רב מלכיא משמיה דרב אדא בר אהבה אמר מפני שמחליקין פניה בשומן חזיר רב חסדא אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בחומץ רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מפני שמעמידין אותה בשרף הערלה,כמאן כי האי תנא (דתניא) ר"א אומר המעמיד בשרף הערלה אסור מפני שהוא פירי,אפי' תימא ר' יהושע עד כאן לא פליג ר' יהושע עליה דר"א אלא בקטפא דגוזא אבל בקטפא דפירא מודי,והיינו דתנן א"ר יהושע שמעתי בפירוש שהמעמיד בשרף העלין ובשרף העיקרין מותר בשרף הפגין אסור מפני שהוא פירי,בין לרב חסדא בין לרב נחמן בר יצחק תתסר בהנאה קשיא,דרש רב נחמן בריה דרב חסדא מאי דכתיב (שיר השירים א, ג) לריח שמניך טובים למה ת"ח דומה לצלוחית של פלייטין מגולה ריחה נודף מכוסה אין ריחה נודף,ולא עוד אלא דברים שמכוסין ממנו מתגלין לו שנאמר (שיר השירים א, ג) עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה עלומות ולא עוד אלא שמלאך המות אוהבו שנא' עלמות אהבוך קרי ביה על מות ולא עוד אלא שנוחל שני עולמות אחד העוה"ז ואחד העוה"ב שנא' עלמות קרי ביה עולמות:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ואלו דברים של עובדי כוכבים אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה חלב שחלבו עובד כוכבים ואין ישראל רואהו והפת והשמן שלהן רבי ובית דינו התירו השמן,והשלקות וכבשין שדרכן לתת לתוכן יין וחומץ וטרית טרופה וציר שאין בה דגה כלבית שוטטת בו והחילק וקורט של חלתית ומלח שלקונדית הרי אלו אסורין ואין איסורן איסור הנאה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big חלב למאי ניחוש לה אי משום איחלופי טהור חיור טמא ירוק ואי משום איערובי ניקום דאמר מר חלב טהור עומד חלב טמא אינו עומד,אי דקא בעי לגבינה ה"נ הכא במאי עסקינן דקא בעי ליה לכמכא,ונשקול מיניה קלי וניקום כיון דבטהור נמי איכא נסיובי דלא קיימי ליכא למיקם עלה דמילתא,ואב"א אפי' תימא דקבעי לה לגבינה איכא דקאי ביני אטפי:,והפת: א"ר כהנא א"ר יוחנן פת לא הותרה בב"ד מכלל דאיכא מאן דשרי,אין דכי אתא רב דימי אמר פעם אחת יצא רבי לשדה והביא עובד כוכבים לפניו פת פורני מאפה סאה אמר רבי כמה נאה פת זו מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה מה ראו חכמים משום חתנות,אלא מה ראו חכמים לאוסרה בשדה כסבורין העם התיר רבי הפת ולא היא רבי לא התיר את הפת,רב יוסף ואיתימא רב שמואל בר יהודה אמר לא כך היה מעשה אלא אמרו פעם אחת הלך רבי למקום אחד וראה פת דחוק לתלמידים אמר רבי אין כאן פלטר כסבורין העם לומר פלטר עובד כוכבים והוא לא אמר אלא פלטר ישראל,א"ר חלבו אפילו למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים לא אמרן אלא דליכא פלטר ישראל אבל במקום דאיכא פלטר ישראל לא ורבי יוחנן אמר אפי' למ"ד פלטר עובד כוכבים ה"מ בשדה אבל בעיר לא משום חתנות,איבו הוה מנכית ואכיל פת אבי מצרי אמר להו רבא ואיתימא רב נחמן בר יצחק לא תשתעו בהדיה דאיבו דקאכיל לחמא דארמאי:,והשמן שלהן: שמן רב אמר דניאל גזר עליו ושמואל אמר 35b. bHere,with regard to the mishna in iḤullin /i, Shmuel’s comment reflects the explanation of Rabbi Yehoshua bbeforeRabbi Yehoshua’s bretractionof the assertion that it is prohibited to derive benefit from the stomach contents of an animal carcass. bThere,with regard to the mishna in iAvoda Zara /i, Shmuel’s statement is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua bafterhis bretractionof that claim. bAndalthough this indicates that the mishna in iḤullinpresents an outdated ruling that was later rescinded, ba mishna does not move from its place.In other words, once it has been taught in a certain manner, the itannawill not change the text of a mishna in order to reflect a change of opinion, so as to avoid confusion.,The Gemara suggests additional reasons for the decree of the Sages. bRav Malkiyya says in the name of Rav Adda bar Ahava:The cheese is prohibited bbecausegentiles bsmooth its surface with pig fat. Rav Ḥisda says:It is bbecause they curdle it with vinegarproduced from their wine, from which it is prohibited to derive benefit. bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says:It is bbecause they curdle it with sapthat is subject to the prohibition against consuming bthe fruit of a tree during the first three years after its planting [ iorla /i]. /b,Parenthetically, the Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is Rav Naḥman’s claim that the cheese of gentiles is prohibited because it is curdled in the sap of iorla /i? The Gemara answers: It is bin accordance with the opinion of this itanna /i, as it is taughtin a mishna ( iOrla1:7): bRabbi Eliezer says:With regard to bone who curdlescheese bwith the sap of iorla /i,the cheese is bprohibited, becausethe sap bisconsidered to be bfruitof the tree.,The Gemara comments: bYoumay beven saythat the statement is in accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua,who disagrees with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer, as bRabbi Yehoshua disagrees with Rabbi Eliezer only with regard to the sap of a branch, but with regard to the sap of a fruitRabbi Yehoshua bconcedesthat it is prohibited as iorla /i. Rav Naḥman’s statement can be understood as referring specifically to the sap of the fruit, which would mean that it is in accordance with the opinions of both Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Yehoshua.,The Gemara adds: bAnd this isin accordance with bthatwhich bwe learnedin the continuation of that mishna: bRabbi Yehoshua said: I heard explicitly thatwith regard to bone who curdlescheese bwith the sap of the leaves and the sap of the rootsof an iorlatree, the cheese bis permitted.But if it is curdled bwith the sap of unripe figs it is prohibited, becausethat sap bisconsidered to be bfruit. /b,The Gemara raises a difficulty against the last two suggested reasons for the decree of the Sages. bAccording to both Rav Ḥisda,who holds that the cheese is prohibited because it is curdled with vinegar made from wine of gentiles, band Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak,who maintains that it is prohibited because it is curdled with the sap of iorla /i, bone should be prohibited fromderiving bbenefitfrom the cheese, as one may not derive benefit from either the wine of gentiles or iorla /i. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, this is bdifficult. /b,§ bRav Naḥman, son of Rav Ḥisda, interpreteda verse bhomiletically: Whatis the meaning of that bwhich is written: “Your ointments have a goodly fragrance”(Song of Songs 1:3)? This is a metaphor for a Torah scholar: bTo what is a Torah scholar comparable? To a flask of ipelaitin /i:When it is bexposed, its scent diffuses;when it is bcovered, its scent does not diffuse. /b,The Gemara remarks: bAnd moreover,when a Torah scholar spreads his knowledge, bmatters that aregenerally bhidden from him are revealed to him, as it is stated: “Maidens [ ialamot /i] love You”(Song of Songs 1:3), and one may bread intothe verse: bThe hidden [ ialumot /i]. And moreover, the Angel of Death loves him, as it is stated: “Maidens [ ialamot /i] love You,”and one may bread intothe verse: The one appointed bover death [ ial mot /i]loves you. bAnd moreover,a Torah scholar binherits two worlds: Oneis bthis world, andthe other boneis bthe World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Maidens [ ialamot /i]love You,” and one may bread intothe verse: bWorlds [ iolamot /i]. /b, strongMISHNA: /strong This mishna lists items belonging to gentiles which it is prohibited to consume, but from which it is permitted to derive benefit. bAnd these are itemsthat belong bto gentilesand are bprohibited, but their prohibition is notthat of ban item from whichderiving bbenefit is prohibited: Milk that was milked by a gentile and a Jew did not see himperforming this action, band their bread and oil.The mishna notes that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi band his court permitted the oilof gentiles entirely.,The mishna resumes its list: bAnd boiled and pickledvegetables, bwhoseusual bmannerof preparation involves badding wine and vinegar to them, and minced itarit /ifish, band brine that does not have a ikilbitfish floating in it, and iḥilak /i, and a sliver of iḥiltit /i, and isalkonditsalt(see 39b); all bthese are prohibited, but their prohibition is notthat of bitem from whichderiving bbenefit is prohibited. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: Concerning bmilk, with regard to whatneed bwe be concerned?Why is the milk prohibited? bIfit is bdue tothe concern that a gentile might bexchangethe milk of a kosher animal with the milk of a non-kosher animal, this concern is unfounded, as bkoshermilk is bwhitewhereas bnon-koshermilk has ba greentinge to it, and therefore they are easily distinguishable. bAnd ifit is prohibited bdue tothe concern that it might be bmixedwith non-kosher milk, let the Jew bcurdlethe milk obtained from the gentile, bas the Master said: Milkfrom ba kosheranimal bcurdles,but milk from ba non-kosheranimal bdoes not curdle. /b,The Gemara answers: bIf one desires toeat it as bcheese, indeed,one can simply curdle it, as the milk of non-kosher animals does not curdle. bWhat are we dealing with here?We are dealing with a case bwhere one desires touse the milk in ikamkha /i,also known as ikutaḥ /i, a food item that contains milk.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: bButin that case, blet him take a bit ofmilk band curdleit, to test whether or not it has been mixed with the milk of a non-kosher animal: If it curdles completely, it is kosher; if some milk is left over, it is not. The Gemara explains: bSince there is also whey in kosher milk, which does not curdle, there is noway bto establishthe halakhic bmatter with regard to it.Even kosher milk will not curdle completely, and therefore this is not a reliable method to determine the halakhic status of the milk.,The Gemara presents an alternative suggestion: bAnd if you wish, sayinstead that byoumay beven saythat the concern applies bwhere he intendsto use the milk btomake bcheese,as bthere ismilk bthat remains between the crevicesof curdled cheese, and therefore there is a concern that drops of non-kosher milk might be mixed with it.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd breadbelonging to gentiles is prohibited for consumption. bRav Kahana saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:Unlike oil, bbread was not permitted by a court.The Gemara asks: bFrom the factthat Rabbi Yoḥa states that bread was not permitted in court, can it be inferred bthat there isa different opinion bthatclaims that a court bdid permitit?,The Gemara answers: bYes, as when Rav Dimi camefrom Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he bsaid: Once RabbiYehuda HaNasi bwent out to the field, and a gentile brought before him a ise’aof bread baked in a large baker’s oven [ ipurnei /i]. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: How exquisite is thisloaf of bbread! What did the Sages seethat caused them bto prohibit it?The Gemara asks, incredulously: bWhat did the Sages seethat caused them to prohibit it? It was prohibited bdue tothe concern that Jews might befriend gentiles while breaking bread with them, which could lead to bmarriagewith gentiles.,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was not asking why bread was prohibited in general. bRather,he asked: bWhat did the Sages seethat caused them bto prohibitbread even bin the field,where this concern does not apply? The Gemara notes that upon hearing of this incident bthe people thoughtthat bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bpermitted the breadof gentiles. bButthat bis not so; RabbiYehuda HaNasi bdid notactually bpermitsuch bbread.This is why Rabbi Yoḥa emphasized that the bread of gentiles was never permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s court.,The Gemara records an alternate version of this episode. bRav Yosef, and some say Rav Shmuel bar Yehuda, says:The bincident did not occurin bthismanner. bRather, they said: Once RabbiYehuda HaNasi bwent to a certain place and sawthat bbreadwas bscarce for the studentsin the study hall. bRabbiYehuda HaNasi bsaid: Is there no baker [ ipalter /i] herewho can prepare bread? Upon hearing of this incident, bthe people thought to saythat Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to ba gentile baker,which would indicate that bread baked by a professional baker is permitted, even if he is a gentile. bButin reality, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bstatedhis question bonlyin reference to ba Jewish baker. /b,The Gemara cites two qualifications of the leniency that people inferred from the above incident. bRabbi Ḥelbo said: Even according to the one whothought to bsaythat Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to ba gentile baker, we saidthat the bread is permitted bonly where there is no Jewish baker, but in a place where there is a Jewish baker,the leniency would certainly bnotapply. bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even according to the one whothought to bsaythat Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was referring to ba gentile baker, that statementapplies only bin the field, but in the cityit would bnotapply, and the bread would still be prohibited bdue tothe possibility of bmarriagewith a gentile.,The Gemara relates: bAivu would bite and eat breadof gentiles bat the boundariesof the fields. bRava said tothe students in the study hall, band some saythat it was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said to them: bDo not speak with Aivu, as he eats bread of Arameansin deliberate violation of a rabbinic decree.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd their oilwas originally prohibited but later permitted by Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and his court. The Gemara cites a dispute with regard to the origin of the prohibition of boil. Rav says: Daniel decreedthat oil is prohibited, band Shmuel says: /b
42. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

60b. זיל האידנא ותא למחר בליליא שדר קצייה לההוא דידיה,למחר אתא לקמיה א"ל זיל קוץ א"ל הא מר נמי אית ליה א"ל זיל חזי אי קוץ דידי קוץ דידך אי לא קוץ דידי לא תקוץ את,מעיקרא מאי סבר ולבסוף מאי סבר מעיקרא סבר ניחא להו לבני רה"ר דיתבי בטוליה כיון דחזא דקא מעכבי שדר קצייה ולימא ליה זיל קוץ דידך והדר אקוץ דידי משום דריש לקיש דאמר (צפניה ב, א) התקוששו וקושו קשוט עצמך ואח"כ קשוט אחרים:,אבל אם רצה כונס לתוך שלו ומוציא: איבעיא להו כנס ולא הוציא מהו שיחזור ויוציא ר' יוחנן אמר כנס מוציא וריש לקיש אמר כנס אינו מוציא,א"ל רבי יעקב לר' ירמיה בר תחליפא אסברה לך להוציא כ"ע לא פליגי דמוציא כי פליגי להחזיר כתלים למקומן ואיפכא איתמר ר' יוחנן אמר אינו מחזיר וריש לקיש אמר מחזיר,ר' יוחנן אמר אינו מחזיר משום דרב יהודה דאמר רב יהודה מצר שהחזיקו בו רבים אסור לקלקלו וריש לקיש אמר מחזיר הני מילי היכא דליכא רווחא הכא הא איכא רווחא:,לקח חצר ובה זיזין וגזוזטראות הרי היא בחזקתה: אמר רב הונא נפלה חוזר ובונה אותה,מיתיבי אין מסיידין ואין מכיירין ואין מפייחין בזמן הזה לקח חצר מסוידת מכוירת מפויחת הרי זו בחזקתה נפלה אינו חוזר ובונה אותה,איסורא שאני,תנו רבנן לא יסוד אדם את ביתו בסיד ואם עירב בו חול או תבן מותר ר"י אומר עירב בו חול הרי זה טרכסיד ואסור תבן מותר,תנו רבנן כשחרב הבית בשניה רבו פרושין בישראל שלא לאכול בשר ושלא לשתות יין נטפל להן ר' יהושע אמר להן בני מפני מה אי אתם אוכלין בשר ואין אתם שותין יין אמרו לו נאכל בשר שממנו מקריבין על גבי מזבח ועכשיו בטל נשתה יין שמנסכין על גבי המזבח ועכשיו בטל,אמר להם א"כ לחם לא נאכל שכבר בטלו מנחות אפשר בפירות פירות לא נאכל שכבר בטלו בכורים אפשר בפירות אחרים מים לא נשתה שכבר בטל ניסוך המים שתקו,אמר להן בני בואו ואומר לכם שלא להתאבל כל עיקר אי אפשר שכבר נגזרה גזרה ולהתאבל יותר מדאי אי אפשר שאין גוזרין גזירה על הצבור אא"כ רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה דכתיב (מלאכי ג, ט) במארה אתם נארים ואותי אתם קובעים הגוי כולו,אלא כך אמרו חכמים סד אדם את ביתו בסיד ומשייר בו דבר מועט וכמה אמר רב יוסף אמה על אמה אמר רב חסדא כנגד הפתח,עושה אדם כל צרכי סעודה ומשייר דבר מועט מאי היא אמר רב פפא כסא דהרסנא,עושה אשה כל תכשיטיה ומשיירת דבר מועט מאי היא אמר רב בת צדעא שנאמר (תהלים קלז, ה) אם אשכחך ירושלים תשכח ימיני תדבק לשוני לחכי וגו',מאי על ראש שמחתי אמר רב יצחק זה אפר מקלה שבראש חתנים א"ל רב פפא לאביי היכא מנח לה במקום תפילין שנאמר (ישעיהו סא, ג) לשום לאבלי ציון לתת להם פאר תחת אפר,וכל המתאבל על ירושלים זוכה ורואה בשמחתה שנאמר (ישעיהו סו, י) שמחו את ירושלים וגו',תניא אמר ר' ישמעאל בן אלישע מיום שחרב בית המקדש דין הוא שנגזור על עצמנו שלא לאכול בשר ולא לשתות יין אלא אין גוזרין גזרה על הצבור אא"כ רוב צבור יכולין לעמוד בה,ומיום שפשטה מלכות הרשעה שגוזרת עלינו גזירות רעות וקשות ומבטלת ממנו תורה ומצות ואין מנחת אותנו ליכנס לשבוע הבן ואמרי לה לישוע הבן דין הוא שנגזור על עצמנו שלא לישא אשה ולהוליד בנים ונמצא זרעו של אברהם אבינו כלה מאליו,אלא הנח להם לישראל מוטב שיהיו שוגגין ואל יהיו מזידין: , br br big strongהדרן עלך חזקת הבתים: /strong /big br br
43. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

60b. לעולם יכנס אדם בכי טוב ויצא בכי טוב שנאמר (שמות יב, כב) ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר,ת"ר דבר בעיר כנס רגליך שנאמר ואתם לא תצאו איש מפתח ביתו עד בקר ואומר (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך בעדך ואומר (דברים לב, כה) מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ בליליא אבל ביממא לא תא שמע לך עמי בא בחדריך וסגור דלתיך,וכי תימא ה"מ [היכא] דליכא אימה מגואי אבל היכא דאיכא אימה מגואי כי נפיק יתיב ביני אינשי בצוותא בעלמא טפי מעלי ת"ש מחוץ תשכל חרב ומחדרים אימה אע"ג דמחדרים אימה מחוץ תשכל חרב,רבא בעידן רתחא הוי סכר כוי דכתי' (ירמיהו ט, כ) כי עלה מות בחלונינו,ת"ר רעב בעיר פזר רגליך שנא' (בראשית יב, י) ויהי רעב בארץ וירד אברם מצרימה [לגור] (ויגר) שם ואומר (מלכים ב ז, ד) אם אמרנו נבא העיר והרעב בעיר ומתנו שם,מאי ואומר וכי תימא ה"מ היכא דליכא ספק נפשות אבל היכא דאיכא ספק נפשות לא ת"ש (מלכים ב ז, ד) לכו ונפלה אל מחנה ארם אם יחיונו נחיה,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יהלך אדם באמצע הדרך מפני שמלאך המות מהלך באמצע הדרכים דכיון דיהיבא ליה רשותא מסגי להדיא שלום בעיר אל יהלך בצדי דרכים דכיון דלית ליה רשותא מחבי חבויי ומסגי,ת"ר דבר בעיר אל יכנס אדם יחיד לבית הכנסת שמלאך המות מפקיד שם כליו וה"מ היכא דלא קרו ביה דרדקי ולא מצלו ביה עשרה,ת"ר כלבים בוכים מלאך המות בא לעיר כלבים משחקים אליהו הנביא בא לעיר וה"מ דלית בהו נקבה:,יתיב רב אמי ורב אסי קמיה דר' יצחק נפחא מר א"ל לימא מר שמעתתא ומר א"ל לימא מר אגדתא פתח למימר אגדתא ולא שביק מר פתח למימר שמעתתא ולא שביק מר,אמר להם אמשול לכם משל למה הדבר דומה לאדם שיש לו שתי נשים אחת ילדה ואחת זקינה ילדה מלקטת לו לבנות זקינה מלקטת לו שחורות נמצא קרח מכאן ומכאן,אמר להן אי הכי אימא לכו מלתא דשויא לתרוייכו (שמות כב, ה) כי תצא אש ומצאה קוצים תצא מעצמה שלם ישלם המבעיר את הבערה אמר הקב"ה עלי לשלם את הבערה שהבערתי,אני הציתי אש בציון שנאמר (איכה ד, יא) ויצת אש בציון ותאכל יסודותיה ואני עתיד לבנותה באש שנאמר (זכריה ב, ט) ואני אהיה לה חומת אש סביב ולכבוד אהיה בתוכה,שמעתתא פתח הכתוב בנזקי ממונו וסיים בנזקי גופו לומר לך אשו משום חציו:,(שמואל ב כג, טו) ויתאוה דוד ויאמר מי ישקני מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער ויבקעו שלשת הגבורים במחנה פלשתים וישאבו מים מבור בית לחם אשר בשער [וגו'],מאי קא מיבעיא ליה אמר רבא אמר ר"נ טמון באש קמיבעיא ליה אי כר' יהודה אי כרבנן ופשטו ליה מאי דפשטו ליה,רב הונא אמר גדישים דשעורים דישראל הוו דהוו מטמרי פלשתים בהו וקא מיבעיא ליה מהו להציל עצמו בממון חבירו,שלחו ליה אסור להציל עצמו בממון חבירו אבל אתה מלך אתה [ומלך] פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,ורבנן ואיתימא רבה בר מרי אמרו גדישים דשעורין דישראל הוו וגדישין דעדשים דפלשתים וקא מיבעיא להו מהו ליטול גדישין של שעורין דישראל ליתן לפני בהמתו על מנת לשלם גדישין של עדשים דפלשתים,שלחו ליה (יחזקאל לג, טו) חבול ישיב רשע גזילה ישלם אע"פ שגזילה משלם רשע הוא אבל אתה מלך אתה ומלך פורץ לעשות לו דרך ואין מוחין בידו,בשלמא למאן דאמר לאחלופי היינו דכתיב חד קרא (שמואל ב כג, יא) ותהי שם חלקת השדה מלאה עדשים וכתיב חד קרא (דברי הימים א יא, יג) ותהי חלקת השדה מלאה שעורים,אלא למאן דאמר למקלי מאי איבעיא להו להני תרי קראי אמר לך דהוו נמי גדישים דעדשים דישראל דהוו מיטמרו בהו פלשתים,בשלמא למאן דאמר למקלי היינו דכתיב (שמואל ב כג, יב) ויתיצב בתוך החלקה ויצילה אלא למ"ד לאחלופי מאי ויצילה,דלא שבק להו לאחלופי,בשלמא הני תרתי היינו דכתיב תרי קראי 60b. bA personshould balways enteran unfamiliar city bata time of bgood,i.e., while it is light, as the Torah uses the expression “It is good” with regard to the creation of light (see Genesis 1:4). This goodness is manifest in the sense of security one feels when it is light. bAndlikewise, when one leaves a city bheshould bleave ata time of bgood,meaning after sunrise the next morning, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning”(Exodus 12:22).,§ bThe Sages taught:If there is bplague in the city, gather your feet,i.e., limit the time you spend out of the house, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And none of you shall go out of the opening of his house until the morning.” And it saysin another verse: b“Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you;hide yourself for a little moment, until the anger has passed by” (Isaiah 26:20). bAnd it says: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror”(Deuteronomy 32:25).,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the reason for citing the additional verses introduced with the term: bAnd it says?The first verse seems sufficient to teach the principle that one should not emerge from one’s house when there is a plague. The Gemara answers: bAnd if you would saythat bthis matter,the first verse that states that none of you shall go out until morning, applies only bat night, but in the dayone may think that the principle does bnotapply, for this reason the Gemara teaches: bComeand bhear: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you.” /b, bAnd if you would saythat bthis matterapplies only bwhere there is no fear inside,which explains why it is preferable to remain indoors, bbut where there is fear inside,one might think that bwhen he goes outand bsits among people in general companyit is bbetter,therefore, the Gemara introduces the third verse and says: bComeand bhear: “Outside the sword will bereave, and in the chambers terror.”This means that balthough there is terror in the chambers, outside the sword will bereave,so it is safer to remain indoors., bAt a timewhen there was a bplague, Rava would close the windowsof his house, bas it is written: “For death is come up into our windows”(Jeremiah 9:20)., bThe Sages taught:If there is bfamine in the city, spread your feet,i.e., leave the city, bas it is statedin the verse: b“And there was a famine in the land; and Abram went down into Egypt to sojourn there”(Genesis 12:10). bAnd it says: “If we say: We will enter into the city, then the famine is in the city, and we shall die there;and if we sit here, we die also, now come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live; and if they kill us, we shall but die” (II Kings 7:4)., bWhatis the reason for citing the second verse, introduced with the term: bAnd it says? And if you would saythat bthis matter,the principle of leaving the city, applies only bwhere there is no uncertaintyconcerning ba life-threateningsituation, bbut where there is uncertaintyconcerning ba life-threateningsituation this principle does bnotapply, bcomeand bhear: “Come, and let us fall unto the host of the Arameans; if they save us alive, we shall live;and if they kill us, we shall but die.”, bThe Sages taught:If there is ba plague in the city, a person should not walk in the middle of the road, due tothe fact bthat the Angel of Death walks in the middle of the road, as, sincein Heaven bthey have given him permissionto kill within the city, bhe goes openlyin the middle of the road. By contrast, if there is bpeaceand quiet bin the city, do not walk on the sides of the road, as, sincethe Angel of Death bdoes not have permissionto kill within the city, bhe hideshimself band walkson the side of the road., bThe Sages taught:If there is ba plague in the city, a person should not enter the synagogue alone, as the Angel of Death leaves his utensils there,and for this reason it is a dangerous place. bAnd this matter,the danger in the synagogue, applies only bwhen there are no children learning inthe synagogue, bandthere are bnot tenmen bpraying in it.But if there are children learning or ten men praying there, it is not a dangerous place., bThe Sages taught:If the bdogsin a certain place bare cryingfor no reason, it is a sign that they feel the bAngel of Death has come to the city.If the bdogs are playing,it is a sign that they feel that bElijah the prophet has come to the city. These mattersapply only bif there is no femaledog among them. If there is a female dog nearby, their crying or playing is likely due to her presence.,§ bRav Ami and Rav Asi sat before Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa.One bSage said toRabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: bLet the Master saywords of ihalakha /i, andthe other bSage said toRabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa: bLet the Master saywords of iaggada /i.Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa bbegan to saywords of iaggadabutone bSage did not let him,so he bbegan to saywords of ihalakhabutthe other bSage did not let him. /b,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa bsaid to them: I will relate a parable. To what can this be compared?It can be compared bto a man who has two wives, one young and one old. The youngwife bpulls out his whitehairs, so that her husband will appear younger. bThe oldwife bpulls out his blackhairs so that he will appear older. And it bturns outthat he is bbald from here and from there,i.e., completely bald, due to the actions of both of his wives.,Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa continued and bsaid to them: If so, I will say to you a matter that is appropriate to both of you,which contains both ihalakhaand iaggada /i. In the verse that states: b“If a fire breaks out, and catches in thorns”(Exodus 22:5), the term b“breaks out”indicates that it breaks out bby itself.Yet, the continuation of the verse states: b“The one who kindled the fire shall pay compensation,”which indicates that he must pay only if the fire spread due to his negligence. The verse can be explained allegorically: bThe Holy One, Blessed be He, saidthat although the fire broke out in the Temple due to the sins of the Jewish people, bit is incumbent upon Me to payrestitution bfor the fire that I kindled. /b, bI,God, bkindled a fire in Zion, as it is stated:“The Lord has accomplished His fury, He has poured out His fierce anger; band He has kindled a fire in Zion, which has devoured its foundations”(Lamentations 4:11). bAnd I will build it with firein the bfuture, as it is stated: “For I,says the Lord, bwill be for her a wall of fire round about; and I will be the glory in her midst”(Zechariah 2:9).,There is ba ihalakha /ithat can be learned from the verse in Exodus, as bthe verse begins with damagecaused through one’s bproperty:“If a fire breaks out,” band concludes with damagecaused by bone’s body:“The one who kindled the fire.” This indicates that when damage is caused by fire, it is considered as though the person who kindled the fire caused the damage directly with his body. That serves bto say to youthat the liability for bhis firedamage is bdue toits similarity to bhis arrows.Just as one who shoots an arrow and causes damage is liable because the damage was caused directly through his action, so too, one who kindles a fire that causes damage is liable because it is considered as though the damage were caused directly by his actions.,§ The Gemara continues with another statement of iaggadaon a related topic: The verse states: b“And David longed, and said: Oh, that one would give me water to drink of the well of Bethlehem, which is by the gate! And the three mighty men broke through the host of the Philistines, and drew water out of the well of Bethlehem, that was by the gate,and took it, and brought it to David; but he would not drink it, but poured it out to the Lord” (II Samuel 23:15–16). The Sages understood that David was not simply asking for water, but was using the term as a metaphor referring to Torah, and he was raising a halakhic dilemma., bWhat is the dilemmathat David bis raising? Rava saysthat bRav Naḥman says: He was askingabout the ihalakhawith regard to ba concealedarticle damaged by ba fire.He wanted to know whether the ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda,who holds that one is liable to pay for such damage, or bwhetherthe ihalakhais bin accordance withthe opinion of bthe Rabbis,who hold that one is exempt from liability for damage by fire to concealed articles. bAndthe Sages in Bethlehem banswered him what they answered him. /b, bRav Huna stateda different explanation of the verse: bThere were stacks of barley belonging to Jews in which the Philistines were hiding, andDavid wanted to burn down the stacks to kill the Philistines and save his own life. bHe raised the dilemma: What isthe ihalakha /i? Is it permitted bto save oneselfby destroying bthe property of another? /b, bThey sentthe following answer bto him: It is prohibited to save oneselfby destroying bthe property of another. But you are king, and a king may breach the fenceof an individual bin order to form a path for himself, and none may protest hisaction, i.e., the normal ihalakhotof damage do not apply to you since you are king., bThe Rabbis, and some saythat it was bRabba bar Mari,give an alternative explanation of the dilemma and bsaid: The stacks of barley belonged to Jews, andthere were bstacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines.David needed barley to feed his animals. bAndDavid braised thefollowing bdilemma: What isthe ihalakha /i? I know that I may take the lentils belonging to a gentile to feed my animals, but is it permitted bto take a stack of barleybelonging to ba Jew, to place before one’s animalfor it to consume, bwith the intent to paythe owner of the barley with the bstacks of lentils belonging to the Philistines? /b,The Sages of Bethlehem bsentthe following reply bto him: “If the wicked restore the pledge, give back that which he had taken by robbery,walk in the statutes of life, committing no iniquity; he shall surely live, he shall not die” (Ezekiel 33:15). This verse teaches that beven thoughthe robber brepaysthe value of the bstolen item, heis nevertheless considered to be bwicked,and is described as such in the verse, and a commoner would not be allowed to act as you asked. bBut you are king, and a king may breach the fenceof an individual bin order to form a path for himself, and none may protest hisaction.,The Gemara discusses the different explanations: bGranted, according to the one who saysthat David was asking whether he could take the stacks of barley and bexchangethem, i.e., repay the owners of the barley, with stacks of lentils, bthis is as it is writtenin bone verse:“And the Philistines were gathered together into a troop, bwhere was a plot of ground full of lentils;and the people fled from the Philistines” (II Samuel 23:11), band it is writtenin boneother bverse:“He was with David at Pas Dammim, and there the Philistines were gathered together to battle, bwhere was a plot of ground full of barley;and the people fled from before the Philistines” (I Chronicles 11:13). This apparent contradiction can be reconciled by saying that there were two fields, one of barley and one of lentils., bBut according toRav Huna, bthe one who saysthat David’s question was asked because he wanted bto burnthe stacks of barley, for bwhatpurpose bdoes he require these two verses?How does he explain this contradiction? Rav Huna could have bsaid to you that there were also stacks of lentils belonging to Jews, inside which the Philistines were hiding. /b, bGranted, according to the one who saysthat David asked his question because he wanted bto burnthe stacks, bthis is as it is writ-tenin the following verse with regard to David: b“But he stood in the midst of the plot, and saved it,and slew the Philistines; and the Lord performed a great victory” (II Samuel 23:12). bBut according to the one who saysthat David’s question was asked bwith regard to exchangingthe lentils for the barley, bwhatis the meaning of the phrase: b“And saved it”? /b,The Rabbis answer that David saved it in bthat he did not permit them to exchangethe value of the barley with the lentils., bGranted,according to both of bthese twoopinions, bthis is as it is writtenin btwodistinct bverses,one describing the field of lentils and one describing the field of barley.
44. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

30a. וכל לישני דבי דינא ולא הוה כתב בה במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי,סבר רבינא למימר היינו דריש לקיש א"ל רב נתן בר אמי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כל כי האי גוונא חיישינן לב"ד טועין,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אי כתב בה בי דינא תו לא צריך,ודילמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו ב"ד חצוף דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנא אשי,ודילמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו דכתיב בו (ואמרנא ליה לרבנא אשי) ואמר לן רבנא אשי,ת"ר אמר להן אחד אני ראיתי אביכם שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן בבית לא אמר כלום בשדה דבריו קיימין,כללו של דבר כל שבידו ליטלן דבריו קיימין אין בידו ליטלן לא אמר כלום,הרי שראו את אביהן שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן אם כמוסר דבריו קיימין אם כמערים לא אמר כלום,הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:,שנים אומרים זכאי כו': מיכתב היכי כתבי,ר' יוחנן אמר זכאי ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין (ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין) רבי (אליעזר) אמר מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לשלומי איהו מנתא בהדייהו דלמאן דאמר זכאי משלם ולמאן דאמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלם,ולמ"ד זכאי משלם לימא להו אי לדידי צייתיתון אתון נמי לא שלמיתון,אלא איכא בינייהו לשלומי אינהו מנתא דידיה למ"ד זכאי משלמי למ"ד פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלמי,ולמאן דאמר זכאי משלמי ולימרו ליה אי לאו את בהדן לא הוה סליק דינא מידי,אלא איכא בינייהו משום (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך רבי יוחנן אמר זכאי משום לא תלך רכיל,ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני פלוני מחייבין משום דמיחזי כשיקרא,ור' אלעזר אית ליה דמר ואית ליה דמר הלכך כתבי הכי מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני:,גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין כו': למאן אילימא לבעלי דינין התם קיימי אלא לעדים,כמאן דלא כרבי נתן דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד רבי נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין את דבריו,לא לעולם לבעלי דינין ורבי נחמיה היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כך היה מנהגן של נקיי הדעת שבירושלים מכניסין לבעלי דינין ושומעין דבריהן ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם ומוציאין אותן לחוץ ונושאין ונותנין בדבר (גמרו את הדבר מכניסין אותן כו'),והתניא גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים ההיא דלא כרבי נתן,גופא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא,איבעית אימא סברא אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי ומנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קמסהיד האי ואידך אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי,ואיבעית אימא קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע,ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד,זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחד,ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון חד למימר עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד ואידך והוא עד או ראה או ידע מ"מ:,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בב"ד עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא,אב"א סברא מר סבר עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי לממונא לא אתי,ואידך אטו כי אתו בהדי הדדי בחד פומא קא מסהדי אלא מצרפינן להו הכא נמי ליצרפינהו,ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו 30a. band all of the formulationsof an enactment bof the courtwere written in it. But only two were signed on it, bandthe following statement bwas not written in it: We wereconvened bin a session of threejudges, band oneof the judges bis nolonger here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly., bRavina thought to saythat bthis isa case in which the principle bof Reish Lakish,that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. bRav Natan bar Ami said to him: Thisis what bwe say in the name of Rava:In bany cases like this, we are concerned forthe possibility of ban erroneous courtthat thinks that two constitute a court., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written inthe document: We, the members of bthe court,convened, it is bunnecessaryfor the deed to bfurtherstate that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.,The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says:With regard to btwojudges bwhoconvened a tribunal and bjudged, their verdict isa binding bverdict; butbecause they contravened the rabbinic ordice mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, bthey are called an impudent court.The Gemara answers: It was a document bin which it was written:We, the members of bthe court of Rabbana Ashi,convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.,The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel,that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document bin which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us.Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In a case where bone said tothe children of another: bI saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying:This money bbelongs to so-and-so,or: This money bis second tithe,and the money was found where he said, the ihalakhadepends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was bin the house,the witness has bsaid nothing.His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was bin the field, his statement stands,i.e., is accepted., bThe principle of the matteris as follows: In banycase bwhere it is inthe bpower ofthe witness bto takethe money, bhis statement stands;if bit is not in his power to takethe money, bhe has said nothing. /b,In a case bwherethe children themselves bsaw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, andthe father bsaid:This money bbelongs to so-and-so,or: This money bis second tithe, ifhe said so bas one who relaysinformation to his own children, bhis statement stands.But bifhe said so bas one who employs artifice,i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, bhe has said nothing,and they may spend the money.,In a case bwhereone bwas distressed about money that his father left himas an inheritance, because he could not find it, band the master of the dream,i.e., someone in his dream, bcame and said to him: It is such and suchan amount of money and bit is in such and such a place,but the money bis second tithe,and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and bthis wasan actual bincidentthat was brought before the Sages, band they saidthat he can spend the money, as bmattersappearing in bdreams do not make a differencein determining the practical ihalakha /i.,§ The mishna teaches that if btwojudges bsaythe defendant is bexemptand one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, bhow do they writethe verdict?, bRabbi Yoḥa says:They write that he is bexempt,without mentioning the dispute. bReish Lakish saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable;they must mention that there was a dispute. bRabbi Eliezer saysthat they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: bFrom the statement ofthe judges bso-and-so was deemed exempt,to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the difference bbetweenthese opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference bbetween themis bwith regard towhether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must bpayhis bportionof restitution balong withthe judges of the majority. bAs according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,the minority judge bpaysas well, band according to the one who saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, he does not pay. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,why bdoes he pay? Let him say tothe other judges: bIf you would have listened to me you would not have paid either.Why should I have to pay for your mistake?, bRather,he does not pay, and the practical difference bbetweenthe opinions is bwith regard towhether or not bthoseother judges must bpay his portionof the restitution. bAccording to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt, they paythe full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But baccording to the one who saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, they do not paythe portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.,The Gemara asks: bBut according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,why bdo they payhis portion? bLet them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all,as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment., bRather,the difference bbetweenthe opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is bdue tothe prohibition of: b“You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16). bRabbi Yoḥa saysthat they write that he is bexempt due tothe prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: b“You shall not go as a talebearer.” /b, bReish Lakish saysthey specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, becauseotherwise the document would bhave the appearance of falsehood,as not all the judges deemed him exempt., bAnd Rabbi Elazar acceptsthe opinion bofthis bSage,Rabbi Yoḥa, band acceptsthe opinion bofthat bSage,Reish Lakish. bTherefore, thisis what bthey write: From the statement ofthe judges, bso-and-so was deemed exempt.This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.,§ The mishna teaches that after the judges bfinished the matterand reached a decision, bthey would bringthem bin.The Gemara asks: bWhomwould they bring in? bIf we saythey would bring in bthe litigants,this cannot be, as bthey were therethe whole time; they never left the room. bRather,they would bring in bthe witnesses. /b,If so, bin accordance with whoseopinion is the mishna? It is bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Natan; as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe testimonies ofindividual witnesses bare never combinedinto a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:Their testimonies are combined beven ina case where they saw the incident bone after the other. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: bAndfurthermore, btheir testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testifytogether bas one. Rabbi Natan says:They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges bhear the statement of thiswitness btoday, and when the otherwitness bcomes tomorrowthe judges bhear his statement.The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.,The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: bNo, actuallyit can be explained that the judges would bring in bthe litigants; and it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Neḥemya. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem:When they would judge, btheywould bbring in the litigants and hear their statements, andthen btheywould bbring in the witnesses and hear their statementsin the presence of the litigants, bandthen btheywould btake themall boutsideof the courtroom band discuss the matterin their absence. Once bthey finished the matter theywould bbring them,i.e., the litigants, bin,to hear their verdict.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraitaexplicitly: When bthey finished the matter theywould bbring in the witnesses?The Gemara answers: bThat ibaraitais certainly bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Natan. /b,§ The Gemara discusses bthematter bitself: The testimonies ofindividual witnesses bare never combinedinto a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:Their testimonies are combined beven ina case where they saw the incident bone after the other.The Gemara asks: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse, and if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning:The first itannaholds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, babout the one hundred dinarsof debt bthat thisone bis testifying, thatone bis not testifying, andabout bthe one hundred dinars that thatone bis testifying, this one is not testifying.There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. bAnd the other itanna /i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since bbothwitnesses bare testifying about one hundred dinars in general,the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars., bAnd if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse, as it is written:“And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, band he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara explains: bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the verse: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); bby inference, from thatwhich bis statedin the verse: bA witness shall not rise upagainst a man, even without the word “one,” bdo I not know that it isreferring to bonewitness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, bwhatis the meaning when bthe verse statesexplicitly: b“Onewitness”?, bThis established a paradigm,a basis for the principle that in bevery placein the Torah bwherethe word b“witness” is stated,it means that bthere are twowitnesses, bunless the verse specifies for youthat it is referring to only bonewitness., bAndaccording to the first itanna /i, bthe Merciful One expresses it in the singular form,i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” bto saythat they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. And the other itanna /i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: b“And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,”that bin any casewhere one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.,The ibaraitacited above teaches: bAndfurthermore, btheir testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testifytogether bas one. Rabbi Natan says:They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges bhear the statement of thiswitness btoday, and when the otherwitness bcomes tomorrowthe judges bhear his statement.The Gemara asks: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning,and bif you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning,as one bSage,the first itanna /i, bholdsthat bwhen one witness comesto testify, bhe comes torender the defendant liable to take ban oath.This is the ihalakhawhen there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. bHe does not come torender the defendant liable to pay bmoney,because for this two witnesses are necessary., bAnd the other itanna /i, Rabbi Natan, responds: bIs that to saythat bwhen they come together,they render the defendant ficially liable because bthey testify with one mouth?Obviously they testify one after the other. bRather,clearly it is the judges who bcombinetheir two testimonies into one. bHere too,when the witnesses come to court at different times, bletthe judges bcombinetheir testimonies., bAnd if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity”(Leviticus 5:1)
45. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

34b. כחנייתן עברו לדברי רבי אלעזר בר' שמעון בזה אחר זה עברו,וחד אמר בין מר ובין מר כחנייתן עברו מר סבר אדם קל ומר סבר מים קלים,(במדבר יג, ב) שלח לך אנשים אמר ריש לקיש שלח לך מדעתך וכי אדם זה בורר חלק רע לעצמו והיינו דכתיב (דברים א, כג) וייטב בעיני הדבר אמר ריש לקיש בעיני ולא בעיניו של מקום,(דברים א, כב) ויחפרו לנו את הארץ אמר ר' חייא בר אבא מרגלים לא נתכוונו אלא לבושתה של ארץ ישראל כתיב הכא ויחפרו לנו את הארץ וכתיב התם (ישעיהו כד, כג) וחפרה הלבנה ובושה החמה וגו',(במדבר יג, ד) ואלה שמותם למטה ראובן שמוע בן זכור אמר רבי יצחק דבר זה מסורת בידינו מאבותינו מרגלים על שם מעשיהם נקראו ואנו לא עלתה בידינו אלא אחד (במדבר יג, יג) סתור בן מיכאל סתור שסתר מעשיו של הקב"ה מיכאל שעשה עצמו מך,אמר רבי יוחנן אף אנו נאמר נחבי בן ופסי נחבי שהחביא דבריו של הקב"ה ופסי שפיסע על מדותיו של הקב"ה,(במדבר יג, כב) ויעלו בנגב ויבא עד חברון ויבאו מבעי ליה אמר רבא מלמד שפירש כלב מעצת מרגלים והלך ונשתטח על קברי אבות אמר להן אבותי בקשו עלי רחמים שאנצל מעצת מרגלים,יהושע כבר בקש משה עליו רחמים שנאמר (במדבר יג, טז) ויקרא משה להושע בן נון יהושע יה יושיעך מעצת מרגלים והיינו דכתיב (במדבר יד, כד) ועבדי כלב עקב היתה רוח אחרת עמו וגו',ושם אחימן ששי ותלמי וגו' אחימן מיומן שבאחיו ששי שמשים את הארץ כשחתות תלמי שמשים את הארץ תלמים תלמים,ד"א אחימן בנה ענת ששי בנה אלש תלמי בנה תלבוש ילידי הענק שמעניקין חמה בקומתן,(במדבר יג, כב) וחברון שבע שנים נבנתה [מאי נבנתה] אילימא נבנתה ממש אפשר אדם בונה בית לבנו קטן קודם לבנו גדול דכתיב (בראשית י, ו) ובני חם כוש ומצרים וגו',אלא שהיתה מבונה על אחד משבעה בצוען ואין לך טרשים בכל א"י יתר מחברון (משום) דקברי בה שיכבי ואין לך מעולה בכל הארצות יתר מארץ מצרים שנאמר (בראשית יג, י) כגן ה' כארץ מצרים ואין לך מעולה בכל ארץ מצרים יתר מצוען דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, ד) כי היו בצוען שריו ואפילו הכי חברון מבונה אחד משבעה בצוען,וחברון טרשים הוי והא כתיב (שמואל ב טו, ז) ויהי מקץ ארבעים שנה ויאמר אבשלום אל המלך אלכה נא וגו' ואמר רב אויא ואיתימא רבה בר בר חנן שהלך להביא כבשים מחברון ותניא אילים ממואב כבשים מחברון מינה איידי דקלישא ארעא עבדה רעיא ושמן קניינא,(במדבר יג, כה) וישובו מתור הארץ 34b. the Jewish people bcrossedin the same formation bas they camped.It was necessary for the water to stand only twelve imilhigh to allow for the entire encampment to pass through the Jordan. bAccording to the statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon,who said the water stood at a height of over three hundred imil /i, the water had to reach these heights to allow for enough time for everyone to cross the Jordan, as bthey crossed one after the other. /b, bAnd one says:According to bboththis bSage andthat bSage, they crossedin the same formation bas they camped.However, one bSage,Rabbi Yehuda, bholdsthat ba personmoves bfasterthan water, bandone bSage,Rabbi Elazar son of Rabbi Shimon, bholdsthat bwatermoves bfasterthan a person does.,§ Since the Gemara mentioned the cluster of grapes that the spies brought back from Eretz Yisrael, it continues discussing the story of the spies. It is stated in the Torah that God told Moses: b“Send youmen” (Numbers 13:2). bReish Lakish says: “Send you”means that you should send them bat your own discretionand not as a divine command. As, if it were a divine command, bdoes a person choose a bad portion for himself?Since God knew the nature of these spies and that they would ultimately slander the land, He certainly would not have sent them Himself. bAnd this isthe meaning of bthat which is writtenin the passage where Moses retold the story of the spies: b“And it was good in my eyes”(Deuteronomy 1:23), and bReish Lakish says:The implication of these words is that it seemed good b“in my eyes,” but not in the eyes of the Omnipresent. /b,The Torah relates that the people asked Moses to send spies so b“that they may search the land for us”(Deuteronomy 1:22). bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says:When the Jewish people asked to send bspies, their intention was only to shame Eretz Yisrael. It is written here: “That they may search [ iveyaḥperu /i] the land for us,” and it is written there: “Then the moon will be embarrassed [ iveḥafera /i], and the sun will be ashamed”(Isaiah 24:23).,The Torah states with regard to the spies: b“And these were their names: of the tribe of Reuben, Shammua the son of Zaccur”(Numbers 13:4). bRabbi Yitzḥak says: This statementthat follows bis a tradition of oursthat was passed down to us bfrom our ancestors:The bspies were named after their actions, but we have obtainedthe interpretation of bonly onename, the name of b“Sethur the son of Michael”(Numbers 13:13). He is called bSethur, as he hid [ isatar /i] the actions of the Holy One, Blessed be He.In other words, he ignored the miracles that God performed for the Jewish people in Egypt and in the wilderness. He is called bMichael, as he made Him,God, appear bweak [ imakh /i]by saying that there was not enough food in the land for everyone., bRabbi Yoḥa says: We can also sayan interpretation of the name: b“Nahbi the son of Vophsi”(Numbers 13:14): He is called bNahbi, as he concealed [ iheḥbi /i] the statement of the Holy One, Blessed be He,that the land is good, by delivering a distorted description of it. He is called bVophsi, as he stomped [ ipisse’a /i] on the attributes of the Holy One, Blessed be He,i.e., he did not believe in His promise to give Eretz Yisrael to the Jewish people.,It is also stated with regard to the spies: b“And they went up into the south, and he came to Hebron”(Numbers 13:22). Why is the phrase “and he came” written in the singular form? The verse bshould havesaid: bAnd they came. Rava says:This bteaches that Caleb separated himself from the counsel ofthe other bspies and went and prostrated himself on the graves of the forefathersin Hebron. bHe said to them: My forefathers, pray for mercy for me so that I will be saved from the counsel of the spies. /b,The Gemara explains: bJoshuadid not go to the graves of the forefathers because bMoses had already prayed for mercy for him, as it is stated: “And Moses called Hoshea son of Nun Joshua [ iYehoshua /i]”(Numbers 13:16), meaning: bGod will save you [ iYa yoshiakha /i] from the counsel of the spies. And this isthe meaning of bthat which is written: “But My servant Caleb, because he had another spirit with him,and has followed Me fully, him will I bring into the land where into he went” (Numbers 14:24), which implies that Caleb changed his mind over time. Joshua, however, was opposed to the intentions of the other spies from the outset.,The verse continues to state about Hebron: b“And Ahiman, Sheshai, and Talmai,the children of Anak, were there” (Numbers 13:22). bAhimanwas called by this name because he was the most bskilled [ imeyumman /i] among his brothers. Sheshaiwas called by his name bbecause he would turn the landthat he treaded upon binto ditches [ isheḥatot /i]due to his large dimensions. bTalmaiwas called this bbecause he would turn the landthat he treaded upon binto furrowsupon bfurrows [ itelamim /i]due to his weight., bAlternatively,their names signify another matter: bAhimanis the one who bbuiltthe city of bAnat. Sheshai builtthe city of bAlush. Talmai builtthe city of bTalbush.The verse describes them as b“the children of Anak”because they were so tall and large that it appeared basif bthey were wearing [ ima’anikin /i] the sunas a necklace bdue to their height. /b,The continuation of the verse states: b“Now Hebron was built seven years [ ishanim /i]before Zoan of Egypt [ iMitzrayim /i]” (Numbers 13:22). The Gemara asks: bWhatis the meaning of the phrase b“was built”? If we saythat bit was actually builtseven years before Zoan, bwould a person build a house for his younger son beforehe builds one bfor his older son?Canaan was the youngest son of Ham, bas it is written: “And the sons of Ham: Cush, and Mizraim,and Put, and Canaan” (Genesis 10:6). How then could Hebron, a city in the land of Canaan, have been built before Zoan, a city in the land of Egypt, occupied by the descendants of Mizraim?, bRather,the meaning of the verse is bthatHebron bwas seven times more fruitful [ imevunna /i] than Zoan. And there is no stonier land in Eretz Yisrael than Hebron.This is evident bbecause they would bury the dead there,just as the forefathers were buried there. This was done only in land that was not suitable for agriculture. bAnd of all the lands, there is none of a higher quality than the land of Egypt, as it is stated: “Like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt”(Genesis 13:10). bAnd there was no higher-qualityland bin all of the land of Egypt than Zoan, as it is writtenwith regard to Pharaoh’s ministers, who would certainly have lived on the finest land in the country: b“For his princes are in Zoan”(Isaiah 30:4). bAnd even so, Hebron was seven times more fruitful than Zoan. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut isthe land in bHebronin fact bstony? But isn’t it written: “And it came to pass at the end of forty years, that Absalom said to the king: I pray, let me goand pay my vow, which I have vowed to the Lord, in Hebron” (II Samuel 15:7)? bAnd Rav Avya says, and some saythat it was bRabba bar bar Ḥa:This means bthatAbsalom bwent to bring sheepspecifically bfrom Hebron. And it is taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta /i, iMenaḥot9:3): One must bring the choicest animals to the Temple as offerings. bRamsare brought bfrom Moab,and bsheepare brought bfrom Hebron.This indicates that Hebron has rich land where fat and healthy sheep are raised. The Gemara answers: bFrom thisvery source it can be proven that Hebron is not suitable for agriculture. bSince the earththere bis thin, it producesonly grass for bgrazing and fattens the livestock. /b,The verse states: b“And they returned from spying out the landat the end of forty days.
46. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said:
47. Porphyry, On Abstinence, 4.6, 4.12 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

4.6. 6.Chaeremon the Stoic, therefore, in his narration of the Egyptian priests, who, he says, were considered by the Egyptians as philosophers, informs us, that they chose temples, as the places in which they might philosophize. For to dwell with the statues of the Gods is a thing allied to the whole desire, by which the soul tends to the contemplation of their divinities. And from the divine veneration indeed, which was paid to them through dwelling in temples, they obtained security, all men honouring these philosophers, as if they were certain sacred animals. They also led a solitary life, as they only mingled with other men in solemn sacrifices and festivals. But at other times the priests were almost inaccessible to any one who wished to converse with them. For it was requisite that he who approached to them should be first purified, and abstain from many things; and this is as it were a common sacred law respecting the Egyptian priests. But these [philosophic priests], |116 having relinquished every other employment, and human labours,7 gave up the whole of their life to the contemplation and worship of divine natures and to divine inspiration; through the latter, indeed, procuring for themselves, honour, security, and piety; but through contemplation, science; and through both, a certain occult exercise of manners, worthy of antiquity8. For to be always conversant with divine knowledge and inspiration, removes those who are so from all avarice, suppresses the passions, and excites to an intellectual life. But they were studious of frugality in their diet and apparel, and also of continence and endurance, and in all things were attentive to justice and equity. They likewise were rendered venerable, through rarely mingling with other men. For during the time of what are called purifications, they scarcely mingled with their nearest kindred, and those of their own order, nor were they to be seen by anyone, unless it was requisite for the necessary purposes of purification. For the sanctuary was inaccessible to those who were not purified, and they dwelt in holy places for the purpose of performing divine works; but at all other times they associated more freely with those who lived like themselves. They did not, however, associate with any one who was not a religious character. But they were always seen near to the Gods, or the statues of the Gods, the latter of which they were beheld either carrying, or preceding in a sacred procession, or disposing in an orderly manner, with modesty and gravity; each of which operations was not the effect of pride, but an indication of some physical reason. Their venerable gravity also was apparent from their manners. For their walking was orderly, and their aspect sedate; and they were so studious of preserving this gravity of countece, that they did not even wink, when at any time they were unwilling to do so; and they seldom laughed, and when they did, their laughter proceeded no farther than to a smile. But they always kept their hands within their garments. Each likewise bore about him a symbol indicative of the order which he was allotted in sacred concerns; for there were many orders of priests. Their diet also was slender and simple. For, with respect to wine, some of them did not at all drink it, but others drank very little of it, on account of its being injurious to the |117 nerves, oppressive to the head, an impediment to invention, and an incentive to venereal desires. In many other things also they conducted themselves with caution; neither using bread at all in purifications, and at those times in which they were not employed in purifying themselves, they were accustomed to eat bread with hyssop, cut into small pieces. For it is said, that hyssop very much purifies the power of bread. But they, for the most part, abstained from oil, the greater number of them entirely; and if at any time they used it with pot-herbs, they took very little of it, and only as much as was sufficient to mitigate the taste of the herbs. SPAN 4.12. 12.Moreover, they are peculiarly pious to divinity. For before the sun rises they speak nothing profane, but they pour forth certain prayers to him which they had received from their ancestors, as if beseeching him to rise. Afterwards, they are sent by their curators to the exercise of the several arts in which they are skilled, and having till the fifth hour strenuously laboured in these arts, they are afterwards collected together in one place; and there, being begirt with linen teguments, they wash their bodies with cold water. After this purification, they enter into their own proper habitation, into which no heterodox person is permitted to enter. But they being pure, betake themselves to the dining room, as into a certain sacred fane. In this place, when all of them are seated in silence, the baker places the bread in order, and the cook distributes to each of them one vessel containing one kind of eatables. Prior, however, to their taking the food which is pure and sacred, a priest prays, and it is unlawful for any one prior to the prayer to taste of the food. After dinner, likewise, the priest again prays; so that both when they begin, and when they cease to eat, they venerate divinity. Afterwards, divesting themselves of these garments as sacred, they again betake themselves to their work till the evening; and, returning from thence, they eat and drink in the same manner as before, strangers sitting with them, if they should happen at that time to be present. No clamour or tumult ever defiles the house in which they dwell; but their conversation with each other is performed in an orderly manner; and to those that are out of the house, the silence of those within it appears as if it was some terrific mystery. The cause, however, of this quietness is their constant sobriety, and that with them their meat and drink is measured by what is sufficient [to the wants of nature]. But those who are very desirous of belonging to their sect, are not immediately admitted into it, but they must remain out of it for a year, adopting the same diet, the Essenes giving them a rake, a girdle, and a white garment. And if, during that time, they have given a sufficient proof of their continence, they proceed to a still greater conformity to the institutes of the sect, and use purer water for the purpose of sanctity; though they are not yet permitted to live with the Essenes. For after this exhibition of endurance, their manners are tried for two years more, and he who |124 after this period appears to deserve to associate with them, is admitted into their society. SPAN
48. Anon., 4 Baruch, 3.8, 3.14, 7.25-7.26

3.8. And Jeremiah said: Behold, Lord, now we know that you are delivering the city into the hands of its enemies, and they will take the people away to Babylon. What do you want me to do with the holy vessels of the temple service? 3.14. And the Lord said to Jeremiah: Send him to the vineyard of Agrippa, and I will hide him in the shadow of the mountain until I cause the people to return to the city. 7.25. For you have been found righteous before God, and he did not let you come here, lest you see the affliction which has come upon the people at the hands of the Babylonians. 7.26. For it is like a father with an only son, who is given over for punishment; and those who see his father and console him cover his face, lest he see how his son is being punished, and be even more ravaged by grief.


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abba arika Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
abimelech/ebed-melech Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
alimentary Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
amoraim, seeing themselves as descendants of the pharisees Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
aqiba Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
asceticism Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90; Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 100
beckwith, roger t. Taylor and Hay, Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (2020) 303
canaanite slaves Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
chaeremon the stoic, on the egyptian priests Taylor and Hay, Philo of Alexandria: On the Contemplative Life: Introduction, Translation and Commentary (2020) 303
city/town Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
damages (injury) Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
destruction Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151
diet and dietary restrictions Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
dietary laws in pauline epistles Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
divorce document Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
dreams Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
drink Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151
egyptian priesthood Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
eleazar b. azariah Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
eleazar b. yosi Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
eleazar b. zadok Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 73
emancipation-(writs) Porton, Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta (1988) 76
essenes Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 188
ethnicity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 100
fasting Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
food, impurity of according to paul Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
haman Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
hekhalot Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151
identity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 100
israel Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151
jewish christianity Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 100
joshua ben hanania Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
meat Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
mourning Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62; Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151
oral torah Piovanelli, Burke, Pettipiece, Rediscovering the Apocryphal Continent: New Perspectives on Early Christian and Late Antique Apocryphal Textsand Traditions. De Gruyter: 2015 (2015) 100
orphics Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
perushim, having no connection with the pharisees Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
pharisaic-rabbinic connection Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
pharisees Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 179
philosophy Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
purim Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
pythagorean/neopythagorean Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
pythagoreans Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
r. ishmael, in sar-torah narrative Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
r. yohanan ben zakkai Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
relativization of impurity Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
ritual, preparatory Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
sacrifice Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
sexual abstinence Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
shibbuta Maccoby, Philosophy of the Talmud (2002) 90
tannaim, view of connection to pharisees Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 56
temple Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151; Swartz, The Mechanics of Providence: The Workings of Ancient Jewish Magic and Mysticism (2018) 241
temple in jerusalem, altar of Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
temple in jerusalem, destruction of Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
temple in jerusalem, keys of Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
temple in jerusalem Allison, 4 Baruch (2018) 19
vegetarianism Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
wine' Blidstein, Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature (2017) 62
zion Putthoff, Ontological Aspects of Early Jewish Anthropology (2016) 151