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



1760
Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, 11b


מה להלן שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו אף נשיא שאין על גביו אלא ה' אלהיו,בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר אמר ליה הרי צרתך בבבל איתיביה מלכי ישראל ומלכי בית דוד אלו מביאים לעצמם ואלו מביאים לעצמם אמר ליה התם לא כייפי אהדדי הכא אנן כייפינן להו לדידהו,רב ספרא מתני הכי בעא מיניה רבי מרבי חייא כגון אני מהו בשעיר א"ל התם שבט הכא מחוקק ותניא (בראשית מט, י) לא יסור שבט מיהודה זה ראש גולה שבבבל שרודה את ישראל במקל (בראשית מט, י) ומחוקק מבין רגליו אלו בני בניו של הלל שמלמדים תורה לישראל ברבים:,Just as there, in the passage with regard to the king, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God, so too, with regard to a nasi, the reference is to one over whom there is only the Lord his God.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: Your rival, the Exilarch in Babylonia, is as great as you; therefore, you are not akin to a king. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised an objection to Rabbi Ḥiyya from a baraita: If kings of the kingdom of Israel and kings of the house of David perform an unwitting transgression, these bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings, and those bring a sin-offering for themselves as kings. This indicates that even if a king has a counterpart who is as powerful as he is, he brings a male goat as his sin-offering. Rabbi Ḥiyya said to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi: There, the kings were not subject to each other’s authority. Here, in Eretz Yisrael, we are subject to their authority, as the authority of the Exilarch is greater than the authority of the Nasi.,Rav Safra taught the exchange in this manner: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ḥiyya: In a case where I perform an unwitting transgression, what is the halakha: Would I be liable to atone with a male goat as a sin-offering because I am the Nasi, or is my atonement with a ewe or a female goat, like a commoner, because I am not the king? Rabbi Ḥiyya said to him: There, the Exilarch has authority that is represented by a scepter; here, in Eretz Yisrael, we have lesser authority, which is represented by a staff. And it is taught in a baraita: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah” (Genesis 49:10); this is a reference to the Exilarch in Babylonia, who reigns over the Jewish people with a rod, as he is authorized by the gentile monarchy to impose his will. “Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet” (Genesis 49:10); these are the descendants of Hillel, who serve in the role of the Nasi and teach Torah to the Jewish people in public, but who are not authorized by the government to impose their will.,And who is the anointed priest? It is the High Priest who is anointed with the anointing oil, not the High Priest consecrated by donning multiple garments, i.e., one who served after the anointing oil had been sequestered, toward the end of the First Temple period. The difference between a High Priest anointed with the anointing oil and one consecrated by donning multiple garments unique to the High Priest is only that the latter does not bring the bull that comes for the transgression of any of the mitzvot.,And the difference between a High Priest currently serving in that capacity and a former High Priest who had temporarily filled that position while the High Priest was unfit for service is only with regard to the bull brought by the High Priest on Yom Kippur and the tenth of an ephah meal-offering brought by the High Priest daily. Each of these offerings is brought only by the current High Priest, and not by a former High Priest.,Both this High Priest currently serving and that former High Priest are equal with regard to performing the rest of the Yom Kippur service, and they are both commanded with regard to marrying a virgin (see Leviticus 21:13), and it is prohibited for both to marry a widow (see Leviticus 21:14), and they may not render themselves impure with impurity imparted by a corpse even in the event that one of their relatives dies (see Leviticus 21:11), and they may not grow their hair long and they may not rend their garments as expressions of mourning (see Leviticus 21:10), and when they die they restore the unwitting murderer to his home from the city of refuge (see Numbers 35:25).,The Sages taught: To blend the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, they would boil in the oil the roots of the spices in the quantities enumerated in the verse; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei says: But isn’t that amount of oil insufficient even to smear on the roots of those spices, as the oil would be absorbed into the roots? How then could the roots be boiled in the oil? Rather, they soak the roots in water. Once the roots are waterlogged, they do not absorb the oil. The fragrance of the spices gradually rises and they float oil on the water and the oil absorbs the fragrance. And at that point, one removed the oil [vekippeḥo] from the water, and that was the anointing oil.,Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And was it merely one miracle that was performed with regard to the anointing oil? But wasn’t it initially only twelve log, and from it the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed for the entire seven days of inauguration, and all of it remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31)? Since the entire existence of the anointing oil is predicated on miracles, it is no wonder that its preparation also involved a miracle.,It is taught in another baraita: “And Moses took the anointing oil, and anointed the Tabernacle and all that was in it and sanctified them” (Leviticus 8:10). Rabbi Yehuda says: With regard to the anointing oil that Moses prepared in the wilderness, how many miracles were performed in its regard continuously, from beginning to end? Initially it was only twelve log. Consider how much oil a pot absorbs, and how much oil is absorbed by the roots, and how much oil the fire burns, and yet the Tabernacle, and its vessels, Aaron, and his sons were anointed with it for the entire seven days of inauguration, and High Priests and kings were anointed with it throughout the generations.,Apropos the anointing oil, the baraita continues: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing, but one does not anoint a king, son of a king. And if you say: For what reason did they anoint King Solomon (see I Kings, chapter 1), who was the son of a king? It was due to the challenge of Adonijah, who sought to succeed their father David as king. And they anointed Joash due to Athaliah (see II Kings, chapter 11). And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was (see II Kings 23:30). In all these cases, it was necessary to underscore that these men were crowned king. And that oil remains in existence for the future, as it is stated: “This [zeh] shall be a sacred anointing oil unto Me throughout your generations” (Exodus 30:31). The numerical value of zeh is twelve log, indicating that this amount of oil remains intact despite its use.,§ The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: And even a High Priest, son of a High Priest, requires anointing. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? It is derived from a verse, as it is written: “And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons” (Leviticus 6:15). Let the verse say only: The priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons. What is the reason that it says: “The anointed priest”? The Torah teaches us that even from among the sons of a High Priest, if he is anointed with oil he is a High Priest, and if not, he is not a High Priest.,The Master said: But one does not anoint a king, son of a king. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this halakha? Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said that it is derived from a verse, as it is written: “So that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his sons, in the midst of Israel” (Deuteronomy 17:20). His children are mentioned in the verse in order to teach them: The kingdom is an inheritance for you. The Gemara asks: And from where do we derive that when there is a dispute with regard to succession, the king requires anointing, and it is not that whenever the king wishes he can bequeath the kingdom to his son without anointing him? Rav Pappa said that the verse states: “He and his sons, in the midst of Israel.” When there is peace in Israel we read concerning him: “He and his sons,” even without anointing; but when there is dispute, anointing is required.,It is taught: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram (see II Kings 9:1–14). The Sages challenge: And let him derive that Jehu was anointed due to the fact that he was the first of his dynasty and was not the son of a king. The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: Kings of the house of David are anointed; kings of Israel are not anointed. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive this? Rava said that the verse states: “Arise, anoint him, for this is he” (I Samuel 16:12), from which it is derived: This king, David, requires anointing, but another king does not require anointing.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said: Even Jehu, son of Nimshi, king of Israel, was anointed only due to the challenge of Joram. The Gemara asks: And due to the challenge of Joram, son of Ahab, shall we misuse consecrated anointing oil and anoint a king of Israel, who does not require anointing? The Gemara answers that it is like that which Rav Pappa said in another context: They anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil. So too, with regard to Jehu, they anointed him with pure balsam oil, not with anointing oil.,The baraita teaches: And they anointed Jehoahaz due to Jehoiakim, who was two years older than he was. The Gemara asks: And was Jehoiakim older than Jehoahaz? But isn’t it written: “And the sons of Josiah: The firstborn Johanan, the second Jehoiakim, the third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum” (I Chronicles 3:15), and Rabbi Yoḥanan says: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; these are two names for one person. Likewise, he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz, who is mentioned in the book of Kings. Since Jehoahaz was the eldest, why was it necessary to anoint him? The Gemara answers: Actually, Jehoiakim was older than Jehoahaz. And what is the meaning of the term “firstborn” written with regard to Jehoahaz? It means that his status was like that of a firstborn in terms of ascent to the kingship.,The Gemara asks: And do younger sons rule before elder sons? But isn’t it written: “And the kingdom he gave to Jehoram, because he was the firstborn” (II Chronicles 21:3). The Gemara answers: Jehoram was a surrogate for his ancestors as he was suited to serve as king, so since he was firstborn, he ascended to the throne. Jehoiakim was not a surrogate for his ancestors; he was not suited to serve as king. Therefore, his brother ascended to the throne before him.,The Master said: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah; he is Johanan, he is Jehoahaz. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t the verse enumerate them individually, as it is written: “The third Zedekiah, the fourth Shallum,” indicating that they are two people? The Gemara answers: What is the meaning of third? It means the third among the sons. And what is the meaning of fourth? It means the fourth to ascend to the kingship. How so? Initially, Jehoahaz reigned, and ultimately, after him, Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Jeconiah, son of Jehoiakim, and ultimately, after him, Zedekiah, who was fourth to the kingship.,The Sages taught: He is Shallum, he is Zedekiah. And why was he called Shallum? It is due to the fact that he was perfect [meshullam] is his actions. Some say: He was called Shallum because the kingdom of the house of David was concluded [sheshalema] during his days. And what was his actual name? Mattaniah was his name, as it is stated: “And the king of Babylon crowned Mattaniah his uncle in his stead, and changed his name to Zedekiah” (II Kings 24:17). Why did Nebuchadnezzar call him Zedekiah? He said to him: God will justify the judgment against you if you rebel against me; and it is written: “And he also rebelled against King Nebuchadnezzar, who had imposed upon him an oath by God” (II Chronicles 36:13).


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

13 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 49.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

49.10. The sceptre shall not depart from Judah, Nor the ruler’s staff from between his feet, As long as men come to Shiloh; And unto him shall the obedience of the peoples be."
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

4.22. אֲשֶׁר נָשִׂיא יֶחֱטָא וְעָשָׂה אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה בִּשְׁגָגָה וְאָשֵׁם׃ 4.22. When a ruler sinneth, and doeth through error any one of all the things which the LORD his God hath commanded not to be done, and is guilty:"
3. Mishnah, Avot, 1.12-1.16 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

1.12. Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah." 1.13. He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall pass away." 1.14. He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?" 1.15. Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countece." 1.16. Rabban Gamaliel used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, avoid doubt, and do not make a habit of tithing by guesswork."
4. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

5. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 98.8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

98.8. לֹא יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, זֶה מָכִיר וגו' וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו (בראשית מט, י), שֶׁבָּא וְנִתְחַבֵּט לִפְנֵי רַגְלָיו. עַד כִּי יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, זֶה מֶלֶךְ הַמָּשִׁיחַ. וְלוֹ יִקְהַת עַמִּים, שֶׁהוּא בָּא וּמַקְהֶה שִׁנֵּיהֶם שֶׁל עוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, לֹא יָסוּר שֵׁבֶט מִיהוּדָה, זוֹ סַנְהֶדְּרִין שֶׁהִיא מַכָּה וְרוֹדָה. וּמְחֹקֵק מִבֵּין רַגְלָיו, אֵלּוּ שְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִים שֶׁהָיוּ עוֹמְדִים לִפְנֵיהֶם אֶחָד מִימִין וְאֶחָד מִשְׂמֹאל. עַד כִּי יָבֹא שִׁילֹה, נִמְנוּ וְאָמְרוּ הִלֵּל מִשֶּׁל מִי, אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי מְגִלַּת יֻחָסִים מָצְאוּ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם וּכְתִיב בָּהּ הִלֵּל מִדָּוִד. רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה מִן דִּשְׁפַטְיָה בֶּן אֲבִיטָל. דְּבֵית כַּלְבָּא שָׂבוֹעַ מִדְּכָלֵב. דְּבֵית צִיצִית הַכַּסָּת, מִן דְּאַבְנֵר. דְּבֵית כּוֹבְשִׁין, מִן דְּאַחְאָב. דְּבֵית יָצְאָה, מִן דְּאָסָף. דְּבֵית יֵהוּא, מִן צִפּוֹרִין. דְּבֵית יַנַּאי, מִן דְּעֵלִי. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲלַפְתָּא, מִן דְּיוֹנָדָב בֶּן רֵכָב. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, מִדִּנְחֶמְיָה הַתִּרְשָׁתָא. 98.8. ... “…and to him will be a gathering of peoples.” (Genesis 49:10) This refers to Jerusalem, which in the future will blunt the teeth of the nations of the world, as it says “And it shall come to pass on that day that I will make Jerusalem a stone of burden for all peoples…” (Zechariah 12:3)"
6. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 4.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

7. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

28a. דלמא מעברין לך אמר לה [לשתמש אינש] יומא חדא בכסא דמוקרא ולמחר ליתבר אמרה ליה לית לך חיורתא ההוא יומא בר תמני סרי שני הוה אתרחיש ליה ניסא ואהדרו ליה תמני סרי דרי חיורתא היינו דקאמר ר' אלעזר בן עזריה הרי אני כבן שבעים שנה ולא בן שבעים שנה,תנא אותו היום סלקוהו לשומר הפתח ונתנה להם רשות לתלמידים ליכנס שהיה ר"ג מכריז ואומר כל תלמיד שאין תוכו כברו לא יכנס לבית המדרש,ההוא יומא אתוספו כמה ספסלי א"ר יוחנן פליגי בה אבא יוסף בן דוסתאי ורבנן חד אמר אתוספו ארבע מאה ספסלי וחד אמר שבע מאה ספסלי הוה קא חלשא דעתיה דר"ג אמר דלמא ח"ו מנעתי תורה מישראל אחזו ליה בחלמיה חצבי חיורי דמליין קטמא ולא היא ההיא ליתובי דעתיה הוא דאחזו ליה,תנא עדיות בו ביום נשנית וכל היכא דאמרינן בו ביום ההוא יומא הוה ולא היתה הלכה שהיתה תלויה בבית המדרש שלא פירשוה ואף ר"ג לא מנע עצמו מבית המדרש אפילו שעה אחת,דתנן בו ביום בא יהודה גר עמוני לפניהם בבית המדרש אמר להם מה אני לבא בקהל,א"ל ר"ג אסור אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר' יהושע מותר אתה לבא בקהל א"ל ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (דברים כג, ד) לא יבא עמוני ומואבי בקהל ה' א"ל ר' יהושע וכי עמון ומואב במקומן הן יושבין כבר עלה סנחריב מלך אשור ובלבל את כל האומות שנאמר (ישעיהו י, יג) ואסיר גבולות עמים ועתידותיהם שוסתי ואוריד כאביר יושבים וכל דפריש מרובא פריש,אמר לו ר"ג והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו מט, ו) ואחרי כן אשיב את שבות בני עמון נאם ה' וכבר שבו,אמר לו ר' יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (עמוס ט, יד) ושבתי את שבות עמי ישראל ועדיין לא שבו מיד התירוהו לבא בקהל,אר"ג הואיל והכי הוה איזיל ואפייסיה לר' יהושע כי מטא לביתיה חזינהו לאשיתא דביתיה דמשחרן א"ל מכותלי ביתך אתה ניכר שפחמי אתה א"ל אוי לו לדור שאתה פרנסו שאי אתה יודע בצערן של ת"ח במה הם מתפרנסים ובמה הם נזונים,אמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי לא אשגח ביה עשה בשביל כבוד אבא פייס,אמרו מאן ניזיל ולימא להו לרבנן אמר להו ההוא כובס אנא אזילנא שלח להו ר' יהושע לבי מדרשא מאן דלביש מדא ילבש מדא ומאן דלא לביש מדא יימר ליה למאן דלביש מדא שלח מדך ואנא אלבשיה אמר להו ר"ע לרבנן טרוקו גלי דלא ליתו עבדי דר"ג ולצערו לרבנן,א"ר יהושע מוטב דאיקום ואיזיל אנא לגבייהו אתא טרף אבבא א"ל מזה בן מזה יזה ושאינו לא מזה ולא בן מזה יאמר למזה בן מזה מימיך מי מערה ואפרך אפר מקלה א"ל ר"ע רבי יהושע נתפייסת כלום עשינו אלא בשביל כבודך למחר אני ואתה נשכים לפתחו,אמרי היכי נעביד נעבריה גמירי מעלין בקדש ואין מורידין נדרוש מר חדא שבתא ומר חדא שבתא אתי לקנאויי אלא לדרוש ר"ג תלתא שבתי וראב"ע חדא שבתא והיינו דאמר מר שבת של מי היתה של ראב"ע היתה ואותו תלמיד ר' שמעון בן יוחאי הוה:,ושל מוספין כל היום: א"ר יוחנן ונקרא פושע,ת"ר היו לפניו שתי תפלות אחת של מנחה ואחת של מוסף מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף שזו תדירה וזו אינה תדירה ר' יהודה אומר מתפלל של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה שזו מצוה עוברת וזו מצוה שאינה עוברת א"ר יוחנן הלכה מתפלל של מנחה ואח"כ מתפלל של מוסף,ר' זירא כי הוה חליש מגירסיה הוה אזיל ויתיב אפתחא דבי ר' נתן בר טובי אמר כי חלפי רבנן אז איקום מקמייהו ואקבל אגרא נפק אתא ר' נתן בר טובי א"ל מאן אמר הלכה בי מדרשא א"ל הכי א"ר יוחנן אין הלכה כר' יהודה דאמר מתפלל אדם של מוסף ואח"כ מתפלל של מנחה,א"ל רבי יוחנן אמרה אמר ליה אין תנא מיניה ארבעין זמנין א"ל חדא היא לך או חדת היא לך א"ל חדת היא לי משום דמספקא לי בר' יהושע בן לוי:,אריב"ל כל המתפלל תפלה של מוספין לאחר שבע שעות לר' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר (צפניה ג, יח) נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דתברא הוא כדמתרגם רב יוסף תברא אתי על שנאיהון דבית ישראל על דאחרו זמני מועדיא דבירושלים,א"ר אלעזר כל המתפלל תפלה של שחרית לאחר ארבע שעות לר' יהודה עליו הכתוב אומר נוגי ממועד אספתי ממך היו מאי משמע דהאי נוגי לישנא דצערא הוא דכתיב (תהלים קיט, כח) דלפה נפשי מתוגה רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מהכא (איכה א, ד) בתולותיה נוגות והיא מר לה 28a. There is room for concern. bPerhaps they will remove youfrom office just as they removed Rabban Gamliel. bHe said to her,based on the folk saying: bLet a person use an expensive goblet one day and let it break tomorrow.In other words, one should take advantage of an opportunity that presents itself and he need not concern himself whether or not it will last. bShe said to him: You have no whitehair, and it is inappropriate for one so young to head the Sages. The Gemara relates: bThat day, he was eighteen years old, a miracle transpired for him and eighteen rows of hair turned white.The Gemara comments: bThatexplains bthat which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: I am as one who is seventy years old and he did not say: I am seventy years old,because he looked older than he actually was., bIt was taught: On that daythat they removed Rabban Gamliel from his position and appointed Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya in his place, there was also a fundamental change in the general approach of the study hall as bthey dismissed the guard at the door and permission was granted to the students to enter.Instead of Rabban Gamliel’s selective approach that asserted that the students must be screened before accepting them into the study hall, the new approach asserted that anyone who seeks to study should be given opportunity to do so. bAs Rabban Gamliel would proclaim and say: Any student whose inside,his thoughts and feelings, bare not like his outside,i.e., his conduct and his character traits are lacking, bwill not enter the study hall. /b,The Gemara relates: bOn that day several benches were addedto the study hall to accommodate the numerous students. bRabbi Yoḥa said: Abba Yosef ben Dostai and the Rabbis disputed thismatter. bOne said: Four hundred benches were addedto the study hall. bAnd one said: Seven hundred benches were addedto the study hall. When he saw the tremendous growth in the number of students, bRabban Gamliel was disheartened. He said: Perhaps, Heaven forbid, I prevented Israel fromengaging in bTorahstudy. bThey showed him in his dream white jugs filled with ashesalluding to the fact that the additional students were worthless idlers. The Gemara comments: bThat is notthe case, but bthatdream bwas shown to him to ease his mindso that he would not feel bad., bIt was taught:There is a tradition that tractate iEduyyotwas taught that day. And everywherein the Mishna or in a ibaraita bthat they say: On that day, it isreferring to bthat day. There was no ihalakhawhose ruling was pending in the study hall that they did not explainand arrive at a practical halakhic conclusion. bAnd even Rabban Gamliel did not avoid the study hall for even one moment,as he held no grudge against those who removed him from office and he participated in the halakhic discourse in the study hall as one of the Sages., bAs we learnedin a mishna: bOn that day, Yehuda, the Ammonite convert, came beforethe students in the study hall band he said to them: What is mylegal status in terms of bentering into the congregationof Israel, i.e., to marry a Jewish woman?, bRabban Gamliel said to him: You are forbidden to enter into the congregation. Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: You are permitted to enter into the congregation. Rabban Gamliel said toRabbi Yehoshua: bWasn’t it already stated: “An Ammonite and a Moabite shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord;even to the tenth generation shall none of them enter into the congregation of the Lord forever” (Deuteronomy 23:4)? How can you permit him to enter the congregation? bRabbi Yehoshua said toRabban Gamliel: bDo Ammon and Moab reside in their place? Sennacherib already came and,through his policy of population transfer, bscrambled all the nationsand settled other nations in place of Ammon. Consequently, the current residents of Ammon and Moab are not ethnic Ammonites and Moabites, bas it is stated inreference to Sennacherib: b“I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants”(Isaiah 10:13). bAndalthough it is conceivable that this particular convert is an ethnic Ammonite, nevertheless, there is no need for concern due to the halakhic principle: bAnything that partsfrom a group bparts from the majority,and the assumption is that he is from the majority of nations whose members are permitted to enter the congregation., bRabban Gamliel said toRabbi Yehoshua: bBut wasn’t it already stated: “But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon, says the Lord”(Jeremiah 49:6) band they have already returnedto their land? Therefore, he is an ethnic Ammonite and he may not convert., bRabbi Yehoshua said toRabban Gamliel: That is no proof. bWasn’t it already statedin another prophecy: b“And I will turn the captivity of My people Israeland they shall build the waste cities, and inhabit them; and they shall plant vineyards, and drink the wine thereof; they shall also make gardens, and eat the fruit of them” (Amos 9:14), band they have not yet returned?In rendering the ruling, only proven facts may be taken into consideration. bThey immediately permitted him to enter the congregation.This proves that Rabban Gamliel did not absent himself from the study hall that day and participated in the halakhic discourse., bRabban Gamliel saidto himself: bSince this isthe situation, that the people are following Rabbi Yehoshua, apparently he was right. Therefore, it would be appropriate for me to bgo and appease Rabbi Yehoshua. When he reachedRabbi Yehoshua’s bhouse, he sawthat bthe walls of his house were black.Rabban Gamliel bsaid toRabbi Yehoshua in wonderment: bFrom the walls of your house it is apparent that you are a blacksmith,as until then he had no idea that Rabbi Yehoshua was forced to engage in that arduous trade in order to make a living. Rabbi Yehoshua bsaid to him: Woe unto a generation that you are its leader as you are unaware of the difficulties of Torah scholars, how they make a living and how they feed themselves. /b,Rabban Gamliel bsaid to him: I insulted you, forgive me.Rabbi Yehoshua bpaid him no attentionand did not forgive him. He asked him again: bDo it in deference to my father,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who was one of the leaders of Israel at the time of the destruction of the Temple. bHe was appeased. /b,Now that Rabbi Yehoshua was no longer offended, it was only natural that Rabban Gamliel would be restored to his position. bThey said: Who will go and inform the Sages?Apparently, they were not eager to carry out the mission that would undo the previous actions and remove Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from his position as iNasi /i. bThis launderer said to them: I will go. Rabbi Yehoshua sent tothe Sages bto the study hall: The one who wears the uniform willcontinue to bwear the uniform,the original iNasiwill remain in his position so that bthe one who did not wear the uniform willnot bsay to the one who wears the uniform, remove your uniform and I will wear it.Apparently, the Sages believed that this emissary was dispatched at the initiative of Rabban Gamliel and they ignored him. bRabbi Akiva said to the Sages: Lock the gates so that Rabban Gamliel’s servants will not come and disturb the Sages. /b,When he heard what happened, bRabbi Yehoshua said: It is best if I go to them. He came and knocked on the door. He said to themwith a slight variation: bOne who sprinklespure water on those who are ritually impure, bson of one who sprinkleswater bshallcontinue bto sprinklewater. And it is inappropriate that he who is bneither one who sprinkles nor son of one who sprinkles will say to one who sprinkles son of one who sprinkles: Your water is cave waterand not the running water required to purify one exposed to ritual impurity imparted by a corpse band your ashes are burnt ashesand not the ashes of a red heifer. bRabbi Akiva said to him: Rabbi Yehoshua, have you been appeased? Everything we did was todefend byour honor.If you have forgiven him, none of us is opposed. bEarly tomorrow you and I will go toRabban Gamliel’s bdoorwayand offer to restore him to his position as iNasi /i.,The question arose what to do with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya? bThey said: What shall we do? Remove himfrom his position. That is inappropriate as we blearneda ihalakhathrough tradition: One belevatesto a higher level of bsanctity and does not downgrade.Therefore, one who was the iNasiof the Sanhedrin cannot be demoted. bLetone bSage lecture one week andthe other bSage one week, they will come to be jealousone of another, as they will be forced to appoint one as the acting head of the Sanhedrin. bRather, Rabban Gamliel will lecture three weeks and Rabbi Elazar ben Azaryawill lecture as head of the yeshiva bone week.That arrangement was adopted band that isthe explanation of the exchange in tractate iḤagiga /i: bWhose week was it? It was the week of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya.One final detail: bThat studentwho asked the original question that sparked this entire incident bwas Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. /b,We learned in the mishna: bAnd the additional prayermay be recited ball day. Rabbi Yoḥa said:Nevertheless, bonewho postpones his prayer excessively bis called negligent. /b, bThe Rabbis taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIfthe obligation to recite btwo prayers was before him, one, the afternoon prayer and one, the additional prayer, he recites the afternoon prayerfirst band the additional prayer thereafter,because bthis,the afternoon prayer, bisrecited on a bfrequentbasis, band this one,the additional prayer, bisrecited on a relatively binfrequentbasis. bRabbi Yehuda says: He recites the additional prayerfirst band the afternoon prayer thereafter,because bthis, the additional prayer, is a mitzvawhose time soon belapses,as it may only be recited until the seventh hour band this, the afternoon prayer, is a mitzvawhose time does bnotsoon belapseas one may recite it until the midpoint of the afternoon. bRabbi Yoḥa said: The ihalakha /iis that bhe recites the afternoon prayerfirst band the additional prayer thereafter,in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis.,The Gemara cites additional sources relating to this issue: bWhen Rabbi Zeira would tire of his studies, he would go and sit in the doorway of Rabbi Natan bar Tovi’s study hall. He saidto himself: bWhen theentering and exiting bSages pass, I will rise before them and be rewardedfor the mitzva of honoring Torah scholars. bRabbi Natan bar Tovihimself bemerged and cameto where Rabbi Zeira was seated. Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him: Whojust bstated a ihalakhain the study hall?Rabbi Natan bar Tovi bsaid to him: Rabbi Yoḥajust bsaid as follows: The ihalakhais not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehuda who said: He recites the additional prayerfirst band the afternoon prayer thereafter. /b,Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him:Did bRabbi Yoḥahimself bsaythis ihalakha /i? Rabbi Natan bsaid to him: Yes. He learnedthis statement bfrom him forty times,etching it into his memory. Rabbi Natan bsaid to him:Is this ihalakhaso dear to you because bit is singular for you,as it is the only ihalakhathat you learned in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa, bor is it new to you,as you were previously unaware of this ruling? Rabbi Zeira bsaid to him:It bissomewhat bnew to me, as I was uncertainwhether this ihalakhawas said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa or in the name of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi.Now it is clear to me that this ihalakhais in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa., bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said:With regard to banyone who recites the additional prayer after seven hoursof the day, baccording to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are destroyed [ inugei /i] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you,they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that inugeiis an expression of destruction? As Rav Yosef translatedthe verse into Aramaic: bDestruction comes upon the enemiesof bthe house of Israel,a euphemism for Israel itself, bfor they have delayed the times of the Festivals in Jerusalem.This proves both that inugeimeans destruction and that destruction comes upon those who fail to fulfill a mitzva at its appointed time.,Similarly, bRabbi Elazar said: Regarding anyone who recites the morning prayer after four hoursof the day, baccording to Rabbi Yehuda, the verse states: “Those who are in sorrow [ inugei /i] far from the Festivals, I shall gather from you,they who carried for you the burden of insult” (Zephaniah 3:18). bFrom wheremay it bbe inferred that inugeiis an expression of sorrow? As it is written: “My soul drips in sorrow [ ituga /i]”(Psalms 119:28). bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:The proof that inugeiindicates suffering is bfrom here: “Her virgins are sorrowed [ inugot /i] and she is embittered”(Lamentations 1:4).
8. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

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

103a. מאי למקום שאמה שמעת מינה בת אצל האם לא שנא גדולה ולא שנא קטנה:,לא יאמרו שניהם וכו':,ההוא גברא דאוגר ליה ריחיא לחבריה לטחינה לסוף איעתר זבין ריחיא וחמרא,אמר ליה עד האידנא הוה טחיננא גבך השתא הב לי אגרא א"ל מיטחן טחיננא לך,סבר רבינא למימר היינו מתניתין לא יאמרו שניהם הרי אנו זנין אותה כאחד אלא אחד זנה ואחד נותן לה דמי מזונות,א"ל רב עוירא מי דמי התם חד כריסא אית לה תרתי כריסתא לית לה הכא מצי א"ל טחון וזבין טחון ואותיב,ולא אמרן אלא דלית ליה טחינא לריחיא אבל אית ליה טחינא לריחיא כגון זו כופין אותו על מדת סדום:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלמנה שאמרה אי אפשי לזוז מבית בעלי אין היורשין יכולין לומר לה לכי לבית אביך ואנו זנין אותך אלא זנין אותה ונותנין לה מדור לפי כבודה,אמרה אי אפשי לזוז מבית אבא יכולין היורשין לומר לה אם את אצלנו יש ליך מזונות ואם אין את אצלנו אין ליך מזונות,אם היתה טוענת מפני שהיא ילדה והן ילדים זנין אותה והיא בבית אביה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן משתמשת במדור כדרך שמשתמשת בחיי בעלה בעבדים ושפחות כדרך שמשתמשת בחיי בעלה בכרים וכסתות כדרך שמשתמשת בחיי בעלה בכלי כסף ובכלי זהב כדרך שמשתמשת בחיי בעלה שכך כתב לה ואת תהא יתבת בביתי ומיתזנא מנכסי כל ימי מגר ארמלותיך בביתי,תני רב יוסף בביתי ולא בבקתי,אמר רב נחמן יתומים שמכרו מדור אלמנה לא עשו ולא כלום,ומ"ש מדרבי אסי א"ר יוחנן דא"ר אסי אמר ר' יוחנן יתומים שקדמו ומכרו בנכסים מועטין מה שמכרו מכרו,התם לא משתעבדי לה מחיים הכא משתעבדי לה מחיים,אמר אביי נקיטינן מדור אלמנה שנפל אין היורשין חייבין לבנותו,תניא נמי הכי מדור אלמנה שנפל אין היורשין חייבין לבנותו ולא עוד אלא אפילו היא אומרת הניחוני ואבננו משלי אין שומעין לה,בעי אביי שיפצה מאי תיקו:,אמרה אי אפשי:,וליתבו לה כי יתבה התם מסייע ליה לרב הונא דאמר רב הונא ברכת הבית ברובה,וליתבו לה לפי ברכת הבית ה"נ,אמר רב הונא לשון חכמים ברכה לשון חכמים עושר לשון חכמים מרפא ברכה הא דאמרן,עושר דתנן המוכר פירות לחבירו משך ולא מדד קנה מדד ולא משך לא קנה ואם היה פקח שוכר את מקומו,מרפא דתנן לא ילעוס אדם חטין ויניח על גבי מכתו בפסח מפני שמחמיצות,ת"ר בשעת פטירתו של רבי אמר לבני אני צריך נכנסו בניו אצלו אמר להם הזהרו בכבוד אמכם נר יהא דלוק במקומו שולחן יהא ערוך במקומו מטה תהא מוצעת במקומה יוסף חפני שמעון אפרתי הם שמשוני בחיי והם ישמשוני במותי:,הזהרו בכבוד אמכם: דאורייתא היא דכתיב (שמות כ, יא) כבד את אביך ואת אמך אשת אב הואי,אשת אב נמי דאורייתא היא דתניא כבד את אביך ואת אמך את אביך זו אשת אביך ואת אמך זו בעל אמך וי"ו יתירה לרבות את אחיך הגדול,הני מילי מחיים אבל לאחר מיתה לא:,נר יהא דלוק במקומו שולחן יהא ערוך במקומו מטה תהא מוצעת במקומה: מאי טעמא כל בי שמשי הוה אתי לביתיה,ההוא בי שמשא אתאי שבבתא קא קריה אבבא אמרה אמתיה שתיקו דרבי יתיב כיון דשמע שוב לא אתא שלא להוציא לעז על צדיקים הראשונים:,יוסף חפני שמעון אפרתי הם שמשוני בחיי והם ישמשוני במותי: סבור מינה בהדין עלמא הוא דקאמר כיון דחזו דקדים ערסייהו לערסיה אמרי שמע מינה לההוא עלמא הוא דקאמר,והאי דאמר הכי דלא לימרו מילתא הואי להו ועד האידנא נמי זכותו דרבי הוא דאהניא להו,אמר להן לחכמי ישראל אני צריך נכנסו אצלו חכמי ישראל אמר להן אל תספדוני בעיירות 103a. bWhatis the purpose of emphasizing: bTo the place where her motherlives? bConclude from herethat a bdaughterlives bwithher bmother;it is bno differentif she is ban adult woman, andit is bno differentif she is ba minor girl. /b,§ It was taught in the mishna that if two men are obligated to support this girl, bboth of them may notjointly bsaythat they will be partners in her support. Rather, each one fulfills his obligation independently.,The Gemara relates that there was ba certain man who rented out a millstone to another forthe price of bgrinding,i.e., the one who rented the millstone was to pay the cost of the rental by grinding whatever the owner needed to be ground. bIn the end,the owner of the millstone bbecame rich,and bhe purchasedanother bmillstone and a donkey,and he no longer required the services of the renter to grind things for him.,The owner of the millstone bsaid tothe renter: bUntil now I wouldhave what I needed bground by you,and the service that you provided was in place of payment for the rental of the millstone. bNow,since I no longer require this service, bgive me paymentfor the millstone. The renter bsaidback bto him: I will grind for youbecause that is what I agreed to, but I did not agree to have to pay money., bRavina thought to saythat bthis is the same as the mishnathat states that bboth of them may notjointly bsay: We will sustainthe girl bas onein a partnership. bRather, one sustains her,providing her with food, while bthe other gives her the monetaryvalue bof the sustece.In that case, although the original condition was to provide the girl with support in the form of food, when circumstances changed, the previous husband became obligated to pay her support in the form of money. So too here, due to the change in circumstances, the renter should pay the owner of the millstone with money., bRav Avira said toRavina: bAre thetwo cases bcomparable? There,in the case of the girl, bshe hasonly bone stomach; she does not have two stomachs.Therefore, it is impossible for both of them to support her with food. bHere,in the case of the millstone, the renter bis able to say to him: Grind and sell, grind and storefor later use, i.e., the owner of the millstone can use his new millstone to grind for others at a profit, and at the same time the renter will continue grinding the owner’s grain as per their agreement. Therefore, the renter is not obligated to change the terms of the original agreement.,The Gemara notes: bWe saidthis bonlyin a case bwherethe renter bdoes not haveany other bgrindingto do bwith the millstoneand without the grinding that the renter does for the owner the mill will remain inoperative. bHowever,if bhe hasother bgrindingto do bwith the millstone,i.e., instead of grinding the owner’s grain he can grind the grain of others for a fee and thereby pay money for his rental, in a case bsuch as this one forces himto cease his bconductcharacteristic bof Sodomand to pay his rental fee in the form of money., strongMISHNA: /strong In the case of ba widow who said: I do not want to move from my husband’s house,but instead I wish to remain there, bthe heirs are not able to say to her: Go to your father’s house and we will sustain you. Rather, they sustain herin her husband’s house band they give her living quarters befitting her dignity. /b,However, if bshe said: I do not want to move from my father’s house,and you should bring me my support there, bthe heirs are able to say to her: If you areliving bwith us, youwill bhave sustecefrom us, bbut if you are notliving bwith us, youwill bnot have sustecefrom us., bIf she arguedthat she does not wish to live in her deceased husband’s house bbecause she is young, and they,the heirs, barealso byoung,and it is improper for them to be living in the same house together, then bthey sustain her and shestays bin her father’s house. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught:A widow that remains in her husband’s house buses the living quarters in thesame bmanner that shewould busethem bin her husband’s lifetime.She uses bthe slaves and the maidservants in thesame bmanner that shewould busethem bin her husband’s lifetime, the pillows and the sheets in thesame bmanner that shewould busethem bin her husband’s lifetime,and bthe silver utensils and gold utensils in thesame bmanner that shewould busethem bin her husband’s lifetime.She maintains all the rights she had during her husband’s lifetime bbecause thisis what bhe wrote to herin the text of the marriage contract: bAnd you will reside in my house and be sustained from my property all the days that you live in my house as a widow. /b, bRav Yosef taught:The husband stipulated in the marriage contract: You will reside bin my house,with the implication: bAnd not in my hut.Therefore, if the house is too small, she cannot obligate the heirs to allow her to live in the house with them., bRav Naḥman said: Orphans who sold the living quarters of a widow did not do anything,i.e., the sale is invalid.,The Gemara asks: bAndin bwhatway is this case bdifferent from that which Rabbi Asisaid that bRabbi Yoḥa said? As Rabbi Asi saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said:With regard to borphans who preemptively sold from the small quantity of propertyleft to them by their father before the court appropriated it for the purpose of providing for female children, who do not inherit, bwhat they sold is sold,even though they acted improperly. Why, then, is the sale of a widow’s living quarters invalid?,The Gemara answers: bThere,in the case of orphans selling property that according to ihalakhashould be retained in order to support the orphaned daughters, the property bis not mortgaged tothe orphaned daughters bfromthe blifetimeof their father, since the lien on the property arising from the obligation to provide support for the daughters occurs only after the father’s death. bHere,in the case of the widow’s living quarters, the property is bmortgaged to her fromthe blifetimeof her husband, who was obligated even while he was alive to provide her with a place to live., bAbaye said: We holdon the authority of tradition that in the case of ba widow’s living quarters that collapsed, the heirs are not obligated to rebuild it,since they are obligated to maintain her in the residence that was mortgaged to her and are not required to provide her with a place to live., bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba widow’s living quarters that collapsed, the heirs are not obligated to rebuild it. And not onlythis, bbuteven bif she says: Leave mebe band I will rebuild it from my ownfunds, bone does not listen to her,and the heirs do not have to let her rebuild it., bAbaye raised a dilemma:If bshe repairedthe house, bwhatis the ihalakha /i? Is it as though the house collapsed and was rebuilt, in which case she no longer has rights to it, or may she stay in the house as long as it remains standing? The Gemara concludes: The dilemma bshall standunresolved.,§ We learned in the mishna: If bshe said: I do not wantto move from my father’s house and you should bring me my support there, the heirs are not obligated to support her.,The Gemara asks: bAndwhy is this so? bThey should give hersupport just basthey would if bshe were living there,i.e., in her husband’s house. The Gemara answers: This bsupportsthe view of bRav Huna, as Rav Huna said: The blessing of the house is in its abundanceof residents. This means that the amount of blessing in a home is proportionate to the number of people who live there. When there are many people living together in one home, the expenses per capita are decreased. The heirs can say to her that if she stays with them in the house, the expense of her upkeep will be less than if she lives on her own.,The Gemara asks: bAnd they should give herthe support in her father’s house baccording to the blessing of the house,i.e., according to the amount they would be required to pay if she lived with them. The Gemara answers: bIndeed,the intent of the mishna is that they may pay her this amount, not that they may entirely avoid supporting her., bRav Huna said:The blanguage of the Sagesteaches bblessing,the blanguage of the Sagesteaches bwealth,and the blanguage of the Sagesteaches bhealing.One can learn important lessons about these matters from the manner in which the Sages formulated their halakhic rulings. How is this so? With regard to bblessing,it is bthat which we saidabove about the blessings of the home.,The language of the Sages teaches about bwealth, as we learnedin a mishna ( iBava Batra84b): bOne who sells produce to another,if the buyer bpulledthe produce as an act of acquisition bbut did not measureit, bhe has acquiredthe produce. If bhe measuredthe produce bbut did not pullit, bhe has not acquiredit. bAnd ifthe buyer bwas perspicaciousand wanted to ensure that the seller would not back out of the deal, he would brent the placewhere the produce was located, and he would thereby acquire the produce immediately from the time he measures it. This mishna teaches good counsel in money-related matters.,The language of the Sages teaches about bhealing, as we learnedin a mishna ( iPesaḥim39b): bA person should not chew wheat andthen bplace it on his wound during Passover becausethe wheat bwill become leavenedas a result. This comment of the Sages indicates that chewed wheat is beneficial for treating a wound.,§ bThe Sages taught: At the time of the passing of RabbiYehuda HaNasi, bhe said: I need my sons. His sons entered hisroom. bHe said to themas a last will and testament: bBe careful with the honor of your mother.He said further: My blamp should be lit in itsusual bplace,my btable should be set in itsusual bplace,and bthe bed should be arranged in itsusual bplace. Yosef Ḥeifaniand bShimon Efrati; they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death. /b,The Gemara clarifies the various requests that he made of his sons: bBe careful with the honor of your mother.The Gemara asks: Why would he need to say this? After all, bthisis required bby Torahlaw, bas it is written: “Honor your father and your mother”(Exodus 20:11)? The Gemara answers: bShe wastheir bfather’s wife.She was not their mother, but their stepmother, and he therefore needed to caution them concerning her honor.,The Gemara asks: Honoring ba father’s wife is alsorequired bby Torahlaw, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bHonor your father [ iet avikha /i] and your mother [ ive’et immekha /i].The preposition ietin the phrase: bYour father; thisteaches that you must honor byour father’s wife.Similarly, the preposition ietin the phrase: bAnd your mother; thisteaches that you must honor byour mother’s husband.And bthe extraletter ivav /i,which is appended as a prefix in the phrase “ ive’et immekha /i” is included in order bto add your older brotherto those who must be honored.,The Gemara answers: bThis ihalakha /i, that one is obligated by Torah law to respect his father’s wife, bappliesonly bduringhis father’s blifetime.While the father is alive, out of respect for him, his wife must also be treated with respect. bHowever, followinghis bdeath, no,there is no longer any obligation to honor a stepmother. It was for this reason that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi had to caution his sons in this matter.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi commanded his sons: My blamp should be lit in itsusual bplace,my btable should be set in itsusual bplace,and bthe bed should be arranged in itsusual bplace.The Gemara asks: bWhat is the reasonhe made these requests? The Gemara explains: bEvery Shabbat eve,even after his passing, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bwould come to his houseas he had done during his lifetime, and he therefore wished for everything to be set up as usual.,The Gemara relates the following incident: It happened on ba certain Shabbat evethat a bneighbor cameby and bcalledand knocked bat the door. His maidservant saidto her: bBe quiet, for RabbiYehuda HaNasi bis sitting. When he heardhis maidservant reveal his presence to the neighbor, bhe did not come again, so as not to cast aspersions on earlier righteousindividuals who did not appear to their families following their death.,The Gemara elaborates on Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s statement: bYosef Ḥeifaniand bShimon Efrati, they served me during my lifetime and they will serve me in my death.It was bunderstood fromthis statement that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bwas speaking of this world,that these two should serve him in his death and administer his burial. However, bwhen they saw that their biers preceded his bier,i.e., they died before him, bthey said: Conclude from here that he was speaking of that world.They will attend to him in the World-to-Come., bAnd thereason bhe said thiswas so that bpeople should not say: There was somethingwrong bwith them, and until now, too, it was the merit of RabbiYehuda HaNasi bthat benefited themand prevented them from dying due to their sins. Now that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is dying, his merit no longer protects them. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi therefore clarified that the reason for their deaths was in order to enable them to escort him in death as in life.,§ Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi bsaidfurther btohis attendants: bI need the Sages of Israel. The Sages of Israel entered hisroom. bHe said to them: Do not eulogize me in thesmall btowns /b
10. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

109b. as by slaughtering the idolatrous offering intentionally bhe became a servant of idol worship. /b, bRav Naḥman said: From where do I saythat even a priest who intentionally slaughters an idolatrous offering is nevertheless fit to serve in the Temple if he repents? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: With regard to ba priest who servedin bidol worship and repented, his offeringin the Temple bis an aroma pleasingto the Lord and is acceptable.,Rav Naḥman clarifies: bIn whatmanner did he serve in idol worship? bIf we saythat he served in idol worship bunwittingly, whatdoes the ibaraitamean when it says: bAnd repented? He is already repentant,as he never intended to sin in the first place. bRather,it is bobviousthat the ibaraitais referring to a case bof intentionalidol worship. bAnd ifthe ibaraitais referring bto sprinklingthe blood of an idolatrous offering, bwhen he repents, what of it? Hasn’t he performedidolatrous bservice,thereby disqualifying himself from serving in the Temple in any event? bRather, is it notreferring btothe bslaughterof an idolatrous offering? Evidently, even if the priest slaughtered it intentionally, once he repents he is fit to serve in the Temple., bAndas for bRav Sheshet, hecould have bsaid to youthat bactuallythe ibaraitais referring bto unwittingslaughter. bAnd thisis what the ibaraita bis saying: Ifthe priest bis repentant from the outset, as when he servedin idol worship bhe served unwittingly,then bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord and is acceptable. bBut if not,i.e., he slaughtered an idolatrous offering intentionally, bhissubsequent bofferingin the Temple is bnot an aroma pleasingto the Lord.,§ The Gemara lists other similar disagreements between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet. In a case where a priest bbowed toan object of bidol worship, Rav Naḥman says:If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord. bAnd Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasingto the Lord. In a case where a priest backnowledgesan object of bidol worshipas a divinity, bRav Naḥman says:If he subsequently repents and serves in the Temple, bhis offering is an aroma pleasingto the Lord. bAnd Rav Sheshet says: His offering is not an aroma pleasingto the Lord.,Having listed four similar disputes between Rav Naḥman and Rav Sheshet, namely, with regard to a priest who unwittingly sprinkled the blood of an idolatrous offering, a priest who intentionally slaughtered an idolatrous offering, a priest who bowed to an idol, and a priest who acknowledged an idol as a divinity, the Gemara explains: bAndit was bnecessaryto teach the dispute with regard to all four cases. bAs, hadthe Sages btaught usonly bthis firstcase, where a priest sprinkles the blood of an idolatrous offering unwittingly, one might have thought that only bin thatcase bRav Sheshet saysthat the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified, bbecause he performed a service foridolatry that is considered a sacrificial rite in the Temple. bButin a case where the priest merely performed bslaughter, since he did not perform a service foridolatry that is a sacrificial rite in the Temple, there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet bconcedes tothe opinion of bRav Naḥman. /b, bAnd hadthe Sages btaught usonly the dispute with regard to a priest intentionally performing bslaughterfor an idolatrous offering, one might have thought that Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified bbecause he performeda sacrificial brite foridolatry. bButif he merely bbowedto the idol, bsince he did not performa sacrificial brite foridolatry, there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet does bnotdisqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. Therefore, it was bnecessaryto teach this case as well., bAnd hadthe Sages btaught usonly the case of a priest bbowingto an idol, one might have thought that in this case Rav Sheshet says that the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple is disqualified bbecause he performed an action foridolatry. bButif he only backnowledgedthe idol as a divinity, bwhich is mere speech,there is room to bsaythat Rav Sheshet does bnotdisqualify the priest’s subsequent service in the Temple. The Gemara concludes: Therefore, it was bnecessaryto teach this case as well.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd needless to say,if priests served for bsomething else,a euphemism for idolatry, they are disqualified from service in the Temple. The Gemara comments: bFromthe fact bthat it says: Needless to say,if they served for bsomething else, by inference, the temple of Onias is nota temple of bidol worship,but rather a temple devoted to the worship of God., bIt is taughtin a ibaraita blike the one who saysthat bthe temple of Onias is nota temple of bidol worship. As it is taught:During bthe year in which Shimon HaTzaddik died, he said tohis associates: bThis year, he will die,euphemistically referring to himself. bThey said to him: From where do you know? /b,Shimon HaTzaddik bsaid to them:In previous years, bevery Yom Kippur,upon entering the Holy of Holies, I had a prophetic vision in which bI would be met by an old manwho was bdressed in white, andhis head was bwrapped in white, and he would enterthe Holy of Holies bwith me, and he would leave with me.But bthis year, I was met by an old manwho was bdressed in black, andhis head was bwrapped in black, and he enteredthe Holy of Holies bwith me, but he did not leave with me.Shimon HaTzaddik understood this to be a sign that his death was impending.,Indeed, bafter the pilgrimage festivalof iSukkot /i, bhe was ill for seven days and died. And his fellow priests refrained from reciting thePriestly bBenediction with theineffable bnameof God., bAt the time of his death, he said tothe Sages: bOnias, my son, will serveas High Priest bin my stead. Shimi,Onias’ bbrother, became jealousof him, basShimi bwas two and a half years older thanOnias. Shimi bsaid toOnias treacherously: bCome and I will teach you the order of the serviceof the High Priest. Shimi bdressedOnias bin a tunic [ ibe’unkeli /i] and girded him with a ribbon [ ibetziltzul /i]as a belt, i.e., not in the vestments of the High Priest, and bstood him next to the altar.Shimi bsaid to his fellow priests: Look what thisman bvowed and fulfilled for his beloved,that he had said to her: bOn the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon. /b, bThe fellow priests ofOnias bwanted to kill himbecause he had disgraced the Temple service with his garments. Onias branaway bfrom them and they ran after him. He went to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificedofferings bupon it for the sake of idol worship. When the Sages heard of the matter they said: If thisperson, Shimi, bwho did not enterthe position of High Priest, acted with bsuchjealousy, ball the more sowill bone who entersa prestigious position rebel if that position is taken away from him. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir.According to Rabbi Meir, the temple of Onias was built for idol worship., bRabbi Yehuda said to him:The bincident was not like this. Rather, Onias did not acceptthe position of High Priest bbecause his brother Shimi was two and a half years older than him,so Shimi was appointed as High Priest. bAnd even so,even though Onias himself offered the position to Shimi, bOnias was jealous of his brother Shimi.Onias bsaid toShimi: bCome and I will teach you the order of the serviceof the High Priest. bAndOnias bdressedShimi bin a tunic and girded him in a ribbon and stood him next to the altar.Onias bsaid to his fellow priests: Look what thisman, Shimi, bvowed and fulfilled for his beloved,that he had said to her: bOn the day that I serve in the High Priesthood I will wear your tunic and gird your ribbon. /b, bHis fellow priests wanted to killShimi. Shimi then btold them the entire incident,that he had been tricked by his brother Onias, so the priests bwanted to kill Onias.Onias branaway bfrom them, and they ran after him.Onias bran to the palace of the king, and they ran after him. Anyone who saw him would say: This is him, this is him,and he was not able to escape unnoticed. Onias bwent to Alexandria in Egypt and built an altar there, and sacrificedofferings bupon it for the sake of Heaven. As it is stated: “In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at its border, to the Lord”(Isaiah 19:19). According to Rabbi Yehuda, the temple of Onias was dedicated to the worship of God., bAnd when the Sages heard of the matter they said: If this one,Onias, bwho fled fromthe position of High Priest and offered it to his brother, still was overcome with bsuchjealousy to the point where he tried to have Shimi killed, ball the more sowill bone who wants to entera prestigious position be jealous of the one who already has that position.,§ As a corollary to the statement of the Sages with regard to one who is jealous and wants the position of another, bit is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya said: Initially,in response to banyone who would sayto me: bAscend tothe position of iNasi /i, bI would tie him up and place him in front of a lionout of anger for his suggestion. bNowthat I have become the iNasi /i, in response to banyone who tells me to leavethe position, bIwould bthrow a kettle [ ikumkum /i] of boilingwater bat himout of anger at his suggestion.,It is human nature that after one ascends to a prestigious position he does not wish to lose it. bAsevidence of this principle, bSaulinitially bfled fromthe kingship, as he did not wish to be king, as stated in the verse: “When they sought him he could not be found…Behold he has hidden himself among the baggage” (I Samuel 10:21–22). bBut when he ascendedto the kingship bhe tried to kill David,who he thought was trying to usurp his authority (see I Samuel, chapters 18–27).,§ bMar Kashisha, son of Rav Ḥisda, said to Abaye: What does Rabbi Meir do with this verse of Rabbi Yehuda?Since Rabbi Meir holds that the temple of Onias was dedicated to idol worship, how does he explain the verse in Isaiah?,Abaye answered Mar Kashisha and said that Rabbi Meir uses this verse bfor that which is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAfter the downfall of Sennacherib,the king of Assyria who besieged Jerusalem (see II Kings, chapters 18–19), King bHezekiah emergedfrom Jerusalem band found thegentile bprincesSennacherib had brought with him from his other conquests, bsitting in carriages [ ibikronot /i] of gold. He made them vow that they would not worship idols,and they fulfilled their vow, bas it is statedin Isaiah’s prophecy about Egypt: b“In that day there shall be five cities in the land of Egypt that speak the language of Canaan /b
11. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

32b. טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן שתנעול דלת בפני לווין,רבא אמר מתניתין דהכא בדיני קנסות ואידך בהודאות והלואות,רב פפא אמר אידי ואידי בהודאה והלואה כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאינו מרומה,כדריש לקיש דריש לקיש רמי כתיב (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך וכתיב (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הא כיצד כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאין מרומה,רב אשי אמר מתני׳ כדשנין קראי אחד לדין וא' לפשרה,כדתניא צדק צדק תרדף אחד לדין ואחד לפשרה כיצד שתי ספינות עוברות בנהר ופגעו זה בזה אם עוברות שתיהן שתיהן טובעות בזה אחר זה שתיהן עוברות וכן שני גמלים שהיו עולים במעלות בית חורון ופגעו זה בזה אם עלו שניהן שניהן נופלין בזה אחר זה שניהן עולין,הא כיצד טעונה ושאינה טעונה תידחה שאינה טעונה מפני טעונה קרובה ושאינה קרובה תידחה קרובה מפני שאינה קרובה היו שתיהן קרובות שתיהן רחוקות הטל פשרה ביניהן ומעלות שכר זו לזו,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ב"ד יפה אחר רבי אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל,תנא קול ריחים בבורני שבוע הבן שבוע הבן אור הנר בברור חיל משתה שם משתה שם,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר חכמים לישיבה אחר ר' אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל אחר רבי יהושע לפקיעין אחר רבן גמליאל ליבנא אחר רבי עקיבא לבני ברק אחר רבי מתיא לרומי אחר רבי חנניא בן תרדיון לסיכני אחר ר' יוסי לציפורי אחר רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין אחר רבי יהושע לגולה אחר רבי לבית שערים אחר חכמים ללשכת הגזית:,דיני ממונות פותחין כו': היכי אמרינן אמר רב יהודה הכי אמרינן להו מי יימר כדקאמריתו,א"ל עולא והא חסמינן להו וליחסמו מי לא תניא רבי שמעון בן אליעזר אומר מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום כדי שתיטרף דעתן ויחזרו בהן,מי דמי התם ממילא קא מידחו הכא קא דחינן להו בידים,אלא אמר עולא הכי אמרינן יש לך עדים להזימם א"ל רבה וכי פותחין בזכותו של זה שהיא חובתו של זה,ומי הויא חובתו והתנן אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין,הכי אמינא אילו שתיק האי עד דמיגמר דיניה ומייתי עדים ומזים להו הויא ליה חובתו של זה אלא אמר רבה אמרינן ליה יש לך עדים להכחישן,רב כהנא אמר מדבריכם נזדכה פלוני אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו אמרי' ליה אי לא קטלת לא תדחל רב אשי אמר כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו,תניא כוותיה דאביי ורבא רבי אומר (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית וגו' 32b. then if the judges berred they should notneed to bpaythe party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Gemara answers: If that were to be the ihalakha /i, ball the more so thatthis bwould lock the door in the face ofpotential bborrowers.If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money., bRava says:The ruling of bthe mishna here,that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated bwith regard to laws of fines,not standard cases of monetary law. bAnd the othersources, i.e., the mishna in tractate iShevi’itand the ibaraita /i, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated bwith regard tocases of badmissions and loans,in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained., bRav Pappa says: This and that,i.e., both the mishna here and the other sources, are stated bwith regard tocases of ban admission and a loan.The distinction between them is that the mishna bhere,which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated bwith regard toa possibly bfraudulent trial,where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. bThere,in the ibaraitaand in the mishna in tractate iShevi’it /i, which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated bwith regard to a trial thatdoes bnotappear bfraudulent. /b,This distinction is bin accordance withthe statement bof Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradictionbetween two verses: It bis writtenin one verse: b“In justice shall you judge your neighbor”(Leviticus 19:15), bandit bis writtenin another verse: b“Justice, justice, shall you follow”(Deuteronomy 16:21), with the repetition indicating that it is not enough to merely judge with justice. He continues: bHowcan bthesetexts be reconciled? bHere,this latter verse is stated bwith regard toa possibly bfraudulent trial,where the court must take extra care to judge with justice; and bthere,that former verse is stated bwith regard to a trial thatdoes bnotappear bfraudulent. /b, bRav Ashi says:The ruling of bthe mishna here,that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is bas we answered,i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other iamora’im /i. And those bverseswere not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, boneis stated bwith regard to judgment,in which the court must pursue justice extensively, band oneis stated bwith regard to compromise. /b, bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: When the verse states: b“Justice, justice, shall you follow,” onemention of “justice” is stated bwith regard to judgment and oneis stated bwith regard to compromise. How so?Where there are btwo boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of themattempt to bpass, both of them sink,as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass bone after the other, both of them pass. And similarly,where there are btwo camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron,where there is a narrow steep path, band they encounter each other, if both of themattempt to bascend, both of them fall.If they ascend bone after the other, both of them ascend. /b, bHowdoes one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is bladen andone boat bthat is not laden,the needs of the one bthat is not laden should be overridden due tothe needs of the one bthat is laden.If there is one boat that is bcloseto its destination bandone boat bthat is not closeto its destination, the needs of the one that is bclose should be overridden due tothe needs of the one bthat is not close.If bboth of them were closeto their destinations, or bboth of them were farfrom their destinations, bimpose a compromise between themto decide which goes first, bandthe owners of the boats bpay a fee to one other,i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.,§ bThe Sages taught:The verse states: b“Justice, justice, shall you follow.”This teaches that one should bfollow the best,most prestigious, bcourtof the generation. For example, follow bafter Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil. /b,The Sages btaught:When the gentile authorities issued decrees outlawing observance of the mitzvot, members of Jewish communities devised clandestine ways of indicating observance of mitzvot to each other. For example: If one produces bthe sound of a millstone inthe city called bBurni,this is tantamount to announcing: bWeek of the son, week of the son,i.e., there will be a circumcision. If one displays the blight of a lamp inthe city called bBeror Ḥayil,this is tantamount to announcing: There is a wedding bfeast there,there is a wedding bfeast there. /b, bThe Sages taught:The verse states: b“Justice, justice, shall you follow.”This teaches that one should bfollow the Sages to the academywhere they are found. For example, follow bafter Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki’in, after Rabban Gamliel to Yavne, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matya to Rome [ iRomi /i], after Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon to Sikhnei, after Rabbi Yosei to Tzippori, after Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to Netzivin, after Rabbi Yehoshua to the exile [ igola /i],i.e., Babylonia, bafter RabbiYehuda HaNasi bto Beit She’arim,and bafter the Sagesin the time of the Temple bto the Chamber of Hewn Stone. /b,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of bmonetary law,the court bopensthe deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. The Gemara asks: bHow do we saythis opening stage of the deliberations? In other words, with what claim does the court begin deliberating? bRav Yehuda said: We say this tothe witnesses: bWho saysthat the event occurred bas you said?Perhaps you erred?, bUlla said to him: Butby confronting the witnesses in this manner, bwe silence them.The witnesses will think that the court suspects them of lying, and they will not testify. Rav Yehuda said to him: bAnd let them be silenced. Isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita( iTosefta9:1): bRabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says:In cases of capital law, the court bbrings the witnesses fromone bplace toanother bplace in order to confuse them so that they will retracttheir testimony if they are lying.,The Gemara rejects this argument: bArethe ihalakhot bcomparable? There,where Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says to bring the witnesses from place to place, the witnesses bare repressed by themselves,whereas bhere, we repress them bydirect baction,and that the court should not do., bRather, Ulla says: We say thisto the accused: bDo you have witnesses to determinethat the witnesses who testified against you are bconspiring witnesses? Rabba said to him: But do we openthe deliberations bwitha claim to bacquitthe accused bthat isto bthe liability of thisone, i.e., the witnesses? This claim can lead to the witnesses incurring liability for their testimony.,The Gemara questions Rabba’s assumption: bBut isthis to bthe liability ofthe witnesses? bBut didn’t we learnin a mishna ( iMakkot5b): bConspiring witnesses are not killedfor their testimony buntil the verdictof the one concerning whom they testified bis issued?Therefore, if they will be shown to be conspiring witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings, they will not be liable.,The Gemara restates Rabba’s objection: bThisis what bI say: Ifthe accused bwould be silent until his verdict is issued andthen bbrings witnesses andthe court bdetermines themto be bconspiringwitnesses, it will be found that the statement of the court bisto bthe liability of thisone, i.e., the witnesses. bRather, Rabba says: We say tothe accused: bDo you have witnesses to contradict them?If the first witnesses are contradicted as to the facts of the case, no one is liable., bRav Kahana said:We say to the witnesses: bBased on your statements, so-and-so is acquitted.The court issues a ipro formadeclaration that it is possible to find a reason to acquit based on the testimony of the witnesses, and then they begin the deliberations. bAbaye and Rava both say: We say tothe accused: For example, bif you did not killanyone, bdo not fearthe consequences of these proceedings, as you will be acquitted. bRav Ashi says:The court announces: bWhoever knowsof a reason bto acquitthe accused bshould come and teachthis reason bconcerning him. /b,The Gemara comments: bIt is taughtin a ibaraita bin accordance withthe explanation bof Abaye and Rava. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays:The priest administering the isotarite to the isotasays to her: b“If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astrayto impurity while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband…” (Numbers 5:19–20). The priest first states the scenario in which the woman is innocent of adultery.
12. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

15a. שלמה גזר לקדשים ואתו אינהו וגזור אף לתרומה,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו והתניא הושוו בו ביום נחלקו ולמחר הושוו,גופא אמר רב הונא בג' מקומות נחלקו שמאי והלל שמאי אומר מקב חלה והלל אומר מקביים וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה משהגדילו המדות אמרו חמשת רבעים קמח חייבין בחלה ר' יוסי אומר ה' פטורין ה' ועוד חייבין,ואידך הלל אומר מלא הין מים שאובים פוסלים את המקוה שחייב אדם לומר בלשון רבו שמאי אומר תשעה קבין וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה עד שבאו ב' גרדיים משער האשפה שבירושלים והעידו משום שמעיה ואבטליון ששלשה לוגין מים שאובין פוסלים את המקוה וקיימו חכמים את דבריהם,ואידך שמאי אומר כל הנשים דיין שעתן והלל אומר מפקידה לפקידה ואפילו לימים הרבה וחכמים אומרים לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא מעת לעת ממעט ע"י מפקידה לפקידה ומפקידה לפקידה ממעט על יד מעת לעת,ותו ליכא והאיכא הלל אומר לסמוך ושמאי אומר שלא לסמוך כי קאמר רב הונא היכא דליכא פלוגתא דרבוותא בהדייהו,והאיכא הבוצר לגת שמאי אומר הוכשר והלל אומר לא הוכשר בר מיניה דההיא דהתם קא שתיק ליה הלל לשמאי:,יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומא' על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית: והא רבנן דשמנים שנה גזור דאמר רב כהנא כשחלה ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי שלחו לו ר' אמור לנו ב' וג' דברים שאמרת (לנו) משום אביך,שלח להם כך אמר אבא ק"פ שנה עד שלא חרב הבית פשטה מלכות הרשעה על ישראל פ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית מ' שנה עד שלא חרב הבית גלתה לה סנהדרין וישבה לה בחנויות למאי הילכתא א"ר יצחק בר אבדימי לומר שלא דנו דיני קנסות דיני קנסות ס"ד אלא אימא שלא דנו דיני נפשות,וכי תימא בפ' שנה נמי אינהו הוו והתניא הלל ושמעון גמליאל ושמעון נהגו נשיאותן (לפני) הבית מאה שנה ואילו יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן הוו קדמי טובא 15a. bSolomonand bdecreedimpurity on hands btoprohibit contact with bconsecrated items,and Shammai, Hillel, and their disciples bcame and decreedimpurity on hands even btoprohibit contact with iteruma /i. /b, bAs to the matter itselfthat was mentioned above in passing, bRav Yehuda saidthat bShmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decreesthat day, band with regard tothose beighteenmatters bthey disagreedprior to that. The Gemara asks: bWasn’t it taughtin a ibaraitathat bthey reached a consensusin their opinions with regard to the eighteen decrees? They answer: bOn that day they disagreed, and the following day,after the matter was decided in a vote, bthey reached a consensusin their opinions., bAs to the matter itselfthat was mentioned above in passing, bRav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in three places.The Gemara cites the disputes. One, bShammai says: From a ikav /iof dough, one is required to separate iḥalla /i,the portion of the dough given to a priest. From any less than that measure there is no obligation to separate iḥalla,as that is not the measure alluded to in the verse: “The first of your dough” (Numbers 15:20), written with regard to the mitzva of separating iḥalla /i. bAnd Hillel says:One must separate iḥallaonly bfrom two ikav /i. And the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone, who is stringent, bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone, who is lenient. bRather, one and a half ikav /iis the measure from which one bis obligatedto separate iḥalla /i. Once the measures increasedand the Sages recalculated the volume of a ikavto be greater, bthey saidthat based on the measure of the new ikav /i, bfive quartersof a ikavof bflouris the measure from which one bis obligatedto separate iḥalla /i. Rabbi Yosei says: Fivequarters bare exempt;only from dough the size of bfivequarters banda bit bmore isone bobligatedto separate iḥalla /i., bAnd anotherdispute between Hillel and Shammai is that bHillel says: A full ihin /i,twelve ilog /i, bof drawn waterpoured into a ritual bath in which there was not yet a full measure of forty ise’a bdisqualifies thewater of the britual bathand accords even the water that had been there previously the status of drawn water. Even if water fit for a ritual bath is subsequently added to complete the measure of forty ise’a /i, the ritual bath remains unfit for immersion. Hillel used the biblical measure, ihin /i, bbecause,when quoting one’s teacher, ba person must speakemploying bthe language of his teacher. Shammai says: Nine ikav /iof water is enough to disqualify the ritual bath. bAnd the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone. The Sages did not determine a measure for the water disqualifying a ritual bath buntil two weavers came from the Dung Gate in Jerusalem and testified in the name of Shemaya and Avtalyon that three ilogof drawn water disqualify the ritual bath, and the Rabbis upheld their statementagainst the opinions of the great Sages of Israel, Hillel and Shammai. The Gemara emphasized their occupation and the place that they lived to underscore that, despite the fact that their occupation was despised and their place was contemptible, there is no preferential treatment when it comes to Torah., bAnd anotherdispute between Hillel and Shammai is that bShammai says: All women, their time is sufficient,i.e., a woman who notices that she saw blood of menstruation but did not feel the flow beforehand, need not worry that perhaps the flow of blood began before she saw it, and it is sufficient if she assumes ritual impurity status beginning at that moment. bHillel says: From examination to examination,i.e., a woman who saw blood, if she does not know when the menstrual flow began, she is considered impure retroactive to the last time she examined herself and found herself to be ritually pure, band evenif the examination took place bseveral daysearlier. Anything that she touched in the interim becomes ritually impure. bAnd the Rabbis say:The ihalakhais bneither in accordance with the statement of thisone bnor in accordance with the statement of thatone; brather,the principle is: bA full day,twenty-four hours, breducesthe time bfrom examination to examination,i.e., if her final self-examination took place a long time before, she need only concern herself with ritual impurity for the twenty-four hour period prior to noticing the blood. bAnd from examination to examination reducesthe time bfrom a full day,i.e., if she examined herself in the course of the previous day and discovered no blood, she was certainly ritually pure prior to the examination.,The Gemara asks: bAnd are there no moredisputes between them? bIsn’t therewhat we learned that bHillel saysthat it is permitted bto lay handson the heads of offerings sacrificed on a Festival, and one performs no prohibited labor and does not desecrate the Festival by doing so; band Shammai says not to lay hands?The Gemara answers: bWhen Rav Huna saidhis statement, he was referring to disputes bwhere there is no disputebetween the great bSageswho predated them bconcomitant with theirs.The dispute with regard to laying hands on the Festival is ancient, and their predecessors, Sages dating back to the beginning of the era of the pairs, already disputed it.,The Gemara asks further: bIsn’t therealso the dispute with regard to bone who harvestsgrapes in order to take them bto the pressand stomp them as to whether or not the liquid that seeps out of the grapes is considered as having seeped out willfully and renders the grapes susceptible to impurity? bShammai says: It has become susceptible, and Hillel says: It has not become susceptible.The Gemara rejects this: bExcept for that one, as there,although they originally disagreed, ultimately bHillel was silentand did not respond bto Shammaiand ultimately accepted his opinion.,Earlier it was mentioned that bYosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem decreed impurity upon the land of the nations and upon glass vessels.The Gemara asks: Was it these two Sages, who were among the first Sages in the era of the pairs, who issued these decrees? bWasn’t it theSages who lived in the final beighty yearsof the Second Temple period who bissuedthese bdecrees?As bRav Kahana said: When Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, fell ill,the Sages bsent to him: Rabbi, tell us two or three statements that youonce btoldus bin the name of your father. /b, bHe sent to them: Thisis what my bfather said: One hundred and eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, the evil kingdomof Rome binvaded Israel. Eighty years before the Temple was destroyed, they decreed impurity on the land of the nations and on glass vessels. Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, the Sanhedrin was exiledfrom the Chamber of Hewn Stones band sat in the storeson the Temple Mount. With regard to the last statement, the Gemara asks: bWhatare the bhalakhicramifications of this statement? bRabbi Yitzḥak bar Avdimi said: To say that they nolonger bjudged cases of fines.The Gemara wonders: bDoes it enter your mindthat they no longer judged bcases of fines?Even several generations after the Temple was destroyed they continued to judge cases of fines in Eretz Yisrael. bRather,emend and bsay: That they no longer judged capital cases.The authority to impose the death penalty was stripped from the Sanhedrin, and therefore they willingly left the Chamber of Hewn Stone. Since the Sanhedrin no longer convenes in its designated place, the ihalakhais that it no longer has the authority to judge capital cases ( iTosafot /i).,In any case, we learned that the Sages of the last eighty years before the destruction are the ones who decreed impurity on the land of the nations. bAnd if you saythat Yosei ben Yo’ezer and Yosei ben Yoḥa bwere also there duringthose beighty years, wasn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bHillel, andhis son bShimon,and his grandson bGamliel, andhis great-grandson bShimon filled theirposition of iNasibefore the House,while the Temple was standing, for ba hundred years, while Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa were much earlierthan Hillel?
13. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

29a. אנת צבית לחרובי ביתא ידך אשלימת ליה,בתשעה באב נגזר על אבותינו שלא יכנסו לארץ מנלן דכתיב (שמות מ, יז) ויהי בחדש הראשון בשנה השנית באחד לחדש הוקם המשכן ואמר מר שנה ראשונה עשה משה את המשכן שניה הקים משה את המשכן ושלח מרגלים וכתיב (במדבר י, יא) ויהי בשנה השנית בחדש השני בעשרים בחדש נעלה הענן מעל משכן העדות,וכתיב (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' דרך שלשת ימים אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא אותו היום סרו מאחרי ה' וכתיב (במדבר יא, ד) והאספסוף אשר בקרבו התאוו תאוה וישובו ויבכו גם בני ישראל וגו' וכתיב (במדבר יא, כ) עד חדש ימים וגו' דהוו להו עשרין ותרתין בסיון,וכתיב (במדבר יב, טו) ותסגר מרים שבעת ימים דהוו להו עשרין ותשעה בסיון וכתיב (במדבר יג, ב) שלח לך אנשים,ותניא בעשרים ותשעה בסיון שלח משה מרגלים וכתיב (במדבר יג, כה) וישובו מתור הארץ מקץ ארבעים יום הני ארבעים יום נכי חד הוו,אמר אביי תמוז דההיא שתא מלויי מליוה דכתיב (איכה א, טו) קרא עלי מועד לשבור בחורי,וכתיב (במדבר יד, א) ותשא כל העדה ויתנו את קולם ויבכו העם בלילה ההוא אמר רבה אמר ר' יוחנן (אותו היום ערב) תשעה באב היה אמר להם הקב"ה אתם בכיתם בכיה של חנם ואני קובע לכם בכיה לדורות,חרב הבית בראשונה דכתיב (מלכים ב כה, ח) ובחדש החמישי בשבעה לחדש היא שנת תשע עשרה [שנה] למלך נבוכדנצר מלך בבל בא נבוזראדן רב טבחים עבד מלך בבל ירושלם וישרוף את בית ה' וגו' וכתיב (ירמיהו נב, יב) ובחדש החמישי בעשור לחדש היא שנת תשע עשרה [שנה] למלך נבוכדנצר מלך בבל בא נבוזראדן רב טבחים עמד לפני מלך בבל בירושלם וגו',ותניא אי אפשר לומר בשבעה שהרי כבר נאמר בעשור ואי אפשר לומר בעשור שהרי כבר נאמר בשבעה הא כיצד בשבעה נכנסו נכרים להיכל ואכלו וקלקלו בו שביעי שמיני,ותשיעי סמוך לחשכה הציתו בו את האור והיה דולק והולך כל היום כולו שנאמר (ירמיהו ו, ד) אוי לנו כי פנה היום כי ינטו צללי ערב והיינו דאמר רבי יוחנן אלמלי הייתי באותו הדור לא קבעתיו אלא בעשירי מפני שרובו של היכל בו נשרף ורבנן אתחלתא דפורענותא עדיפא,ובשניה מנלן דתניא מגלגלין זכות ליום זכאי וחובה ליום חייב,אמרו כשחרב בית המקדש בראשונה אותו היום ערב תשעה באב היה ומוצאי שבת היה ומוצאי שביעית היתה ומשמרתה של יהויריב היתה והלוים היו אומרי' שירה ועומדין על דוכנם ומה שירה היו אומרים (תהלים צד, כג) וישב עליהם את אונם וברעתם יצמיתם ולא הספיקו לומר יצמיתם ה' אלהינו עד שבאו נכרים וכבשום וכן בשניה,נלכדה ביתר גמרא,נחרשה העיר תניא כשחרב טורנוסרופוס הרשע את ההיכל נגזרה גזרה על רבן גמליאל להריגה בא אדון אחד ועמד בבית המדרש ואמר בעל החוטם מתבקש בעל החוטם מתבקש שמע רבן גמליאל אזל טשא מינייהו,אזל לגביה בצנעא א"ל אי מצילנא לך מייתית לי לעלמא דאתי א"ל הן א"ל אשתבע לי אשתבע ליה סליק לאיגרא נפיל ומית וגמירי דכי גזרי גזירתא ומית חד מינייהו מבטלי לגזרתייהו יצתה בת קול ואמרה אדון זה מזומן לחיי העולם הבא,תנו רבנן משחרב הבית בראשונה נתקבצו כיתות כיתות של פרחי כהונה ומפתחות ההיכל בידן ועלו לגג ההיכל ואמרו לפניו רבונו של עולם הואיל ולא זכינו להיות גזברין נאמנים יהיו מפתחות מסורות לך וזרקום כלפי מעלה ויצתה כעין פיסת יד וקיבלתן מהם והם קפצו ונפלו לתוך האור,ועליהן קונן ישעיהו הנביא (ישעיהו כב, א) משא גיא חזיון מה לך איפוא כי עלית כולך לגגות תשואות מלאה עיר הומיה קריה עליזה חלליך לא חללי חרב ולא מתי מלחמה אף בהקב"ה נאמר (ישעיהו כב, ה) מקרקר קיר ושוע אל ההר:,משנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה כו' אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב כשם שמשנכנס אב ממעטין בשמחה כך משנכנס אדר מרבין בשמחה 29a. bYou want to destroy the Temple; I have given you your hand.It is as though one idol said to the other: You are seeking to destroy the Temple by causing Israel to pray to you; I, too, give you a hand to assist you.,§ The mishna taught: bOn the Ninth of Av, it was decreed upon our ancestors that they would not enter EretzYisrael. The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive this? bAs it is written: “And it came to pass in the first month in the second year, on the first day of the month, that the Tabernacle was erected”(Exodus 40:17). bAnd the Master said:In the bfirst yearafter leaving Egypt, bMoses built the Tabernacle.At the beginning of the bsecondyear, bMoses erected the Tabernacle and sentthe bspies. And it is written: “And it came to pass in the second year in the second month, on the twentieth day of the month, that the cloud was taken up from the Tabernacle of the Testimony”(Numbers 10:11)., bAnd it isfurther bwritten: “And they set forward from the mount of the Lord three days’ journey”(Numbers 10:33). bRabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said: Thatvery bday, they turned away from Godby displaying their anxiety about leaving Mount Sinai. bAnd it is written: “And the mixed multitude that was among them fell a lusting, and the children of Israel also wept on their part,and said: Would that we were given flesh to eat” (Numbers 11:4). bAnd it is writtenthat the Jews ate the meat b“for an entire month”(Numbers 11:20). If one adds to the first twenty days an additional three days’ journey, bthese aretwenty-three days. Consequently, the subsequent month of twenty-nine days of eating meat ended bon the twenty-second of Sivan. /b,After this, the Jews traveled to Hazeroth, where Miriam was afflicted with leprosy, band it is written: “And Miriam was shut out of the camp for seven days,and the people did not journey until Miriam was brought in again” (Numbers 12:15). Including btheseseven days, they remained in Hazeroth until bthe twenty-ninth of Sivanbefore traveling on to Paran, band it is writtenimmediately afterward: b“Send you men, that they may spy out the land of Canaan”(Numbers 13:2)., bAndthis calculation bis taughtin a ibaraita /i: bOn the twenty-ninth of Sivan, Moses sentthe bspies. And it is written: “And they returned from spying out the land at the end of forty days”(Numbers 13:25), which means that they came back on the Ninth of Av. The Gemara asks: bThese are forty days minus one.The remaining days of the days of Sivan, the entire month of Tammuz, and eight days of Av add up to a total of thirty-nine days, not forty., bAbaye said: The month of Tammuz of that year was a fullmonth of thirty days. Accordingly, there are exactly forty days until the Ninth of Av. bAndthis is alluded to in the following verse, bas it is written: “He has called an appointed time against me to crush my young men”(Lamentations 1:15). This indicates that an additional appointed day, i.e., a New Moon, was added so that this calamity would fall specifically on the Ninth of Av., bAnd it isfurther bwritten: “And all the congregation lifted up their voice and cried and the people wept that night”(Numbers 14:1). bRabba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: That night was the night of the Ninth of Av. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to them: You wept needlesslythat night, band Iwill therefore bestablish for youa true tragedy over which there will be bweeping infuture bgenerations. /b,§ The mishna further taught that on the Ninth of Av bthe Temple was destroyed the first time.The Gemara explains that this is bas it is written: “And in the fifth month, on the seventh day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, a servant of the King of Babylon, came to Jerusalem. And he burnt the house of the Lord”(II Kings 25:8–9). bAnd it isalso bwritten: “And in the fifth month, on the tenth day of the month, which was the nineteenth year of King Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon, Nebuzaradan, captain of the guard, who served the king of Babylon, came into Jerusalem.And he burnt the house of the Lord” (Jeremiah 52:12–13)., bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIt is impossible to saythat the Temple was burned bon the seventhof Av, bas it has already been stated,in Jeremiah, that it was destroyed bon the tenth. And it isalso bimpossible to saythat the Temple was burned bon the tenthof Av, bas it has already been statedthat it was destroyed bon the seventh,in II Kings 25:8–9. bHow so;what actually occurred? bOn the seventhof Av, bgentiles entered the Sanctuary, and on the seventh and the eighth they atethere band desecrated it,by engaging in acts of fornication., bAndon bthe ninth, adjacent to nightfall, they set fire to it, and it continuously burned the entire day, as it is stated: “Woe unto us, for the day has declined, for the shadows of the evening are stretched out”(Jeremiah 4:6). This verse is interpreted as a prophecy about the evening when the Temple was burned. bAnd this iswhat bRabbi Yoḥameant when he bsaid: Had I beenalive bin that generation, I would have establishedthe fast bonly on the tenthof Av bbecause most of the Sanctuary was burned on thatday. bAnd the Sages,who established the fast on the ninth, how do they respond to that comment? They maintain that it is bpreferableto mark bthe beginning of the tragedy. /b, bAndthe mishna further taught that the Temple was destroyed bfor the second timealso on the Ninth of Av. The Gemara asks: bFrom where do wederive that the Second Temple was destroyed on this date? bIt is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bA meritoriousmatter bis brought about on an auspicious day, and a deleteriousmatter bon an inauspicious day,e.g., the Ninth of Av, on which several tragedies had already occurred.,The Sages bsaid: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, that day was the Ninth of Av; and it was the conclusion of Shabbat; and it was the year after a Sabbatical Year; and it was the week of the priestly watch of Jehoiarib; and the Levites were singingthe bsong and standing on their platform. And what song were they singing?They were singing the verse: b“And He brought upon them their own iniquity, and He will cut them off in their own evil”(Psalms 94:23). bAnd they did not manage to recitethe end of the verse: b“The Lord our God will cut them off,” before gentiles came and conquered them. And likewise,the same happened bwhen the SecondTemple was destroyed.,The mishna teaches that bBeitar was capturedon the Ninth of Av. The Gemara explains that this is known by btradition. /b,§ The mishna taught that on the Ninth of Av bthe cityof Jerusalem bwas plowed. It is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bWhen the wicked Turnus Rufus plowed the Sanctuary, a decree was issued against Rabban Gamliel for execution. A certain Roman officer came and stood in the study hall and saidsurreptitiously: bThe man with the nose is wanted; the man with the nose is wanted.This was a hint that Rabban Gamliel, who stood out in his generation like a nose protruding from a face, was sought by the government. Rabban Gamliel bheard and went into hiding. /b,The Roman officer bwent to him in private, and said to him: If I save youfrom death, will byou bring me into the World-to-Come?Rabban Gamliel bsaid to him: Yes.The officer bsaid toRabban Gamliel: bSwear to me. He swore to him.The officer bascended to the roof, fell, and died. Andthe Romans had ba tradition that when they issued a decree and oneof their advisors bdied, they would cancel the decree.The officer’s sacrifice saved Rabban Gamliel’s life. bA Divine Voice emerged and said: That officer is designated forthe blife of the World-to-Come. /b, bThe Sages taught: When the Temple was destroyed for the first time, many groups of young priests gathered together with the Temple keys in their hands. And they ascended to the roof of the Sanctuary and said beforeGod: bMaster of the Universe, since we did not merit to be faithful treasurers,and the Temple is being destroyed, bletthe Temple bkeys be handed to You. And they threw them upward, and a kind of palm of a hand emerged and receivedthe keys bfrom them. And the young priests jumpedfrom the roof band fell into the fireof the burning Temple., bAnd the prophet Isaiah lamented over them: “The burden of the Valley of Vision. What ails you now that you have all gone up to the roofs? You that were full of uproar, a tumultuous city, a joyous town, your slain are not slain with the sword, nor dead in battle”(Isaiah 22:1–2). This is referring to the young priests who died by throwing themselves off the roof into the fire. bAnd even with regard to the Holy One, Blessed be He, it is stated:“For it is a day of trouble, and of trampling, and of confusion for the Lord of hosts, in the Valley of Vision; ba shouting over walls and a cry to the mountain”(Isaiah 22:5). This verse indicates that even God shouts over the destruction of the Temple.,§ The mishna teaches that bfrom whenthe month of bAv begins, one decreasesacts of brejoicing. Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: Just as when Av begins one decreases rejoicing, so too whenthe month of bAdar begins, one increases rejoicing. /b


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
aggadah, halakhah compared with Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
albeck, chanoch Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 316
babylonian exilarch Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 53
babylonian talmud (bavli), radical treatment of a tradition Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
baron, salo Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
beduta Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
christianity Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (2013) 181
david, davidic origin / descent Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
david Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 53; Visnjic, The Invention of Duty: Stoicism as Deontology (2021) 94, 97; Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
eliezer Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 53
eliezer b. arakh Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 53
elon, menachem Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
emmaus Sigal, The Halakhah of Jesus of Nazareth According to the Gospel of Matthew (2007) 53
exilarch Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
halakhah, aggadah compared with Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
halakhah, terminology of Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
hillel Visnjic, The Invention of Duty: Stoicism as Deontology (2021) 94, 97
jesus Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
judah ha-nasi Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (2013) 181
judaism, rabbinic judaism Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
matrilineal Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
messiah Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
neusner, jacob Visnjic, The Invention of Duty: Stoicism as Deontology (2021) 94
onias Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (2013) 181
patriarch Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
patriarchate Visnjic, The Invention of Duty: Stoicism as Deontology (2021) 97
primogeniture Tropper, Simeon the Righteous in Rabbinic Literature: A Legend Reinvented (2013) 181
rabbis, as philosophers Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 84
rabbis / rabbinic judaism Witter et al., Torah, Temple, Land: Constructions of Judaism in Antiquity (2021) 292
schools, handling of succession' Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 84
schools Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 84
stemberger, günter Borowitz, The Talmud's Theological Language-Game: A Philosophical Discourse Analysis (2006) 246
stern, sacha Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 316