| 1. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 180 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.13-4.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 37| 4.13. "וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃", 4.14. "וְנוֹדְעָה הַחַטָּאת אֲשֶׁר חָטְאוּ עָלֶיהָ וְהִקְרִיבוּ הַקָּהָל פַּר בֶּן־בָּקָר לְחַטָּאת וְהֵבִיאוּ אֹתוֹ לִפְנֵי אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.15. "וְסָמְכוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְשָׁחַט אֶת־הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃", 4.16. "וְהֵבִיא הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִדַּם הַפָּר אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.17. "וְטָבַל הַכֹּהֵן אֶצְבָּעוֹ מִן־הַדָּם וְהִזָּה שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֵת פְּנֵי הַפָּרֹכֶת׃", 4.18. "וּמִן־הַדָּם יִתֵּן עַל־קַרְנֹת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֲשֶׁר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְאֵת כָּל־הַדָּם יִשְׁפֹּךְ אֶל־יְסוֹד מִזְבַּח הָעֹלָה אֲשֶׁר־פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.19. "וְאֵת כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה׃", 4.21. "וְהוֹצִיא אֶת־הַפָּר אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הוּא׃", | 4.13. "And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:", 4.14. "when the sin wherein they have sinned is known, then the assembly shall offer a young bullock for a sin-offering, and bring it before the tent of meeting.", 4.15. "And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD; and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD.", 4.16. "And the anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bullock to the tent of meeting.", 4.17. "And the priest shall dip his finger in the blood, and sprinkle it seven times before the LORD, in front of the veil.", 4.18. "And he shall put of the blood upon the horns of the altar which is before the LORD, that is in the tent of meeting, and all the remaining blood shall he pour out at the base of the altar of burnt-offering, which is at the door of the tent of meeting.", 4.19. "And all the fat thereof shall he take off from it, and make it smoke upon the altar.", 4.20. "Thus shall he do with the bullock; as he did with the bullock of the sin-offering, so shall he do with this; and the priest shall make atonement for them, and they shall be forgiven.", 4.21. "And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bullock; it is the sin-offering for the assembly.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 16.18, 17.15, 29.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28, 45, 180| 16.18. "שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן־לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת־הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶדֶק׃", 17.15. "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃", 29.18. "וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃", | 16.18. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.", 17.15. "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.", 29.18. "and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: ‘I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart—that the watered be swept away with the dry’;", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24, 25| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 20.25 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 20.25. "וַיֵּשֶׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל־מוֹשָׁבוֹ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם אֶל־מוֹשַׁב הַקִּיר וַיָּקָם יְהוֹנָתָן וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְנֵר מִצַּד שָׁאוּל וַיִּפָּקֵד מְקוֹם דָּוִד׃", | 20.25. "And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, upon a seat by the wall: and Yehonatan, arose, and Avner sat by Sha᾽ul’s side, and David’s place was empty.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.19 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24| 7.19. "הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר׃", | 7.19. "Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.", |
|
| 7. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 8.2-8.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25 |
| 8. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 9. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 3.16, 10.1, 15.5-15.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 63, 180 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 3.16, 10.1, 15.5-15.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 63, 180 |
| 13. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 6.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28 |
14. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 17.77.4 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 68 | 17.77.4. It seemed to Alexander that he had accomplished his objective and now held his kingdom without contest, and he began to imitate the Persian luxury and the extravagant display of the kings of Asia. First he installed ushers of Asiatic race in his court, and then he ordered the most distinguished persons to act as his guards; among these was Dareius' brother Oxathres. |
|
15. Mishnah, Horayot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36, 37| 1.4. "הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן טוֹעִין אַתֶּם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֻפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אַחַד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה לוֹ בָנִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֵדָה (ויקרא ד) וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר לה) עֵדָה, מָה עֵדָה הָאֲמוּר לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִין לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף עֵדָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִים לְהוֹרָאָה. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִים וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין פָּר. מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", | 1.4. "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.", |
|
16. New Testament, John, 1.1, 2.17-2.21 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 1.1. ΕΝ ΑΡΧΗ ἦν ὁ λόγος, καὶ ὁ λόγος ἦν πρὸς τὸν θεόν, καὶ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. 2.17. Ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστίν Ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με. 2.18. Ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ Τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν, ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; 2.19. ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ [ἐν] τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. 2.20. εἶπαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν; 2.21. ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ. | 1.1. In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2.17. His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will eat me up." 2.18. The Jews therefore answered him, "What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?" 2.19. Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 2.20. The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?" 2.21. But he spoke of the temple of his body. |
|
17. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 63, 180| 4.4. "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", | 4.4. "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.", |
|
18. New Testament, Galatians, 3.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 3.28. οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. | 3.28. There is neither Jewnor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither malenor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. |
|
19. New Testament, Luke, 21.5-21.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 21.5. Καί τινων λεγόντων περὶ τοῦ ἱεροῦ, ὅτι λίθοις καλοῖς καὶ ἀναθήμασιν κεκόσμηται, 21.6. εἶπεν Ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὧδε ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται. 21.7. ἐπηρώτησαν δὲ αὐτὸν λέγοντες Διδάσκαλε, πότε οὖν ταῦτα ἔσται, καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον ὅταν μέλλῃ ταῦτα γίνεσθαι; | 21.5. As some were talking about the temple and how it was decorated with beautiful stones and gifts, he said, 21.6. "As for these things which you see, the days will come, in which there will not be left here one stone on another that will not be thrown down." 21.7. They asked him, "Teacher, so when will these things be? What is the sign that these things are about to happen?" |
|
20. New Testament, Mark, 13.1-13.2 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 13.1. Καὶ ἐκπορευομένου αὐτοῦ ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ λέγει αὐτῷ εἷς τῶν μαθητῶν αὐτοῦ Διδάσκαλε, ἴδε ποταποὶ λίθοι καὶ ποταπαὶ οἰκοδομαί. 13.2. καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς εἶπεν αὐτῷ Βλέπεις ταύτας τὰς μεγάλας οἰκοδομάς; οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ μὴ καταλυθῇ . | 13.1. As he went out out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, "Teacher, see what kind of stones and what kind of buildings!" 13.2. Jesus said to him, "Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone on another, which will not be thrown down." |
|
21. New Testament, Matthew, 24.1-24.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 24.1. Καὶ ἐξελθὼν ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀπὸ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ἐπορεύετο, καὶ προσῆλθον οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπιδεῖξαι αὐτῷ τὰς οἰκοδομὰς τοῦ ἱεροῦ· 24.2. ὁ δὲ ἀποκριθεὶς εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Οὐ βλέπετε ταῦτα πάντα; ἀμὴν λέγω ὑμῖν, οὐ μὴ ἀφεθῇ ὧδε λίθος ἐπὶ λίθον ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται. 24.3. Καθημένου δὲ αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τοῦ Ὄρους τῶν Ἐλαιῶν προσῆλθον αὐτῷ οἱ μαθηταὶ κατʼ ἰδίαν λέγοντες Εἰπὸν ἡμῖν πότε ταῦτα ἔσται, καὶ τί τὸ σημεῖον τῆς σῆς παρουσίας καὶ συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος. | 24.1. Jesus went out from the temple, and was going on his way. His disciples came to him to show him the buildings of the temple. 24.2. But he answered them, "Don't you see all of these things? Most assuredly I tell you, there will not be left here one stone on another, that will not be thrown down." 24.3. As he sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to him privately, saying, "Tell us, when will these things be? What is the sign of your coming, and of the end of the age?" |
|
22. New Testament, Romans, 10.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •temple, destruction of, great court of Found in books: Avery Peck et al. (2014) 268| 10.12. οὐ γάρ ἐστιν διαστολὴ Ἰουδαίου τε καὶ Ἕλληνος, ὁ γὰρ αὐτὸς κύριος πάντων, πλουτῶν εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἐπικαλουμένους αὐτόν· | 10.12. For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, and is rich to all who call on him. |
|
23. Plutarch, Alexander The Great, 43.3, 45.1, 54.2-54.55, 74.1-74.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 68, 69| 43.3. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ὡς ἐπῆλθεν, ἀλγῶν τε τῷ πάθει φανερὸς ἦν καὶ τὴν ἑαυτοῦ χλαμύδα λύσας ἐπέβαλε τῷ σώματι καὶ περιέστειλε, καὶ Βῆσσον μὲν ὕστερον εὑρὼν διεσφενδόνησεν, ὀρθίων δένδρων εἰς ταὐτὸ καμφθέντων ἐκατέρῳ μέρος προσαρτήσας τοῦ σώματος, εἶτα μεθεὶς ἑκάτερον, ὡς ὥρμητο ῥύμῃ φερόμενον, τὸ προσῆκον αὐτῷ μέρος νείμασθαι. τότε δὲ τοῦ Δαρείου τὸ μὲν σῶμα κεκοσμημένον βασιλικῶς πρὸς τὴν μητέρα ἀπέστειλε, τὸν δὲ ἀδελφὸν Ἐξάθρην εἰς τοὺς ἑταίρους ἀνέλαβεν. 45.1. ἐντεῦθεν εἰς τήν Παρθικὴν ἀναζεύξας καὶ σχολάζων πρῶτον ἐνεδύσατο τήν βαρβαρικὴν στολὴν, εἴτε βουλόμενος αὑτὸν συνοικειοῦν τοῖς ἐπιχωρίοις νόμοις, ὡς μέγα πρὸς ἐξημέρωσιν ἀνθρώπων τὸ σύνηθες καὶ ὁμόφυλον, εἴτʼ ἀπόπειρά τις ὑφεῖτο τῆς προσκυνήσεως αὕτη τοῖς Μακεδόσι, κατὰ μικρὸν ἀνασχέσθαι τήν ἐκδιαίτησιν αὐτοῦ καὶ μεταβολὴν ἐθιζομένοις, 54.2. ἀλλὰ τήν γε προσκύνησιν ἰσχυρῶς ἀπωσάμενος καὶ φιλοσόφως, καὶ μόνος ἐν φανερῷ διελθὼν ἃ κρύφα πάντες οἱ βέλτιστοι καὶ πρεσβύτατοι τῶν Μακεδόνων ἠγανάκτουν, τοὺς μὲν Ἕλληνας αἰσχύνης ἀπήλλαξε μεγάλης, καὶ μείζονος Ἀλέξανδρον, ἀποτρέψας τήν προσκύνησιν, αὑτὸν δὲ ἀπώλεσεν, ἐκβιάσασθαι δοκῶν μᾶλλον ἢ πεῖσαι τὸν βασιλέα. 54.3. Χάρης δὲ ὁ Μιτυληναῖός φησι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον ἐν τῷ συμποσίῳ πιόντα φιάλην προτεῖναί τινι τῶν φίλων· τὸν δὲ δεξάμενον πρὸς ἑστίαν ἀναστῆναι καὶ πιόντα προσκυνῆσαι πρῶτον, εἶτα φιλῆσαι τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, καὶ κατακλιθῆναι. 54.4. πάντων δὲ τοῦτο ποιούντων ἐφεξῆς τὸν Καλλισθένην λαβόντα τήν φιάλην, οὐ προσέχοντος τοῦ βασιλέως, Ἀλλὰ Ἡφαιστίωνι προσδιαλεγομένου, πιόντα προσιέναι φιλήσοντα, Δημητρίου δὲ τοῦ προσονομαζομένου Φείδωνος εἰπόντος, ὦ βασιλεῦ, μὴ φιλήσῃς οὗτος γάρ σε μόνος οὐ προσεκύνησε, διακλῖναι τὸ φίλημα τὸν Ἀλέξανδρον, τὸν δὲ Καλλισθένη μέγα φθεγξάμενον εἰπεῖν· φιλήματι τοίνυν ἔλασσον ἔχων ἄπειμι. 74.1. ταῦτα ἀκούσας ὁ Ἀλέξανδρος τὸν μὲν ἄνθρωπον, ὥσπερ ἐκέλευον οἱ μάντεις, ἠφάνισεν αὐτὸς δὲ ἠθύμει καὶ δύσελπις ἦν πρὸς τὸ θεῖον ἤδη καὶ πρὸς τοὺς φίλους ὕποπτος, Μάλιστα δὲ Ἀντίπατρον ἐφοβεῖτο καὶ τοὺς παῖδας, ὧν Ἰόλας μὲν ἀρχιοινοχόος ἦν, ὁ δὲ Κάσανδρος ἀφῖκτο μὲν νεωστί, θεασάμενος δὲ βαρβάρους τινὰς προσκυνοῦντας, ἅτε δὴ τεθραμμένος Ἑλληνικῶς καὶ τοιοῦτο πρότερον μηδὲν ἑωρακώς, ἐγέλασε προπετέστερον. 74.2. ὁ δὲ Ἀλέξανδρος ὠργίσθη, καὶ δραξάμενος αὐτοῦ τῶν τριχῶν σφόδρα ταῖς χερσὶν ἀμφοτέραις ἔπαισε τὴν κεφαλὴν πρὸς τὸν τοῖχον. αὖθις δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κατηγοροῦντας Ἀντιπάτρου λέγειν τι βουλόμενον τὸν Κάσανδρον ἐκκρούων, τί λέγεις; ἔφη, τοσαύτην ὁδὸν ἀνθρώπους μηδὲν ἀδικουμένους, ἀλλὰ συκοφαντοῦντας ἐλθεῖν; | 43.3. When Alexander came up, he was manifestly distressed by what had happened, and unfastening his own cloak threw it upon the body and covered it. And when, at a later time, In the spring of 329 B.C. Cf. Arrian, Anab. iii. 30, 5 ; iv. 7, 3 ff . he found Bessus, he had him rent asunder. Two straight trees were bent together and a part of his body fastened to each; then when each was released and sprang vigorously back, the part of the body that was attached to it followed after. Now, however, he sent the body of Dareius, laid out in royal state, to his mother, To Persepolis, with orders that it should be buried in the royal sepulchre ( Arrian, Anab. iii. 22, 1 ). and admitted his brother, Exathres, into the number of his companions. 45.1. From thence he marched into Parthia, In the early autumn of 330 B.C. where, during a respite from fighting, he first put on the barbaric dress, either from a desire to adapt himself to the native customs, believing that community of race and custom goes far towards softening the hearts of men; or else this was an attempt to introduce the obeisance Prostration on the ground before a great personage, a peculiarly Persian custom. among the Macedonians, by accustoming them little by little to put up with changes and alterations in his mode of life. 54.2. But in the matter of the obeisance, at least, by refusing sturdily and like a philosopher to perform the act, and by standing forth alone and rehearsing in public the reasons for the indignation which all the oldest and best of the Macedonians cherished in secret, he delivered the Greeks from a great disgrace, and Alexander from a greater, by leading him not to insist upon the obeisance; but he destroyed himself, because he was thought to use force rather than persuasion with the king. 54.3. Chares of Mitylene says that once at a banquet Alexander, after drinking, handed the cup to one of his friends, and he, on receiving it, rose up so as to face the household shrine, and when he had drunk, first made obeisance to Alexander, then kissed him, and then resumed his place upon the couch. 54.4. As all the guests were doing this in turn, Callisthenes took the cup, the king not paying attention, but conversing with Hephaestion, and after he had drunk went towards the king to kiss him; but Demetrius, surnamed Pheido, cried: O King, do not accept his kiss, for he alone has not done thee obeisance. So Alexander declined the kiss, at which Callisthenes exclaimed in a loud voice: Well, then, I’ll go away the poorer by a kiss. Cf. Arrian, Anab. iv. 12. 74.1. On hearing of this, Alexander put the man out of the way, as the seers directed; but he began to be low-spirited, and was distrustful now of the favour of Heaven and suspicious of his friends. He was particularly afraid of Antipater and of his sons, one of whom, Iolas, was his chief cupbearer; the other, Cassander, had only recently come to Babylon, and when he saw some Barbarians doing obeisance to Alexander, since he had been reared as a Greek and had never seen such a sight as this before, he laughed boisterously. 74.2. But Alexander was enraged, and clutching him fiercely by the hair with both hands dashed his head against the wall. And at another time, when Cassander would have said something in opposition to those who were bringing charges against Antipater, Alexander interrupted him, saying: What meanest thou? Would men come so long a journey if they had not been wronged and were making false charges? |
|
24. Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 4.1.3-4.1.5, 4.10.5-4.10.12, 4.12.1-4.12.2, 6.29.4-6.29.11 (1st cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 68, 69| 4.1.3. αὐτὸς δὲ πρὸς τῷ Τανάϊδι ποταμῷ ἐπενόει πόλιν οἰκίσαι, καὶ ταύτην ἑαυτοῦ ἐπώνυμον. ὅ τε γὰρ χῶρος ἐπιτήδειος αὐτῷ ἐφαίνετο αὐξῆσαι ἐπὶ μέγα τὴν πόλιν καὶ ἐν καλῷ οἰκισθήσεσθαι τῆς ἐπὶ Σκύθας, εἴποτε ξυμβαίνοι, ἐλάσεως καὶ τῆς προφυλακῆς τῆς χώρας πρὸς τὰς καταδρομὰς τῶν πέραν τοῦ ποταμοῦ ἐποικούντων βαρβάρων. 4.1.4. ἐδόκει δʼ ἂν καὶ μεγάλη γενέσθαι ἡ πόλις πλήθει τε τῶν ἐς αὐτὴν ξυνοικιζομένων καὶ τοῦ ὀνόματος τῇ λαμπρότητι. καὶ ἐν τούτῳ οἱ πρόσχωροι τῷ ποταμῷ βάρβαροι τούς τε τὰ φρούρια ἐν ταῖς πόλεσι σφῶν ἔχοντας στρατιώτας τῶν Μακεδόνων ξυλλαβόντες ἀπέκτειναν καὶ τᾶς πόλεις ἐς ἀσφάλειάν τινα μᾶλλον ὠχύρουν. 4.1.5. ξυνεπελάβοντο δὲ αὐτοῖς τῆς ἀποστάσεως καὶ τῶν Σογδιανῶν οἱ πολλοί, ἐπαρθέντες πρὸς τῶν ξυλλαβόντων Βῆσσον, ὥστε καὶ τῶν Βακτριανῶν ἔστιν οὕς σφισιν οὗτοι ξυναπέστησαν, εἴτε δὴ καὶ δείσαντες Ἀλέξανδρον, εἴτε καὶ λόγον ἐπὶ τῇ ἀποστάσει διδόντες, ὅτι ἐς ἕνα ξύλλογον ἐπηγγέλκει Ἀλέξανδρος ξυνελθεῖν τοὺς ὑπάρχους τῆς χώρας ἐκείνης εἰς Ζαρίασπα, τὴν μεγίστην πόλιν, ὡς ἐπʼ ἀγαθῷ οὐδενὶ τοῦ ξυλλόγου γιγνομένου. 4.10.5. ὑπὲρ δὲ τῆς προσκυνήσεως ὅπως ἠναντιώθη Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, καὶ τοῖόσδε κατέχει λόγος. ξυγκεῖσθαι μὲν γὰρ τῷ Ἀλεξάνδρῳ πρὸς τοὺς σοφιστάς τε καὶ τοὺς ἀμφʼ αὐτὸν Περσῶν καὶ Μήδων τοὺς δοκιμωτάτους μνήμην τοῦ λόγου τοῦδε ἐν πότῳ ἐμβαλεῖν· 4.10.6. ἄρξαι δὲ τοῦ λόγου Ἀνάξαρχον, ὡς πολὺ δικαιότερον ἂν θεὸν νομιζόμενον Ἀλέξανδρον Διονύσου τε καὶ Ἡρακλέους, μὴ ὅτι τῶν ἔργων ἕνεκα ὅσα καὶ ἡλίκα καταπέπρακται Ἀλεξάνδρῳ, ἀλλὰ καὶ ὅτι Διόνυσος μὲν Θηβαῖος ἦν, οὐδέν τι προσήκων Μακεδόσι, καὶ Ἡρακλῆς Ἀργεῖος, οὐδὲ οὗτος προσήκων ὅτι μὴ κατὰ γένος τὸ Ἀλεξάνδρου· Ἡρακλείδην γὰρ εἶναι Ἀλέξανδρον· 4.10.7. Μακεδόνας δὲ ἂν τὸν σφῶν βασιλέα δικαιότερον θείαις τιμαῖς κοσμοῦντας. καὶ γὰρ οὐδὲ ἐκεῖνο εἶναι ἀμφίλογον ὅτι ἀπελθόντα γε ἐξ ἀνθρώπων ὡς θεὸν τιμήσουσι· πόσῳ δὴ δικαιότερον ζῶντα γεραίρειν ἤπερ τελευτήσαντα ἐς οὐδὲν ὄφελος τῷ τιμωμένῳ. λεχθέντων δὲ τούτων τε καὶ τοιούτων λόγων 4.12.1. ταῦτα δὴ καὶ τοιαῦτα εἰπόντα Καλλισθένην ἀνιᾶσαι μὲν μεγαλωστὶ Ἀλέξανδρον, Μακεδόσι δὲ πρὸς θυμοῦ εἰπεῖν. καὶ τοῦτο γνόντα Ἀλέξανδρον πέμψαντα κωλῦσαι [Μακεδόνας] μεμνῆσθαι ἔτι τῆς προσκυνήσεως. 4.12.2. ἀλλὰ σιγῆς γὰρ γενομένης ἐπὶ τοῖς λόγοις ἀναστάντας Περσῶν τοὺς πρεσβυτάτους ἐφεξῆς προσκυνεῖν. Λεοννάτον δέ, ἕνα τῶν ἑταίρων, ἐπειδή τις ἐδόκει τῶν Περσῶν αὐτῷ οὐκ ἐν κόσμῳ προσκυνῆσαι, τὸν δὲ ἐπιγελάσαι τῷ σχήματι τοῦ Περσοῦ ὡς ταπεινῷ· καὶ τούτῳ χαλεπήναντα τότε Ἀλέξανδρον ξυναλλαγῆναι αὖθις. ἀναγέγραπται δὲ δὴ καὶ τοῖόσδε λόγος. 6.29.4. ἐλύπησε δὲ αὐτὸν ἡ παρανομία ἡ ἐς τὸν Κύρου τοῦ Καμβύσου τάφον, ὅτι διορωρυγμένον τε καὶ σεσυλημένον κατέλαβε τοῦ Κύρου τὸν τάφον, ὡς λέγει Aristob. fr. 37 Ἀριστόβουλος. εἶναι γὰρ ἐν Πασαργάδαις ἐν τᾷ παραδείσῳ τῷ βασιλικῷ Κύρου ἐκείνου τάφον καὶ περὶ αὐτὸν ἄλσος πεφυτεῦσθαι δένδρων παντοίων καὶ ὕδατι εἶναι κατάρρυτον καὶ πόαν βαθεῖαν πεφυκέναι ἐν τῷ λειμῶνι, καὶ αὐτὸν δὲ τὸν τάφον τὰ κάτω λίθου τετραπέδου ἐς τετράγωνον σχῆμα πεποιῆσθαι, 6.29.5. ἄνωθεν δὲ οἴκημα ἐπεῖναι λίθινον ἐστεγασμένον, θυρίδα ἔχον φέρουσαν ἔσω στενήν, ὡς μόλις ἂν εἶναι ἑνὶ ἀνδρὶ οὐ μεγάλῳ πολλὰ κακοπαθοῦντι παρελθεῖν. ἐν δὲ τῷ οἰκήματι πύελον χρυσῆν κεῖσθαι, ἵνα τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κύρου ἐτέθαπτο, καὶ κλίνην παρὰ τῇ πυέλῳ· πόδας δὲ εἶναι τῇ κλίνῃ χρυσοῦς σφυρηλάτους καὶ τάπητα ἐπίβλημα τῶν Βαβυλωνίων καὶ καυνάκας πορφυροῦς ὑποστρώματα. 6.29.6. ἐπεῖναι δὲ καὶ κάνδυς καὶ ἄλλους χιτῶνας τῆς Βαβυλωνίου ἐργασίας. καὶ ἀναξυρίδες Μηδικαὶ καὶ στολαὶ ὑακινθινοβαφεῖς λέγει ὅτι ἔκειντο, αἱ δὲ πορφύρας αἱ δὲ ἄλλης καὶ ἄλλης χρόας, καὶ στρεπτοὶ καὶ ἀκινάκαι καὶ ἐνώτια χρυσοῦ τε καὶ λίθων κολλητά, καὶ τράπεζα ἔκειτο. ἐν μέσῳ δὲ τῆς κλίνης ἡ πύελος ἔκειτο ἡ τὸ σῶμα τὸ Κύρου ἔχουσα. 6.29.7. εἶναι δὲ ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου πρὸς τῇ ἀναβάσει τῇ ἐπὶ τὸν τάφον φερούσῃ οἴκημα σμικρὸν τοῖς Μάγοις πεποιημένον, οἳ δὴ ἐφύλασσον τὸν Κύρου τάφον ἔτι ἀπὸ Καμβύσου τοῦ Κύρου, παῖς παρὰ πατρὸς ἐκδεχόμενος τὴν φυλακήν. καὶ τούτοις πρόβατόν τε ἐς ἡμέραν ἐδίδοτο ἐκ βασιλέως καὶ ἀλεύρων τε καὶ οἴνου τεταγμένα καὶ ἵππος κατὰ μῆνα ἐς θυσίαν τῷ Κύρῳ. 6.29.8. ἐπεγέγραπτο δὲ ὁ τάφος Περσικοῖς γράμμασι· καὶ ἐδήλου Περσιστὶ τάδε· ὦ ἄνθρωπε, ἐγὼ Κῦρός εἰμι ὁ Καμβύσου ὁ τὴν ἀρχὴν Πέρσαις καταστησάμενος καὶ τῆς Ἀσίας βασιλεύσας. μὴ οὖν φθονήσῃς μοι τοῦ μνήματος. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ʽἐπιμελὲς γὰρ ἦν αὐτῷ, 6.29.9. ὁπότε ἕλοι Πέρσας, παριέναι ἐς τοῦ Κύρου τὸν τάφονʼ τὰ μὲν ἄλλα καταλαμβάνει ἐκπεφορημένα πλὴν τῆς πυέλου καὶ τῆς κλίνης· οἱ δὲ καὶ τὸ σῶμα τοῦ Κύρου ἐλωβήσαντο ἀφελόντες τὸ πῶμα τῆς πυέλου καὶ τὸν νεκρὸν ἐξέβαλον· αὐτὴν δὲ τὴν πύελον ἐπειρῶντο εὔογκόν σφισι ποιήσασθαι καὶ ταύτῃ εὔφορον τὰ μὲν παρακόπτοντες, τὰ δὲ ξυνθλῶντες αὐτῆς. ὡς δὲ οὐ προ ὐ χώρει αὐτοῖς τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον, οὕτω δὴ ἐάσαντες τὴν πύελον ἀπῆλθον. 6.29.10. καὶ λέγει Ἀριστόβουλος αὐτὸς ταχθῆναι πρὸς Ἀλεξάνδρου κοσμῆσαι ἐξ ὑπαρχῆς τῷ Κύρῳ τὸν τάφον. καὶ τοῦ μὲν σώματος ὅσαπερ ἔτι σῶα ἦν καταθεῖναι ἐς τὴν πύελον καὶ τὸ πῶμα ἐπιθεῖναι, ὅσα δὲ λελώβητο αὐτῆς κατορθῶσαι· καὶ τὴν κλίνην ἐντεῖναι ταινίαις καὶ τἆλλα ὅσα ἐς κόσμον ἔκειτο κατὰ ἀριθμόν τε καὶ τοῖς πάλαι ὅμοια ἀποθεῖναι καὶ τὴν θυρίδα δὲ ἀφανίσαι τὰ μὲν αὐτῆς λίθῳ ἐνοικοδομήσαντα, τὰ δὲ πηλῷ ἐμπλάσαντα, καὶ ἐπιβαλεῖν τῷ πηλῷ τὸ σημεῖον τὸ βασιλικόν. 6.29.11. Ἀλέξανδρος δὲ ξυλλαβὼν τοὺς Μάγους τοὺς φύλακας τοῦ τάφου ἐστρέβλωσεν, ὡς κατειπεῖν τοὺς δράσαντας, οἱ δὲ οὐδὲν οὔτε σφῶν οὔτε ἄλλου κατεῖπον στρεβλούμενοι, οὐδὲ ἄλλῃ πῃ ἐξηλέγχοντο ξυνειδότες τῷ ἔργῳ· καὶ ἐπὶ τῷδε ἀφείθησαν ἐξ Ἀλεξάνδρου. | |
|
25. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36| 7.5. "בדיני ממונות אומרין נזדקק הדין בדיני נפשות אין אומרין נזדקק הדין והגדול שבדיינים אומר נזדקק הדין אין שואלין מעומד ואין משיבין מעומד לא מגבוה ולא מרחוק ולא מאחורי הזקנים אין שואלין אלא בענין ואין משיבין אלא במדע ולא ישאל השואל בענין יתיר משלש הלכות אחד שואל ואחד אומר שלא לשאול נזקקין לשואל והשואל מעשה צריך שיאמר מעשה אני שואל והשואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין משיבין את השואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין צריך שיאמר שלא כענין שאלתי דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א א\"צ שכל התורה ענין אחד. ענין ושאינו ענין נזקקין לענין מעשה ושאינו מעשה נזקקין למעשה הלכה ומדרש נזקקין להלכה מדרש ואגדה נזקקין למדרש מדרש וק\"ו נזקקין לק\"ו ק\"ו וגזירה שוה נזקקין לק\"ו חכם ותלמיד נזקקין לחכם תלמיד ועם הארץ נזקקין לתלמיד היו שניהם חכמים ושניהם תלמידים ושניהם עמי הארץ שתי הלכות ושתי שאלות ושתי תשובות ושני מעשים הרשות ביד התורגמן מעתה כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים והן ישבו עד שאמר להם שבו כשאב ב\"ד נכנס עושים לו שתי שורות מכאן ומכאן עד שנכנס וישב במקומו חכם שנכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שנכנס וישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שהרבים צריכים להם מקפצן אפילו על ראשי העם ואע\"פ שאמרו אין שבח לתלמיד שיכנס באחרונה יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו בני חכמים תלמידי חכמים בזמן שיש בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי אביהם אין בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי העם ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק אומר בבית המשתה עושים אותן סניפין חכם שנכנס אין שואלין אותו עד שתתישב דעתו נכנס ומצאם כשהם עוסקים בהלכה לא יהא קופץ לתוך דבריהם עד שיודע באיזה ענין הן עוסקים ואם עשה כן על זה נאמר שבעה דברים בגולם. שבע מדות דרש הלל לפני זקני בתירה ק\"ו וגזרה שוה ובנין אב וכתוב אחד ובנין אב ושני כתובים וכלל ופרט וכלל וכיוצא בו ממקום אחר דבר הלמד מענינו אלו שבע מדות שדרש הלל הזקן לפני זקני בתירה. ", | 7.5. "...Hillel the elder expounded seven hermeneutical principles before the elders of Betheira: kal vachomer, gezeirah shavah, shnei kethuvim, kllal ufrat, kayotze bo bemakom acher (\"the same applies elsewhere\" — i.e., binyan av), davar halamed me'inyano (and davar halamed misofo)." |
|
| 26. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 153, 15 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45 |
| 27. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 95 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45 |
| 28. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36 |
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 26a. למאי אתא לכדתניא כיצד היה עושה נותן את הפדר אבית השחיטה ומעלהו וזה הוא דרך כבוד של מעלה, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הפייס השלישי חדשים לקטרת באו והפיסו והרביעי חדשים עם ישנים מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש למזבח, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מ"ט א"ר חנינא מפני שמעשרת,א"ל רב פפא לאביי מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב (דברים לג, י) ישימו קטורה באפך וכתיב בתריה (דברים לג, יא) ברך ה' חילו אי הכי עולה נמי הכתיב (דברים לג, י) וכליל על מזבחך,א"ל הא שכיחא והא לא שכיחא,אמר רבא לא משכחת צורבא מרבנן דמורי אלא דאתי משבט לוי או משבט יששכר לוי דכתיב (דברים לג, י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב יששכר דכתב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) (ובני) יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ואימא יהודה נמי דכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא קאמינא,א"ר יוחנן אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית מיתיבי כשם שמפייסין שחרית כך מפייסין בין הערבים כי תניא ההיא בקטורת,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית אימא לה,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית וכשם שמפייסין לה שחרית כך מפייסין לה ערבית,אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק הכא בשבת עסקינן הואיל ומשמרות מתחדשות,ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא נפישי להו פייסות מייתי כולהו מצפרא אתו דזכי ביה שחרית זכי דזכי בערבית זכי,הרביעי חדשים עם ישנים וכו' מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר המעלה איברים לכבש הוא מעלה אותן למזבח,במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר (משלי יד, כח) ברב עם הדרת מלך ומר סבר מקום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא,אמר רבא לא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אית ליה דרבי יהודה ולא רבי יהודה אית ליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דא"כ בצרו להו פייסות,ואי משכחת תנא דתני חמש | 26a. b what does /b that b come /b to teach us? The Gemara explains: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what manner would /b the priest placing the pieces on the altar b do /b so? b He /b would b place the fat /b right b over the place of slaughter, /b that is, on the cut neck, b and bring it up /b that way, b and that is the /b most b respectful way toward the Most High, /b that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed., strong MISHNA: /strong Before b the third lottery, /b the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are b new to /b offering b the incense /b come and b participate in the lottery /b for the incense. b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine b who /b would b take the limbs up from the ramp, /b where they had been placed earlier, b to the altar. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong A Sage b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b No person ever performed /b the service of the incense b twice, /b as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b It is b because it brings wealth /b to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason /b for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? b If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You /b and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), b and it is written /b immediately b after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” /b (Deuteronomy 33:11), b if so, /b we should b also /b make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of b a burnt-offering, since it is written /b in that same verse: b “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.” /b ,Abaye b said to him: /b There is a difference between the two: b This, /b the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, b is frequent, and that, /b the burning of incense, b is infrequent. /b There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.,Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, b Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives /b halakhic b instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. /b The assertion with regard to the tribe of b Levi /b is b as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordices /b and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of b Issachar /b is b as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” /b (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: b And say /b that scholars come from the tribe of b Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” /b (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement b I was speaking /b only b of those who /b can b draw conclusions according to the i halakha /i . /b Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa said: They did not hold /b a separate b lottery /b for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the b daily afternoon offering. Rather, /b the same b priest who won /b a particular privilege for b the morning /b offering b wins /b the privilege for the corresponding task in the b evening, /b i.e., for the b afternoon /b service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. /b This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: b When that /b i baraita /i b was taught, /b it referred only b to the incense, /b which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.,The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon. /b The masculine pronoun i lo /i indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the i baraita /i and b say: i Lah /i , /b using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine i lo /i , so that it is indeed referring to the incense.,The Gemara asks further: b But wasn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the afternoon. /b This i baraita /i makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering., b Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: /b There is no contradiction. b Here, /b in this last i baraita /i , b we are dealing with Shabbat, /b when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, b since the priestly rotations are renewed /b each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according b to what we thought initially, /b that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, b there would be /b too b many lotteries, /b as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that b all /b the priests b would come /b and assemble just once, b in the morning, /b for both lotteries, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b morning /b offering b would win /b that privilege for the morning only, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b afternoon /b offering b would win /b the privilege for the afternoon.,§ The mishna states: b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned /b in a mishna in tractate i Tamid /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b The priest b who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up /b from the ramp b to the altar. /b In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna discussed here, b holds /b that it is proper to follow the verse: b “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” /b (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. b And one Sage, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, b holds /b that it is b not proper conduct /b in b the place of the Divine Presence /b to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar., b Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, b is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. b And /b conversely, b Rabbi Yehuda is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. /b As, b if it would be so /b that these two Sages agreed with each other, b there would be too few lotteries; /b there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp., b And if you find a i tanna /i /b in a i baraita /i b who teaches /b that there were b five /b lotteries for the Temple service, |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 45| 86b. לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי אימא אף לכהן מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם בלוים קא משתעי קרא ואידך כדר' יהושע ב"ל דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהם (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ור"ע הכא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום יצא כהן שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות ואידך כל היכא דבעי דלא בעי חומה ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף לא לקי,ההיא גינתא דהוה שקיל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעשר ראשון מינה אזל ר"ע אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי אמר עקיבא בתרמילו ואנא חיי,איתמר מפני מה קנסו לוים במעשר פליגי בה רבי יונתן וסביא חד אמר שלא עלו בימי עזרא וח"א כדי שיסמכו כהנים עליו בימי טומאתן,בשלמא למאן דאמר שלא עלו משום הכי קנסינהו אלא למ"ד כדי שיסמכו עליו כהנים בימי טומאתן משום כהנים קנסינהו ללוים אלא כולי עלמא קנסא שלא עלו בימי עזרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר קנסא לעניים ומר סבר כהנים בימי טומאתן עניים נינהו,בשלמא למאן דאמר קנסא לעניים משום הכי אהדריה ר"ע לפתחא לבי קברי אלא למאן דאמר לכהנים אמאי אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי הכי קאמר ליה אי דקא אתית בתורת קנסא אית לך ואי קא אתית בתורת חלוקה לית לך,ומנא לן דלא סליקו בימי עזרא דכתיב (עזרא ח, טו) ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אהוא ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם אמר רב חסדא בתחלה לא היו מעמידים שוטרי' אלא מן הלוים שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יט, יא) ושוטרים הלוים לפניכם עכשיו אין מעמידין שוטרים אלא מישראל שנאמר ושוטרים הרבים בראשיכם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת ישראל שניסת לכהן תאכל בתרומה מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל בתרומה ניסת ללוי תאכל במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל במעשר ניסת לישראל לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר,מת בנה מישראל תאכל במעשר מת בנה מלוי תאכל בתרומה מת בנה מכהן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר | 86b. The first tithe is given b to a priest. /b The Gemara is puzzled: b To a priest and not to a Levite? /b But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: b Say /b he means it can be given b also to a priest. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b for b Rabbi Akiva’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “You shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them” /b (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, b the verse speaks of Levites, /b not priests. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Eliezer, maintains b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15)., b And Rabbi Akiva /b replies: b Here you cannot say /b the verse is referring to priests, b as it is written: “And you may eat it in any place” /b (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to b one who can eat it in any place. /b This b excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, /b as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. b And the other /b Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it b anywhere that he wishes, /b that is, in any city, b as it does not require /b the b wall /b of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. b And /b we further learn from here that b if he eats it in /b a state of b bodily impurity he is not flogged. /b Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, /b a priest, b would take /b the b first tithe, /b in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. b Rabbi Akiva went, /b closed up the garden, and b changed its entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar b said /b in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: b Akiva, /b a former shepherd, comes b with his satchel, but I have to live; /b from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed about the following question: b For what reason did /b the Sages b penalize /b the b Levites with regard to /b their b tithe, /b by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? b Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders /b who were with him b disagree /b with regard to b this /b matter. b One said /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, b in the days of Ezra. And one said /b that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests b so that they /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity. /b Because it is prohibited for priests to consume i teruma /i while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on i teruma /i . It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b we can understand that b due to that /b reason b they penalized /b the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. b But according to the one who says /b it was done b so that the priests /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity, /b should we b penalize the Levites for /b the benefit of b priests? Rather, everyone agrees /b that it was b a penalty /b for the fact b that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage holds /b that the b penalty /b is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, and /b one b Sage holds /b that b priests are /b classified as b poor in the days of their impurity. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, due to that /b reason b Rabbi Akiva changed /b the garden b entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. b But according to the one who says /b the tithe was given b to the priests, why did he change /b the b entrance /b so that it would be b toward the cemetery? /b The Gemara answers: b This is what he said to him, /b i.e., this is what he meant: b If you come /b to receive the tithe b by virtue of /b the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites, b you may have /b it, b but if you come by the /b standard i halakha /i b of distribution, /b demanding your share with the Levites, b you may not have /b the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.,The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: b And from where do we /b derive b that /b the Levites b did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there /b for b three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” /b (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, b Rav Ḥisda said: Initially they would establish officers /b over the people b only from /b among b the Levites, as it states: “And the officers, the Levites, before you” /b (II Chronicles 19:11), but b now they establish officers only from /b among the b Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. /b This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites., strong MISHNA: /strong b An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of i teruma /i . /b If the priest b died and she has a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of i teruma /i . /b If she subsequently b married a Levite, /b she may no longer partake of i teruma /i but b she may partake of /b the first b tithe /b on his account. If he, too, b died and she /b had b a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of tithe /b on account of the child. If she then b married an Israelite, she may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b If her Israelite husband b died and she /b had b a child from him, she /b still b may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b ,If b her child from the Israelite /b also b died, /b while her son from the Levite remained alive, b she may partake of tithe /b on account of the Levite’s child. If b her child from the Levite died, /b leaving her with a son from the priest, b she may /b once again b partake of i teruma /i . /b If b her child from the priest died /b as well, b she may no /b longer b partake of either i teruma /i or tithe. /b |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36| 56b. עבדך וירגל בעבדך אל אדוני המלך ואדוני המלך כמלאך האלהים ועשה הטוב בעיניך ויאמר לו המלך למה תדבר עוד דבריך אמרתי אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה ויאמר מפיבשת אל המלך גם את הכל יקח אחרי אשר בא אדוני המלך בשלום אל ביתו אמר לו אני אמרתי מתי תבא בשלום ואתה עושה לי כך לא עליך יש לי תרעומות אלא על מי שהביאך בשלום,היינו דכתיב (דברי הימים א ח, לד) ובן יהונתן מריב בעל וכי מריב בעל שמו והלא מפיבשת שמו אלא מתוך שעשה מריבה עם בעליו יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו נצא בר נצא נצא הא דאמרן בר נצא דכתיב (שמואל א טו, ה) ויבא שאול עד עיר עמלק וירב בנחל אמר רבי מני על עסקי נחל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שאמר דוד למפיבשת אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רחבעם וירבעם יחלקו את המלוכה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אילמלי לא. קיבל דוד לשון הרע לא נחלקה מלכות בית דוד ולא עבדו ישראל ע"ז ולא גלינו מארצנו:,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר שלמה חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים א יא, ד) ולא היה לבבו שלם עם ה' אלהיו כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא,אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ההיא כרבי נתן דר' נתן רמי כתיב ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו והכתיב כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא הכי קאמר ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים ולא הלך,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ז) אז יבנה שלמה במה לכמוש שקוץ מואב שבקש לבנות ולא בנה,אלא מעתה (יהושע ח, ל) אז יבנה יהושע מזבח לה' שבקש לבנות ולא בנה אלא דבנה הכא נמי דבנה,אלא כדתניא רבי יוסי אומר (מלכים ב כג, יג) ואת הבמות אשר על פני ירושלים אשר מימין להר המשחה אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל לעשתרות שקוץ צדונים וגו',אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערם יהושפט ולא ביערם עד שבא יאשיה וביערם והלא כל ע"ז שבארץ ישראל אסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקיש ראשונים לאחרונים מה אחרונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לשבח אף ראשונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לגנאי,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ו) ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה' אלא מפני שהיה לו למחות בנשיו ולא מיחה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נוח לו לאותו צדיק שיהא שמש לדבר אחר ואל יכתב בו ויעש הרע בעיני ה',אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה הכניסה לו אלף מיני זמר ואמרה לו כך עושין לעבודה זרה פלונית וכך עושים לע"ז פלונית ולא מיחה בה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים ועלה בו שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול [של רומי],במתניתא תנא אותו היום שהכניס ירבעם שני עגלי זהב אחד בבית אל ואחד בדן נבנה צריף אחד וזהו איטליאה של יון:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר יאשיהו חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים ב כב, ב) ויעש הישר בעיני ה' וילך בכל דרך דוד אביו אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים ב כג, כה) וכמוהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב וגו',שכל דין שדן מבן שמנה עד שמנה עשרה החזירן להן שמא תאמר נטל מזה ונתן לזה תלמוד לומר בכל מאודו שנתן להם משלו,ופליגא דרב דאמר רב אין לך גדול בבעלי תשובה יותר מיאשיהו בדורו ואחד בדורנו ומנו אבא אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא ואמרי לה אחא אחוה דאבא אבוה דרב ירמיה בר אבא דאמר מר רבי אבא ואחא אחי הוו,אמר רב יוסף ועוד אחד בדורנו ומנו עוקבן בר נחמיה ריש גלותא והיינו. נתן דצוציתא אמר רב יוסף הוה יתיבנא בפירקא והוה קא מנמנם וחזאי בחילמא דקא פשט ידיה וקבליה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך במה בהמה /strong /big br br | |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 36| 36b. כי קאמר רב כגון רב כהנא ורב אסי דלגמריה דרב הוו צריכי ולסבריה דרב לא הוו צריכי,א"ר אבהו עשרה דברים יש בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות וכולן אין נוהגין בשור הנסקל חוץ מעשרים ושלשה,מנא הני מילי אמר רב אחא בר פפא דאמר קרא (שמות כג, ו) לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו משפט אביונך אי אתה מטה אבל אתה מטה משפט של שור הנסקל,עשרה הא ט' הוו הא עשרה קתני משום דאין הכל כשרין ועשרים ושלשה חדא היא,הא איכא אחריתי דתניא אין מושיבין בסנהדרין זקן וסריס ומי שאין לו בנים ר' יהודה מוסיף אף אכזרי וחילופיהן במסית דרחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:,הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות: הכל לאתויי מאי אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר,הא תנינא חדא זימנא כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ויש ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ואין ראוי לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה לאתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר חדא לאתויי גר וחדא לאתויי ממזר,וצריכ' דאי אשמעינן גר דראוי לבא בקהל אבל ממזר אימא לא ואי אשמעינן ממזר דבא מטיפה כשרה אבל גר דלא בא מטיפה כשרה אימא לא צריכא:,ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות: מאי טעמא דתני רב יוסף כשם שב"ד מנוקין בצדק כך מנוקין מכל מום אמר אמימר מאי קרא (שיר השירים ד, ז) כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך,ודילמא מום ממש אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (במדבר יא, טז) והתיצבו שם עמך עמך בדומין לך,ודילמא התם משום שכינה אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא (שמות יח, כב) ונשאו אתך אתך בדומין לך ליהוי:, big strongמתני' /strong /big סנהדרין היתה כחצי גורן עגולה כדי שיהו רואין זה את זה ושני סופרי הדיינין עומדים לפניהם אחד מימין ואחד משמאל וכותבין דברי (מחייבין ודברי מזכין) ר' יהודה אומר שלשה אחד כותב דברי המזכין ואחד כותב דברי המחייבין והשלישי כותב דברי המזכין ודברי המחייבין | 36b. The Gemara answers: b When Rav says /b his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those b such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed /b to learn b the /b halakhic b traditions of Rav, but they did not need /b to learn b the reasoning of Rav, /b as they were capable of conducting their own analysis., b Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways /b in which cases of b monetary law /b are b different from /b cases of b capital law, /b as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, b and none of them is practiced with regard to /b a court hearing concerning b an ox that is /b to be b stoned, /b as it is treated as a case of monetary law, b except for /b the requirement that the animal be judged by b twenty-three /b judges, like in cases of capital law.,The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause” /b (Exodus 23:6). He explains: b You may not incline the judgment of, /b i.e., exert effort to find liable, b your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is /b to be b stoned. /b The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.,The Gemara asks: Are there really b ten /b ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? b There are /b only b nine /b differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: b But /b the mishna b teaches ten /b differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, b because /b the i halakha /i that b not all are fit /b to judge cases of capital law b and /b the i halakha /i that b twenty-three /b judges are required for cases of capital law b are one. /b The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those “with you,” i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).,The Gemara answers: b But there is another /b difference, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 7:5): The court b does not seat on the Sanhedrin /b a very b old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, /b as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. b Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person /b is not eligible. The Gemara comments: b And the opposite of this /b is the i halakha /i b with regard to one who entices /b others to engage in idol worship, b as the Merciful One states /b concerning him: b “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9).,§ The mishna teaches that b all are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law. /b The Gemara asks: b What is added /b by the mishna’s employing the expansive term b all? Rav Yehuda says: /b It serves b to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship [ i mamzer /i ] /b in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But we /b already b learn /b this i halakha /i b one time, /b as it is taught in a i baraita /i : b All who are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge /b cases of b monetary law and are not fit to judge /b cases of b capital law. And we discussed it: What is included /b in the expansive term all employed by the i baraita /i ? b And Rav Yehuda says: /b It serves b to include a i mamzer /i . /b The Gemara responds: b One /b of the two sources serves b to include a convert, /b who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, b and one /b of the two sources serves b to include a i mamzer /i . /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b both the mishna and i baraita /i are b necessary, /b as the i halakha /i taught by one source cannot be derived from the i halakha /i taught by the other source. b As, if /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to b a convert, /b one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, b since /b he is b fit to enter into the congregation, /b i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, b but /b with regard to b a i mamzer /i , /b who is not fit to enter into the congregation, b say /b that he b cannot /b serve as a judge. b And if /b the i tanna /i b taught us /b the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to b a i mamzer /i , /b one could say that a i mamzer /i is fit to judge, b as he came from seed /b of b unflawed /b lineage, b but /b with regard to b a convert, who does not come from seed /b of b unflawed /b lineage, b say /b that he b cannot /b serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are b necessary. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b But not all are fit to judge /b cases of b capital law; /b the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? The Gemara explains: b As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, /b i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. b Ameimar says: What is the verse /b from which it is derived? It states: b “You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you” /b (Song of Songs 4:7).,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b you should say that this is referring to b an actual blemish, /b and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: /b It is not necessary to learn from this verse the i halakha /i that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as b the verse states /b in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: b “That they may stand there with you” /b (Numbers 11:16). The term b “with you” /b is explained to mean: b With similarity to you, /b teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps there, /b those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish b due to /b the b Divine Presence, /b which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. b Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse states: /b “So shall they make it easier for you b and bear the burden with you” /b (Exodus 18:22). The term b “with you” /b is explained to mean: b They shall be similar to you, /b without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well., strong MISHNA: /strong b A Sanhedrin /b of twenty-three b was /b arranged in the same layout b as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that /b all the judges b will see one another /b and the witnesses. b And two judges’ scribes stand before /b the court, b one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find /b the accused b liable and the statements of those who acquit /b the accused. b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b There were b three /b scribes. b One writes /b only b the statements of those who acquit /b the accused, b one writes /b only b the statements of those who find /b him b liable, and the third writes /b both b the statements of those who acquit /b the accused b and the statements of those who find /b him b liable, /b so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe. |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28| 56a. בכותל רעוע,אמר מר הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה היכי דמי אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה בדיני אדם נמי נחייב אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה,ורב אשי אמר טמון אתמר משום דשויה טמון באש:,אמר מר השוכר עדי שקר ה"ד אילימא לנפשיה ממונא בעי שלומי ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא לחבריה,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבי תרי פשיטא דאורייתא הוא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו,אלא בחד,ותו ליכא והאיכא (סימן העושה בסם ושליח חבירו נשבר) העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא הנותן סם המות בפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא נשברה כדו ברה"ר ולא סלקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה ר"מ מחייב בהזיקן וחכ"א פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,אין מיהא איכא טובא והני אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו מהו דתימא כיון דלמסתריה קאי מה עביד בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הכופף קמתו של חבירו נמי מהו דתימא לימא מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,ולרב אשי דאמר נמי טמון איתמר מהו דתימא אנא כסויי כסיתיה ניהלך ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והשוכר עדי שקר נמי מהו דתימא לימא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו נמי מהו דתימא מי יימר דכי הוה (אתינא) מסהדינא ליה הוה מודה דלמא הוה משתבע לשקרא ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:,נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים כו': אמר רבה והוא שחתרה,אבל לא חתרה מאי חייב היכי דמי אילימא בכותל בריא כי לא חתרה אמאי חייב מאי ה"ל למעבד אלא בכותל רעוע כי חתרה אמאי פטור תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא,הניחא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור אלא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב מאי איכא למימר,אלא מתני' בכותל בריא ואפילו לא חתרה וכי איתמר דרבה אסיפא איתמר הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצתה והזיקה חייב אמר רבה ואפי' חתרה,לא מבעיא היכא דלא חתרה דכולה בפשיעה הוא אלא אפי' חתרה נמי מהו דתימא הויא לה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס קמ"ל דכולה פשיעה היא,מ"ט דאמר ליה מידע ידעת דכיון דשבקתה בחמה כל טצדקא דאית לה למיעבד עבדא ונפקא:,הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין: | 56a. the i baraita /i is speaking b of an unstable wall /b that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who bends another’s standing /b grain b before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the fire would b reach /b the bent grain b in a typical wind, let him /b also b be liable /b for the damage according to b human laws. Rather, /b it must be a case b where /b the fire could b reach /b the bent grain only b in an atypical wind. /b Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And Rav Ashi /b offered an alternative explanation and b said: /b The i baraita /i b was stated /b in the case of b a concealed /b item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item b because he made it into a concealed /b item that was subsequently damaged by b fire, /b and the owner cannot reclaim his loss., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that he hired them b for his own /b benefit, in order to extract payment from another, b he is required to reimburse /b that person with b money, and he is liable according to human laws /b for receiving money under false circumstances. b Rather, /b the case is one where he hired false witnesses b for /b the benefit of b another. /b In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. b With what /b circumstances b are we dealing? If we say /b that the case b involves two /b people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it b is obvious /b that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression b by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the i baraita /i to mention this case., b Rather, /b the case of the i baraita /i b concerns a single /b witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b And is there nothing else, /b i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? b But there is /b such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the i baraita /i the Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device: b One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. /b The Gemara returns to the first case: One b who performs labor with water of purification, /b which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, b or /b who performs labor b with the /b red b heifer of purification, /b invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the damage he caused is not evident, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven, /b as he caused a ficial loss.,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the following i halakha /i : With regard to b one who places poison before another’s animal, /b and the animal eats it and dies, he is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the animal caused its own death, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who sends /b an exposed b flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who frightens another /b without touching him, but causes him injury; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of one b whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove /b the broken pieces, or one b whose camel fell and he did not stand it up /b again. b Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner of jug or of the camel b liable /b for the damage thereby caused to others, b and the Rabbis say that /b he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the i baraita /i that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, there are, in any event, many /b other cases, b but /b Rabbi Yehoshua held that it b was necessary for him /b to state the i halakha /i of b these /b four cases. The reason he stated them is b lest you say /b that in these cases b one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara explains why one might have thought that there is no liability at all for each case in the i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who breaches a fence /b that stood b before another’s animal, /b thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Since /b the fence b is about to collapse /b even without this person’s intervention, b what did /b he really b do? /b Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who bends another’s standing /b grain is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Let /b the one who bent the grain b say /b to the owner: b Did I know that an atypical wind would come /b and cause the fire to spread? Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And according to Rav Ashi, who said /b that Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling b was stated /b with regard to the case of b a concealed /b item, Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned liability according to the laws of Heaven b lest you say /b that the one who concealed the item could say: b I covered it for you /b in order to protect it from the fire. Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And /b Rabbi Yehoshua taught that there is liability b also /b in the case of b one who hires false witnesses, lest you say: Let /b the one who hired them b say: /b If the witnesses hear b the statement of the teacher, /b i.e., God, Who prohibited giving false testimony, b and the statement of the student, /b i.e., the one who hired them, b to whose statement /b should they b listen? /b Although the one who hired them encouraged these witnesses to sin, ultimately it was they who transgressed by not adhering to the instructions of God. b And /b based on this logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who knows testimony /b in support b of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say /b that the witness could claim: b Who says that had I come forward /b and b testified on behalf of /b one litigant, the other litigant b would admit /b liability? b Perhaps he would have /b chosen to b take a false oath /b and absolve himself. Based on that logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pen b was breached at night, or bandits breached it, /b and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage, the owner of the sheep is exempt. b Rabba says: And this /b first instance of a pen that was breached is referring specifically to a case b where /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall of the pen and by doing so caused the wall to collapse. In that case, the owner is completely blameless and therefore exempt from liability for any damage that ensues.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Would the owner be b liable? What are the circumstances? If we say /b that the pen had b a stable wall, /b then even b if /b the animal b did not tunnel, why /b is the owner b liable? What should he have done? /b Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage. b Rather, /b the pen had b an unstable wall. /b The Gemara asks: Even b if /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall and knocked it down, b why /b is he b exempt? /b The damage in this case is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. /b , b This works out well according to the one who said /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b he is b exempt /b from liability, since the ultimate cause of the damage was not his fault. b But according to the one who says /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident /b he is b liable, /b as even without the accident his negligence could have caused damage, b what is there to say? /b , b Rather, /b the case of b the mishna concerns a stable wall, and even /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall the owner is exempt. b And when /b the statement b of Rabba was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna that says: If the owner b left /b the animal b in the sun or conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and /b the animal b went out and caused damage, /b the owner is b liable. /b Concerning this b Rabba stated: And /b the owner is liable b even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out under the wall of the pen.,The Gemara explains: b It is not necessary /b for the mishna to mention the case b where the animal did not tunnel /b its way out. In that case the owner is clearly liable, since b the entire /b incident occurred due to his b negligence /b of leaving the animal in the sun, thereby causing it distress and leading it to attempt escape by any possible means. b But even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out, the owner is liable, and this is the novelty in this ruling: b Lest you say /b that b this is /b a case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b because animals do not typically tunnel their way out of a pen, the mishna b teaches us that /b it is considered as though b the entire /b damage resulted from the owner’s b negligence. /b , b What is the reason /b that the owner is liable? It is b that /b the one who suffered the damage b can say to /b the owner of the sheep: b You should have known that since you left it in the sun, it would utilize any means [ i tatzdeka /i ] available for it to use and /b it would b escape, /b so you are ultimately responsible for the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the b bandits /b themselves b took /b the sheep b out, the bandits are liable. /b |
|
| 34. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 15.20 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of seventy-one (great sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25 |
| 35. Chromatius, Tractatus Singularis Seu Sermo De Octo Beatitudinibus, 6.2.11, 8.5.5-8.5.24 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 68, 69 |
| 36. John Chrysostom, Carit., 12.7.3 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 69 |
37. Strabo, Geography, 11.11.4 Tagged with subjects: •proskynesis, at court of alexander the great Found in books: Gruen (2011) 68 | 11.11.4. Be this as it may, they say that Alexander founded eight cities in Bactriana and Sogdiana, and that he razed certain cities to the ground, among which was Cariatae in Bactriana, in which Callisthenes was seized and imprisoned, and Maracanda and Cyra in Sogdiana, Cyra being the last city founded by Cyrus and being situated on the Iaxartes River, which was the boundary of the Persian empire; and that although this settlement was fond of Cyrus, he razed it to the ground because of its frequent revolts; and that through a betrayal he took also two strongly fortified rocks, one in Bactriana, that of Sisimithres, where Oxyartes kept his daughter Rhoxana, and the other in Sogdiana, that of Oxus, though some call it the rock of Ariamazes. Now writers report that that of Sisimithres is fifteen stadia in height and eighty in circuit, and that on top it is level and has a fertile soil which can support five hundred men, and that here Alexander met with sumptuous hospitality and married Rhoxana, the daughter of Oxyartes; but the rock in Sogdiana, they say, is twice as high as that in Bactriana. And near these places, they say, Alexander destroyed also the city of the Branchidae, whom Xerxes had settled there — people who voluntarily accompanied him from their homeland — because of the fact that they had betrayed to him the riches and treasures of the god at Didymi. Alexander destroyed the city, they add, because he abominated the sacrilege and the betrayal. |
|
