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



10982
Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.12
NaN


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

10 results
1. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 2.41-2.42 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

2.41. On which account, even to this very day, there is every year a solemn assembly held and a festival celebrated in the island of Pharos, to which not only the Jews but a great number of persons of other nations sail across, reverencing the place in which the first light of interpretation shone forth, and thanking God for that ancient piece of beneficence which was always young and fresh. 2.42. And after the prayers and the giving of thanks some of them pitched their tents on the shore, and some of them lay down without any tents in the open air on the sand of the shore, and feasted with their relations and friends, thinking the shore at that time a more beautiful abode than the furniture of the king's palace.
2. 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."
3. 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."
4. 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." 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?" 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)."
5. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

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

7. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

8. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

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

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

22b. ועד כמה עד ארבעין שנין איני והא רבה אורי בשוין,ומכות פרושין וכו' ת"ר שבעה פרושין הן פרוש שיכמי פרוש נקפי פרוש קיזאי פרוש מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה,פרוש שיכמי זה העושה מעשה שכם פרוש נקפי זה המנקיף את רגליו פרוש קיזאי א"ר נחמן בר יצחק זה המקיז דם לכתלים פרוש מדוכיא אמר רבה בר שילא דמשפע כי מדוכיא,פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה הא מעליותא היא אלא דאמר מה חובתי תו ואעשנה,פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה אמרו ליה אביי ורבא לתנא לא תיתני פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפי' שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דמטמרא מטמרא ודמגליא מגליא בי דינא רבה ליתפרע מהני דחפו גונדי אמר לה ינאי מלכא לדביתיה אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין אלא מן הצבועין שדומין לפרושין שמעשיהן כמעשה זמרי ומבקשין שכר כפנחס, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר אין זכות תולה במים המרים ואם אתה אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררין מדהה אתה את המים בפני כל הנשים השותות ומוציא אתה שם רע על הטהורות ששתו שאומרים טמאות הן אלא שתלתה להן זכות רבי אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררים ואינה יולדת ואינה משבחת אלא מתנוונה והולכת לסוף היא מתה באותה מיתה,נטמאת מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותפדה ואם משקדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות 22b. bAnd until whenis it considered too premature for a scholar to issue halakhic rulings? It is buntil forty years.The Gemara asks: bIs that so? But didn’t Rabba issue rulings,even though he lived for only forty years? The Gemara answers: It is permitted for a scholar who has not studied for so long to issue rulings bwhenhis knowledge reaches the level of the foremost scholar in his city and bthey are equals. /b,§ It states in the mishna: bAnd those who injurethemselves out of false babstinence [ iperushin /i]are people who erode the world. bThe Sages taught: There are sevenpseudo- brighteouspeople who erode the world: The brighteous of Shechem,the self- bflagellating righteous,the bbloodletting righteous,the bpestle /b-like brighteous,the brighteouswho say: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,those who are brighteous due to love,and those who are brighteous due to fear. /b,The Gemara explains: The brighteous of Shechem [ ishikhmi /i]; this isone bwho performsactions comparable to the bactionof the people of bShechem,who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self- bflagellating righteous; this isone bwho injures his feet,as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bbloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak saysthat bthis isone bwho lets bloodby banging his head bagainst the wallsbecause he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The bpestle /b-like brighteous; Rabba bar Sheila saysthat this is one bwhowalks bbent over likethe bpestleof a mortar.,With regard to the brighteousone who says: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,the Gemara asks: bIsn’t this virtuousbehavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? bRather,this is referring to one bwho says:Tell me bwhat further obligationsare incumbent bupon me and I will perform them,indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations.,The ibaraitaalso includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear,i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. bAbaye and Rava said to the itanna /iwho transmitted this ibaraita /i: bDo not teachin the ibaraita /i: Those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: A person should always engage in Torahstudy band inperformance of bthe mitzvot even ifhe does bnotdo so bfor their own sake, as throughperforming them bnot for their own sake,one bcomesto perform them bfor their own sake. /b, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:That bwhich is hidden is hidden, andthat bwhich is revealed is revealed,but in Heaven everything is known, and bthe great courtin Heaven bwill exact payment from those who wear the cloakof the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: bKing Yannai said to his wifebefore he died: bDo not be afraid of the Pharisees [ iperushin /i], and neithershould you fear bfrom those who are not Pharisees,i.e., the Sadducees; brather,beware bof the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act ofthe wicked bZimri and they requesta breward likethat of the righteous bPinehas(see Numbers, chapter 25)., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delaythe punishment bof the bitter waterof a isota /i, band if you saythat bmerit does delaythe punishment bof the water that causes the curse,as stated earlier by the Rabbis (20a), byou weaken [ imadhe /i]the power of bthebitter bwater before all the women who drinkthe water, who will no longer be afraid of it, as they will rely on their merit to save them. bAnd you defame the untainted women who drankthe water and survived, baspeople bsay: They are defiled butit is their bmerit that delayedthe punishment bfor them. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Merit delaysthe punishment bof the water that causes the curse, buta woman whose punishment is delayed bdoes not give birth and does not flourish; rather, she progressively deteriorates. Ultimately she dies by the same deathas a isotawho dies immediately.,§ If bthe meal-offeringof the isota bis rendered impure before it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure before being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is redeemed. But ifit is rendered impure bafter it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure after being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is burned. And these arethe isotawomen bwhose meal-offerings are burnedif they have already been sanctified in a service vessel:


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
defi ling of the hands Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75
oral torah Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75
pentateuch Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75
pharisees Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75; Jaffee, Torah in the Mouth: Writing and Oral Tradition in Palestinian Judaism 200 BCE - 400 CE (2001) 180
pharos Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75
philo Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75
septuagint' Goodman, Judaism in the Roman World: Collected Essays (2006) 75