1. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 2.64 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 19.11, 19.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 19.11. הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּמֵת לְכָל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם וְטָמֵא שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃ 19.19. וְהִזָּה הַטָּהֹר עַל־הַטָּמֵא בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וּבַיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְחִטְּאוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי וְכִבֶּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָהֵר בָּעָרֶב׃ | 19.11. He that toucheth the dead, even any man’s dead body, shall be unclean seven days; 19.19. And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he shall purify him; and he shall wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 15.16-15.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 15.16. וְאִישׁ כִּי־תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת־כָּל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ 15.17. וְכָל־בֶּגֶד וְכָל־עוֹר אֲשֶׁר־יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְכֻבַּס בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ 15.18. וְאִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחֲצוּ בַמַּיִם וְטָמְאוּ עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ | 15.16. And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 15.17. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the flow of seed, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. 15.18. The woman also with whom a man shall lie carnally, they shall both bathe themselves in water, and be unclean until the even. |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 19.10-19.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 19.11. וְהָיוּ נְכֹנִים לַיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי כִּי בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁלִישִׁי יֵרֵד יְהוָה לְעֵינֵי כָל־הָעָם עַל־הַר סִינָי׃ 19.12. וְהִגְבַּלְתָּ אֶת־הָעָם סָבִיב לֵאמֹר הִשָּׁמְרוּ לָכֶם עֲלוֹת בָּהָר וּנְגֹעַ בְּקָצֵהוּ כָּל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בָּהָר מוֹת יוּמָת׃ 19.13. לֹא־תִגַּע בּוֹ יָד כִּי־סָקוֹל יִסָּקֵל אוֹ־יָרֹה יִיָּרֶה אִם־בְּהֵמָה אִם־אִישׁ לֹא יִחְיֶה בִּמְשֹׁךְ הַיֹּבֵל הֵמָּה יַעֲלוּ בָהָר׃ 19.14. וַיֵּרֶד מֹשֶׁה מִן־הָהָר אֶל־הָעָם וַיְקַדֵּשׁ אֶת־הָעָם וַיְכַבְּסוּ שִׂמְלֹתָם׃ 19.15. וַיֹּאמֶר אֶל־הָעָם הֱיוּ נְכֹנִים לִשְׁלֹשֶׁת יָמִים אַל־תִּגְּשׁוּ אֶל־אִשָּׁה׃ | 19.10. And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Go unto the people, and sanctify them to-day and to-morrow, and let them wash their garments, 19.11. and be ready against the third day; for the third day the LORD will come down in the sight of all the people upon mount Sinai. 19.12. And thou shalt set bounds unto the people round about, saying: Take heed to yourselves, that ye go not up into the mount, or touch the border of it; whosoever toucheth the mount shall be surely put to death; 19.13. no hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned, or shot through; whether it be beast or man, it shall not live; when the ram’s horn soundeth long, they shall come up to the mount.’ 19.14. And Moses went down from the mount unto the people, and sanctified the people; and they washed their garments. 19.15. And he said unto the people: ‘Be ready against the third day; come not near a woman.’ |
|
5. Homer, Odyssey, 17.48, 17.59 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
6. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 1.3 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 115 1.3. הָיֹה הָיָה דְבַר־יְהוָה אֶל־יְחֶזְקֵאל בֶּן־בּוּזִי הַכֹּהֵן בְּאֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים עַל־נְהַר־כְּבָר וַתְּהִי עָלָיו שָׁם יַד־יְהוָה׃ | 1.3. the word of the LORD came expressly unto Ezekiel the priest, the son of Buzi, in the land of the Chaldeans by the river Chebar; and the hand of the LORD was there upon him. |
|
7. Septuagint, Judith, 12.7-12.9, 12.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 | 12.7. So Holofernes commanded his guards not to hinder her. And she remained in the camp for three days, and went out each night to the valley of Bethulia, and bathed at the spring in the camp. 12.8. When she came up from the spring she prayed the Lord God of Israel to direct her way for the raising up of her people. 12.9. So she returned clean and stayed in the tent until she ate her food toward evening. 12.19. Then she took and ate and drank before him what her maid had prepared. |
|
8. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.591-3.593 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 109 | 3.591. But when from Italy shall come a man, 3.592. A spoiler, then, Laodicea, thou, 3.593. Beautiful city of the Carian |
|
9. Philo of Alexandria, Against Flaccus, 120-123 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 | 123. "O most mighty King of all mortal and immortal beings, we have come to offer thanks unto thee, to invoke earth and sea, and the air and the heaven, and all the parts of the universe, and the whole world in which alone we dwell, being driven out by men and robbed of everything else in the world, and being deprived of our city, and of all the buildings both private and public within the city, and being made houseless and homeless by the treachery of our governor, the only men in the world who are so treated. |
|
10. Philo of Alexandria, On The Decalogue, 1, 45 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 | 45. And the people stood by, having kept themselves clean from all connection with women, and having abstained from all pleasures, except those which arise from a participation in necessary food, having been purifying themselves with baths and ablutions for three days, and having washed their garments and being all clothed in the purest white robes, and standing on tiptoe and pricking up their ears, in compliance with the exhortations of Moses, who had forewarned them to prepare for the solemn assembly; for he knew that such would take place, when he, having been summoned up alone, gave forth the prophetic commands of God. |
|
11. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.1, 1.162, 1.261, 3.83-3.209 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112, 113 | 1.1. The genera and heads of all special laws, which are called "the ten commandments," have been discussed with accuracy in the former treatise. We must now proceed to consider the particular commands as we read them in the subsequent passages of the holy scriptures; and we will begin with that which is turned into ridicule by people in general. 1.162. Or the creatures which are fit to be offered as sacrifices, some are land animals, and some are such as fly through the air. Passing over, therefore, the infinite varieties of birds, God chose only two classes out of them all, the turtledove and the pigeon; because the pigeon is by nature the most gentle of all those birds which are domesticated and gregarious, and the turtle-dove the most gentle of those which love solitude. 1.261. The body then, as I have already said, he purifies with ablutions and bespringklings, and does not allow a person after he has once washed and sprinkled himself, at once to enter within the sacred precincts, but bids him wait outside for seven days, and to be besprinkled twice, on the third day and on the seventh day; and after this it commands him to wash himself once more, and then it admits him to enter the sacred precincts and to share in the sacred ministrations.XLIX. 3.83. The name of homicide is that affixed to him who has slain a man; but in real truth it is a sacrilege, and the very greatest of all sacrileges, because, of all the possessions and sacred treasures in the whole world, there is nothing more holy in appearance, nor more godlike than man, the all-beautiful copy of an all-beautiful model, a representation admirably made after an archetypal rational idea. 3.89. Or shall we say that to those who have done no wrong the temple is still inaccessible until they have washed themselves, and sprinkled themselves, and purified themselves with the accustomed purifications; but that those who are guilty of indelible crimes, the pollution of which no length of time will ever efface, may approach and dwell among those holy seats; though no decent person, who has any regard for holy things would even receive them in his house?XVI. 3.93. But there are others also of the greatest wickedness, men polluted both in hands and mind, who, being sorcerers and poisoners, devoting all their leisure and all their solitude to planning seasonable attacks upon others, who invent all kinds of contrivances and devices to bring about calamities on their neighbours. 3.94. On which account, Moses commands that poisoners and sorceresses shall not be allowed to live one day or even one hour, but that they shall be put to death the moment that they are taken, no pretext being for a moment allowed them for putting off or delaying their punishment. For those who attack one openly and to one's face, any body may guard against; but of those who plot against one secretly, and who disguise their attacks by the concealed approaches of poison, it is not easy to see the cunning beforehand. 3.95. It is necessary, therefore, to anticipate them, inflicting upon them that death which other persons would else have suffered by their means. And again, besides this, he who openly slays a man with a sword, or with any similar weapon, can only kill a few persons at one time; but one who mixes and compounds poisonous drugs with food, may destroy innumerable companies at once who have no suspicion of his treachery. 3.96. Accordingly, it has happened before now that very numerous parties of men who have come together in good fellowship to eat of the same salt and to sit at the same table, have suffered at such a time of harmony things wholly incompatible with it, being suddenly killed, and have thus met with death instead of feasting. On which account it is fitting that even the most merciful, and gentle, and moderate of men should approve of such persons being put to death, who are all but the same as murderers who slay with their own hand; and that they should think it consistent with holiness, not to commit their punishment to others, but to execute it themselves. 3.97. For how can it by anything but a most terrible evil for any one to contrive the death of another by that food which is given as the cause of life, and to work such a change in that which is nutritious by nature as to render it destructive; so that those who, in obedience to the necessities of nature, have recourse to eating and drinking, having no previous idea of any treachery, take destructive food as though it were salutary? 3.98. Again, let those persons meet with the same punishment who, though they do not compound drugs which are actually deadly, nevertheless administer such as long diseases are caused by; for death is often a lesser evil than diseases; and especially than such as extend over a long time and have no fortunate or favourable end. For the illnesses which arise from poisons are difficult to be cured, and are often completely incurable. 3.99. Moreover, in the case of men who have been exposed to machinations of this kind, it often happens that diseases of the mind ensue which are worse even than the afflictions of the body; for they are often attacked by delirium and insanity, and intolerable frenzy, by means of which the mind, the greatest blessing which God has bestowed upon mankind, is impaired in every possible manner, despairing of any safety or cure, and so is utterly removed from its seat, and expelled, as it were, leaving in the body only the inferior portion of the soul, namely, its irrational part, of which even beasts partake, since every person who is deprived of reason, which is the better part of the soul, is changed into the nature of a beast, even though the characteristics of the human form remain.XVIII. 3.113. for those men are devoted to pleasure who are not influenced by the wish of propagating children, and of perpetuating their race, when they have connection with women, but who are only like boars or he-goats seeking the enjoyment that arises from such a connection. Again, who can be greater haters of their species than those who are the implacable and ferocious enemies of their own children? Unless, indeed, any one is so foolish as to imagine that these men can be humane to strangers who act in a barbarous manner to those who are united to them by ties of blood. 3.117. Therefore, Moses has utterly prohibited the exposure of children, by a tacit prohibition, when he condemns to death, as I have said before, those who are the causes of a miscarriage to a woman whose child conceived within her is already formed. And yet those persons who have investigated the secrets of natural philosophy say that those children which are still within the belly, and while they are still contained in the womb, are a part of their mothers; and the most highly esteemed of the physicians who have examined into the formation of man, scrutinising both what is easily seen and what is kept concealed with great care, by means of anatomy, in order that, if there should be any need of their attention to any case, nothing may be disregarded through ignorance and so become the cause of serious mischief, agree with them and say the same thing. 3.118. But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures, deficient in nothing which can contribute to the perfection of human nature, so that then, beyond all question, he who slays an infant is a homicide, and the law shows its indignation at such an action; not being guided by the age but by the species of the creature in whom its ordices are violated. 3.120. The sacred law says that the man, who has been killed without any intention that he should be so on the part of him who killed him, has been given up by God into the hands of his slayers; {8}{#ex 21:13.} in this way designing to make an excuse for the man who appears to have slain him as if he had slain a guilty person. 3.121. For the merciful and forgiving God can never be supposed to have given up any innocent person to be put to death; but whoever ingeniously escapes the judgment of a human tribunal by means of his own cunning and wariness, he is convicted when brought before the invisible tribunal of nature, by which alone the uncorrupted truth is discerned without being kept in the dark by the artifices of sophistical arguments. For such an investigation does not admit of arguments at all, laying bare all devices and intentions, and bringing the most secret counsels to light; and, in one sense, it does not look upon a man who has slain another as liable to justice, inasmuch as he has only sinned to be the minister of a divine judgment, but still he will have incurred an obscure and slight kind of defilement, which, however, may obtain allowance and pardon. 3.124. And the cause of the first of these injunctions was this. The tribe which has been mentioned received these cities as a reward for a justifiable and holy slaughter, which we must look upon as the most illustrious and important of all the gallant actions that were ever performed. 3.125. For when the prophet, after having been called up to the loftiest and most sacred of all the mountains in that district, was divinely instructed in the generic outlines of all the special laws, {10}{#ex 32:1.} and was out of sight of his people for many days; those of the people who were not of a peaceable disposition filled every place with the evils which arise from anarchy, and crowned all their iniquity with open impiety, turning into ridicule all those excellent and beautiful lessons concerning the honour due to the one true and living God, and having made a golden bull, an imitation of the Egyptian Typhos, and brought to it unholy sacrifices, and festivals unhallowed, and instituted profane and impious dances, with songs and hymns instead of lamentations; 3.126. then the tribe aforesaid, being very terribly indigt at their sudden departure from their previous customs, and being enflamed with zeal by reason of their natural disposition which hated iniquity, all became full of rage and of divine enthusiasm, and arming themselves, as at one signal, and with great contempt and one uimous attack, came upon the people, drunk thus with a twofold intoxication of impiety and of wine, beginning with their nearest and dearest friends and relations, thinking those who loved God to be their only relations and friends. And in a very small portion of the day, four-and-twenty thousand men were slain; the calamities of whom were a warning to those who would otherwise have joined themselves to their iniquity, but who now were alarmed lest they should suffer a similar fate. 3.127. Since then these men had undertaken this expedition of their own accord and spontaneously, in the cause of piety and holy reverence for the one true and living God, not without great danger to those who had entered in the contest, the Father of the universe received them with approbation, and at once pronounced those who had slain those men to be pure from all curse and pollution, and in requital for their courage he bestowed the priesthood on them.XXIII. 3.128. Therefore the lawgiver enjoins that the man who has committed an unintentional murder should flee to some one of the cities which this tribe has received as its inheritance, in order to comfort him and to teach him not to despair of any sort of safety; but to make him, while safe through the privilege of the place, remember and consider that not only on certain occasions is forgiveness allowed to those who have designedly slain any person, but that even great and preeminent honours and excessive happiness is bestowed on them. And if such honours can ever be allowed to those who have slain a man voluntarily, how much more must there be allowance made for those who have done so not with any design, so that, even if no honour be bestowed on them, they may at least not be condemned to be put to death in retaliation. By which injunctions the lawgiver intimates that every kind of homicide is not blameable, but only that which is combined with injustice; and that of other kinds some are even praiseworthy which are committed out of a desire and zeal for virtue; and that which is unintentional is not greatly to be blamed. 3.132. Therefore, let every one who has slain a man unintentionally fear him, as the champion and espouser of the cause of those who have been slain, and let him keep himself close within the city to which he has fled for refuge, no longer venturing to advance outside of the walls, if he has any regard for his own safety, and for keeping his life out of the reach of danger. 3.137. Now servants are, indeed, in an inferior condition of life, but still the same nature belongs to them and to their masters. And it is not the condition of fortune, but the harmony of nature, which, in accordance with the divine law is the rule of justice. On which account it is proper for masters not to use their power over their slaves in an insolent manner, displaying by such conduct their insolence and overbearing disposition and terrible cruelty; for such conduct is not a proof of a peaceful soul, but of one which, out of an inability to regulate itself, covets the irresponsibility of a tyrannical power. 3.141. even if he should say that he had only inflicted blows on them to correct them, not designing to kill them. For he will not at once get off with a cheerful countece, but he will be brought before the tribunal and examined by accurate investigators of the truth, who will inquire whether he slew him intentionally or unintentionally. And if he be found to have plotted against him with a wicked disposition, let him die; not having any excuse made for him on the ground of his being the servants' master, so as to procure his deliverance. 3.142. But if the servants who have been beaten do not die at once after receiving the blows, but live one day or two, then the master shall no longer be liable to be accused of murder, having this strong ground of defence that he did not kill them on the spot by beating, nor afterwards when he had them in his house, but that he suffered them to live as long as they could, even though that may not have been very long. Besides that, no one is so silly as to attempt to distress another by conduct by which he himself also will be a loser. 3.149. Again, those men also are committing an injury akin to and resembling that which has just been mentioned, who when building houses leave the roof level with the ground though they ought to protect them with a parapet, in order that no one may fall down into the hole made without perceiving it. For such men, if one is to tell the plain truth, are committing murder, as far as they themselves are concerned, even though no one fall in and perish; accordingly let them be punished equally with those who have the mouths of pits open.XXVIII. 3.150. The law expressly enjoins that it shall not be lawful to take any ransom from murderers who ought to be put to death, for the purpose of lessening their punishment, or substituting banishment for death. For blood must be atoned for by blood, the blood of him who has been treacherously slain by that of him who has slain him. 3.151. Since men of wicked dispositions are never wearied of offending, but are always committing atrocious actions in the excess of their wickedness, and increasing their iniquities, and extending them beyond all bounds or limits. For the lawgiver would, if it had been in his power, have condemned those men to ten thousand deaths. But since this was not possible, he prescribed another punishment for them, commanding those who had slain a man to be hanged upon a tree. 3.152. And after having established this ordice he returned again to his natural humanity, treating with mercy even those who had behaved unmercifully towards others, and he pronounced, "Let not the sun set upon persons hanging on a Tree;"{14}{#de 21:23.} but let them be buried under the earth and be concealed from sight before sunset. For it was necessary to raise up on high all those who were enemies to every part of the world, so as to show most evidently to the sun, and to the heaven, and to the air, and to the water, and to the earth, that they had been chastised; and after that it was proper to remove them into the region of the dead, and to bury them, in order to prevent their polluting the things upon the earth.XXIX. 3.153. Moreover, there is this further commandment given with great propriety, that the fathers are not to die in behalf of their sons, nor the sons in behalf of their parents, but that every one who has done things worthy of death is to be put to death by himself alone. And this commandment is established because of those persons who set might above right, and also for the sake of those who are too affectionate; 3.159. Not long ago a certain man who had been appointed a collector of taxes in our country, when some of those who appeared to owe such tribute fled out of poverty, from a fear of intolerable punishment if they remained without paying, carried off their wives, and their children, and their parents, and their whole families by force, beating and insulting them, and heaping every kind of contumely and ill treatment upon them, to make them either give information as to where the fugitives had concealed themselves, or pay the money instead of them, though they could not do either the one thing or the other; in the first place, because they did not know where they were, and secondly, because they were in still greater poverty than the men who had fled. 3.163. But perhaps it is not wonderful if men, barbarians by nature, utterly ignorant of all gentleness, and under the command of despotic authority, which compelled them to give an account of the yearly revenue, should, in order to enforce the payment of the taxes, extend their severities, not merely to properties but also to the persons, and even to the lives, of those from whom they thought they could exact a vicarious payment. 3.169. Market places, and council chambers, and courts of justice, and large companies and assemblies of numerous crowds, and a life in the open air full of arguments and actions relating to war and peace, are suited to men; but taking care of the house and remaining at home are the proper duties of women; the virgins having their apartments in the centre of the house within the innermost doors, and the full-grown women not going beyond the vestibule and outer courts; 3.170. for there are two kinds of states, the greater and the smaller. And the larger ones are called really cities; but the smaller ones are called houses. And the superintendence and management of these is allotted to the two sexes separately; the men having the government of the greater, which government is called a polity; and the women that of the smaller, which is called oeconomy. 3.171. Therefore let no woman busy herself about those things which are beyond the province of oeconomy, but let her cultivate solitude, and not be seen to be going about like a woman who walks the streets in the sight of other men, except when it is necessary for her to go to the temple, if she has any proper regard for herself; and even then let her not go at noon when the market is full, but after the greater part of the people have returned home; like a well-born woman, a real and true citizen, performing her vows and her sacrifices in tranquillity, so as to avert evils and to receive blessings. 3.172. But when men are abusing one another or fighting, for women to venture to run out under pretence of assisting or defending them, is a blameable action and one of no slight shamelessness, since even, in the times of war and of military expeditions, and of dangers to their whole native land, the law does not choose that they should be enrolled as its defenders; looking at what is becoming, which it thinks desirable to preserve unchangeable at all times and in all places, thinking that this very thing is of itself better than victory, or then freedom, or than any kind of success and prosperity. 3.173. Moreover, if any woman, hearing that her husband is being assaulted, being out of her affection for him carried away by love for her husband, should yield to the feelings which overpower her and rush forth to aid him, still let her not be so audacious as to behave like a man, outrunning the nature of a woman; {16}{#de 25:11.} but even while aiding him let her continue a woman. For it would be a very terrible thing if a woman, being desirous to deliver her husband from an insult, should expose herself to insult, by exhibiting human life as full of shamelessness and liable to great reproaches for her incurable boldness; 3.174. for shall a woman utter abuse in the marketplace and give vent to unlawful language? and if another man uses foul language, will not she stop her ears and run away? But as it is now, some women are advanced to such a pitch of shamelessness as not only, though they are women, to give vent to intemperate language and abuse among a crowd of men, but even to strike men and insult them, with hands practised rather in works of the loom and spinning than in blows and assaults, like competitors in the pancratium or wrestlers. And other things, indeed, may be tolerable, and what any one might easily bear, but that is a shocking thing if a woman were to proceed to such a degree of boldness as to seize hold of the genitals of one of the men quarrelling. 3.175. For let not such a woman be let go on the ground that she appears to have done this action in order to assist her own husband; but let her be impeached and suffer the punishment due to her excessive audacity, so that if she should ever be inclined to commit the same offence again she may not have an opportunity of doing so; and other women, also, who might be inclined to be precipitate, may be taught by fear to be moderate and to restrain themselves. And let the punishment be the cutting off of the hand which has touched what it ought not to have touched. 3.176. And it is fitting to praise those who have been the judges and managers of the gymnastic games, who have kept women from the spectacle, in order that they might not be thrown among naked men and so mar the approved coinage of their modesty, neglecting the ordices of nature, which she has appointed for each section of our race; for neither is it right for men to mix with women when they have laid aside their garments, but each of the sexes ought to avoid the sight of the other when they are naked, in accordance with the promptings of nature. 3.177. Well, then, of those things of which we are to abstain from the sight, are not the hands much more to be blamed for the touch? For the eyes, being wholly at freedom, are nevertheless often constrained so as to see things which they do not wish to see; but the hands are ranked among those parts which are completely under subjection, and obey our commands, and are subservient to us.XXXII. 3.178. And this is the cause which is often mentioned by many people. But I have heard another also, alleged by persons of high character, who look upon the greater part of the injunctions contained in the law as plain symbols of obscure meanings, and expressed intimations of what may not be expressed. And this other reason alleged is as follows. There are two kinds of soul, much as there are two sexes among human relations; the one a masculine soul, belonging to men; the other a female soul, as found in women. The masculine soul is that which devotes itself to God alone, as the Father and Creator of the universe and the cause of all things that exist; but the female soul is that which depends upon all the things which are created, and as such are liable to destruction, and which puts forth, as it were, the hand of its power in order that in a blind sort of way it may lay hold of whatever comes across it, clinging to a generation which admits of an innumerable quantity of changes and variations, when it ought rather to cleave to the unchangeable, blessed, and thrice happy divine nature. 3.179. Very naturally, therefore, the law Commands{17}{#de 25:12.} that the executioner should cut off the hand of the woman which has laid hold of what it should not, speaking figuratively, and intimating not that the body shall be mutilated, being deprived of its most important part, but rather that it is proper to extirpate all the ungodly reasonings of the soul, using all things which are created as a stepping-stone; for the things which the woman is forbidden to take hold of are the symbols of procreation and generation. 3.180. And, moreover, keeping up a consistent regard to nature, I will also say this, that the unit is the image of the first cause, and the number two of the divisible matter that is worked upon. Whoever, therefore, receives the number two, honouring it above the unit, must be taught to know that he is, in so doing, approving of the matter more than of God. On which account the law has thought fit to cut off this apprehension of the soul as if it were a hand; for there can be no greater impiety than to ascribe the power of the agent to that which is passive.XXXIII. 3.184. Again. "If," says the law, "any one strike out the eye of a servant or of a handmaiden, he shall let them depart Free."{18}{#ex 21:26.} Because, as nature has assigned the chief position in the body to the head, having bestowed upon it a situation the most suitable to that pre-eminence, as it might give a citadel to a king (for having sent it forth to govern the body it has established it on a height, putting the whole composition of the body from the neck to the feet under it, as a pedestal might be placed under a statue 3.189. But as the mind was unable by itself to comprehend all these things from merely beholding them by the faculty of sight, it did not stop merely at what was seen by it, but being devoted to learning, and fond of what is honourable and excellent, as it admired what it did see, it adopted this probable opinion, that these things are not moved spontaneously and at random by any irrational impulse of their own, but that they are set in motion and guided by the will of God, whom it is proper to look upon as the Father and Creator of the world. Moreover, that these things are not unrestrained by any bounds, but that they are limited by the circumference of one world, as they might be by the walls of a city, the world itself being circumscribed within the outermost sphere of the fixed stars. Moreover it considered also that the Father who created the world does by the law of nature take care of that which he has created, exerting his providence in behalf of the whole universe and of its parts. 3.195. If therefore any one has ever plotted against this most excellent and most domit of all the outward senses, namely sight, so as ever to have struck out the eye of a free man, let him suffer the same infliction himself, but not so if he have only struck out the eye of a slave; not because he is entitled to pardon, or because the injury which he has done is less, but because the man who has been injured will have a still worse master if he has been mutilated in retaliation, since he will for ever bear a grudge against him for the calamity which has fallen upon him, and will revenge himself on him every day as an irreconcileable enemy by harsh commands beyond his power to perform, by which the slave will be so oppressed that he will be ready to die. 3.199. on which account the Creator and Father of the universe, who is not accustomed to make anything which is not appointed for some particular use, did not do with the teeth as he did with every other part of the body, and make them at once, at the first creation of the man, considering that as while an infant he was only intended to be fed upon milk they would be a superfluous burden in his way, and would be a severe injury to the breasts, filled as they are at that time with springs of milk, from which moist food is derived, as they would in that case be bitten by the child while sucking the milk. 3.205. And the law has taken such exceeding care that no one shall ever be the cause of death to another, that it does not look upon those who have even touched a dead body, which has met with a natural death, as pure and clean, until they have washed and purified themselves with sprinklings and ablutions; and even after they are perfectly clean it does not permit them to go into the temple within seven days, enjoining them to use purifying ceremonies on the third and seventh day. 3.206. And again, in the case of persons who have gone into the house in which any one has died, the law enjoins that no one shall touch them until they have both washed their bodies and also the garments in which they were clothed, and, in a word, it looks upon all the furniture and all the vessels, and everything which is in the house, as unclean and polluted; 3.207. for the soul of a man is a valuable thing, and when that has quitted its habitation, and passed to another place, everything that is left behind by it is polluted as being deprived of the divine image, since the human mind is made as a copy of the mind of God, having been created after the archetypal model, the most sublime reasoning. 3.208. And the law says, "Let everything which a man that is unclean has touched be also unclean as being polluted by a participation in that which is unclean." And this sacred injunction appears to have a wide operation, not being limited to the body alone, but proceeding as it would seem also to investigate the dispositions of the soul, 3.209. for the unjust and impious man is peculiarly unclean, being one who has no respect for either human or divine things, but who throws everything into disorder and confusion by the immoderate vehemence of his passions, and by the extravagance of his wickedness, so that everything which he touches becomes faulty, having its nature changed by the wickedness of him who has taken them in hand. For in like manner the actions of the good are, on the contrary, all praiseworthy, being made better by the energies of those who apply themselves to them, since in some degree what is done resembles in its character the person who does it.Go to the Tables of Contents of The Works of PhiloPlease buy the CD to support the site, view it without ads, and get bonus stuff!Early Christian Writings is copyright © 2001-2020 Peter Kirby |
|
12. Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica, 44 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
13. Mishnah, Menachot, 13.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 | 13.10. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah,” he must offer it in the Temple. And if he offered it in the Temple of Onias, he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If one said,] “I take upon myself to offer an olah but I will offer it in the Temple of Onias,” he must offer it in the Temple, yet if he offered it in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: this is not an olah. [If one said,] “I will be a nazirite,” he must bring his offerings and shave his hair in the Temple. And if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has not fulfilled his obligation. [If he said,] “I will be a nazirite but I will bring my offerings and shave my hair in the Temple of Onias,” he must bring them in the Temple, yet if he brought them and shaved his hair in the Temple of Onias he has fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Shimon says: such a one is not a nazirite. The priests who served in the Temple of Onias may not serve in the Temple in Jerusalem; and needless to say [this is so of priests who served] something else; for it is said, “The priests of the shrines, however, did not ascend the altar of the Lord in Jerusalem. But they did eat unleavened bread along with their kinsmen” (II Kings 23:9). Thus they are like those that had a blemish: they are entitled to share and eat [of the holy things] but they are not permitted to offer sacrifices. |
|
14. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.198, 2.203 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 2.198. ἁγνείας ἐπὶ ταῖς θυσίαις διείρηκεν ὁ νόμος ἀπὸ κήδους ἀπὸ λέχους ἀπὸ κοινωνίας τῆς πρὸς γυναῖκα καὶ πολλῶν ἄλλων. [ἃ μακρὸν ἂν εἴη γράφειν. τοιοῦτος μὲν ὁ περὶ θεοῦ καὶ τῆς ἐκείνου θεραπείας λόγος ἡμῖν ἐστιν, ὁ δ' αὐτὸς ἅμα καὶ νόμος.] 2.203. φθορὰν παρέλθοι, καθαρὸς εἶναι τότε προσήκει. καὶ μετὰ τὴν νόμιμον συνουσίαν ἀνδρὸς καὶ γυναικὸς ἀπολούσασθαι: ψυχῆς γὰρ ἔχειν τοῦτο μερισμὸν πρὸς ἄλλην χώραν ὑπέλαβεν: καὶ γὰρ ἐμφυομένη σώμασιν κακοπαθεῖ καὶ τούτων αὖ θανάτῳ διακριθεῖσα. διόπερ ἁγνείας ἐπὶ πᾶσι τοῖς τοιούτοις ἔταξεν. | 2.198. Now the law has appointed several purifications at our sacrifices, whereby we are cleansed after a funeral after what sometimes happens to us in bed, and after accompanying with our wives, and upon many other occasions, which it would be too long now to set down. And this is our doctrine concerning God and his worship, and is the same that the law appoints for our practice. |
|
15. Mishnah, Miqvaot, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 8.1. אֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל טְהוֹרָה, וּמִקְוְאוֹתֶיהָ טְהוֹרִים. מִקְוְאוֹת הָעַמִּים שֶׁבְּחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ, כְּשֵׁרִים לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין, אֲפִלּוּ נִתְמַלְּאוּ בְקִילוֹן. שֶׁבְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁחוּץ לַמַּפְתֵּחַ, כְּשֵׁרִים אַף לְנִדּוֹת. מִלִּפְנִים מִן הַמַּפְתֵּחַ, כְּשֵׁרִים לְבַעֲלֵי קְרָיִין, וּפְסוּלִים לְכָל הַטְּמֵאִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַקְּרוֹבִים לָעִיר וְלַדֶּרֶךְ, טְמֵאִים, מִפְּנֵי הַכְּבִיסָה. וְהָרְחוֹקִים, טְהוֹרִים: | 8.1. The land of Israel is clean and its mikvaot are clean. The mikvaot of the nations outside the land are valid for those who had a seminal emission even though they have been filled by a pump-beam; Those in the land of Israel: when outside the entrance [to the city] are valid even for menstruants, and those within the entrance [to the city] are valid for those who had a seminal emission but invalid for all [others] who are unclean. Rabbi Eliezer says: those which are near to a city or to a road are unclean because of laundering; but those at a distance are clean. |
|
16. New Testament, Acts, 21.23-21.27 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 21.23. τοῦτο οὖν ποίησον ὅ σοι λέγομεν· εἰσὶν ἡμῖν ἄνδρες τέσσαρες εὐχὴν ἔχοντες ἀφʼ ἑαυτῶν. 21.24. τούτους παραλαβὼν ἁγνίσθητι σὺν αὐτοῖς καὶ δαπάνησον ἐπʼ αὐτοῖς ἵνα ξυρήσονται τὴν κεφαλήν, καὶ γνώσονται πάντες ὅτι ὧν κατήχηνται περὶ σοῦ οὐδὲν ἔστιν, ἀλλὰ στοιχεῖς καὶ αὐτὸς φυλάσσων τὸν νόμον. 21.25. περὶ δὲ τῶν πεπιστευκότων ἐθνῶν ἡμεῖς ἀπεστείλαμεν κρίναντες φυλάσσεσθαι αὐτοὺς τό τε εἰδωλόθυτον καὶ αἷμα καὶ πνικτὸν καὶ πορνείαν. 21.26. τότε ὁ Παῦλος παραλαβὼν τοὺς ἄνδρας τῇ ἐχομένῃ ἡμέρᾳ σὺν αὐτοῖς ἁγνισθεὶς εἰσῄει εἰς τὸ ἱερόν, διαγγέλλων τὴν ἐκπλήρωσιν τῶν ἡμερῶν τοῦ ἁγνισμοῦ ἕως οὗ προσηνέχθη ὑπὲρ ἑνὸς ἑκάστου αὐτῶν ἡ προσφορά. 21.27. Ὡς δὲ ἔμελλον αἱ ἑπτὰ ἡμέραι συντελεῖσθαι, οἱ ἀπὸ τῆς Ἀσίας Ἰουδαῖοι θεασάμενοι αὐτὸν ἐν τῷ ἱερῷ συνέχεον πάντα τὸν ὄχλον καὶ ἐπέβαλαν ἐπʼ αὐτὸν τὰς χεῖρας, | 21.23. Therefore do what we tell you. We have four men who have a vow on them. 21.24. Take them, and purify yourself with them, and pay their expenses for them, that they may shave their heads. Then all will know that there is no truth in the things that they have been informed about you, but that you yourself also walk keeping the law. 21.25. But concerning the Gentiles who believe, we have written our decision that they should observe no such thing, except that they should keep themselves from food offered to idols, from blood, from strangled things, and from sexual immorality." 21.26. Then Paul took the men, and the next day, purified himself and went with them into the temple, declaring the fulfillment of the days of purification, until the offering was offered for every one of them. 21.27. When the seven days were almost completed, the Jews from Asia, when they saw him in the temple, stirred up all the multitude and laid hands on him, |
|
17. New Testament, Galatians, 2.11-2.14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 109 2.11. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν· 2.12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 2.13. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 2.14. ἀλλʼ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν; | 2.11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,because he stood condemned. 2.12. For before some people came fromJames, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back andseparated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 2.13. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that evenBarnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 2.14. But when I sawthat they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, Isaid to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as theGentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles tolive as the Jews do? |
|
18. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 7.420-7.432 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 7.421. ὁ δὲ τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων τὴν ἀκατάπαυστον ὑφορώμενος νεωτεροποιίαν καὶ δείσας, μὴ πάλιν εἰς ἓν ἀθρόοι συλλεγῶσι καί τινας αὑτοῖς συνεπισπάσωνται, προσέταξε τῷ Λούππῳ τὸν ἐν τῇ ̓Ονίου καλουμένῃ νεὼν καθελεῖν τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων. 7.422. ὁ δ' ἐστὶν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ καὶ διὰ τοιαύτην αἰτίαν ᾠκίσθη τε καὶ τὴν ἐπίκλησιν ἔλαβεν: 7.423. ̓Ονίας Σίμωνος υἱός, εἷς τῶν ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις ἀρχιερέων, φεύγων ̓Αντίοχον τὸν Συρίας βασιλέα πολεμοῦντα τοῖς ̓Ιουδαίοις ἧκεν εἰς ̓Αλεξάνδρειαν, καὶ δεξαμένου Πτολεμαίου φιλοφρόνως αὐτὸν διὰ τὴν πρὸς ̓Αντίοχον ἀπέχθειαν ἔφη σύμμαχον αὐτῷ ποιήσειν τὸ τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων ἔθνος, εἰ πεισθείη τοῖς ὑπ' αὐτοῦ λεγομένοις. 7.424. ποιήσειν δὲ τὰ δυνατὰ τοῦ βασιλέως ὁμολογήσαντος ἠξίωσεν ἐπιτρέπειν αὐτῷ νεών τε που τῆς Αἰγύπτου κατασκευάσασθαι καὶ τοῖς πατρίοις ἔθεσι θεραπεύειν τὸν θεόν: 7.425. οὕτως γὰρ ̓Αντιόχῳ μὲν ἔτι μᾶλλον ἐκπολεμώσεσθαι τοὺς ̓Ιουδαίους τὸν ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις νεὼν πεπορθηκότι, πρὸς αὐτὸν δ' εὐνοϊκωτέρως ἕξειν καὶ πολλοὺς ἐπ' ἀδείᾳ τῆς εὐσεβείας ἐπ' αὐτὸν συλλεγήσεσθαι. 7.426. Πεισθεὶς Πτολεμαῖος τοῖς λεγομένοις δίδωσιν αὐτῷ χώραν ἑκατὸν ἐπὶ τοῖς ὀγδοήκοντα σταδίους ἀπέχουσαν Μέμφεως: νομὸς δ' οὗτος ̔Ηλιοπολίτης καλεῖται. 7.427. φρούριον ἔνθα κατασκευασάμενος ̓Ονίας τὸν μὲν ναὸν οὐχ ὅμοιον ᾠκοδόμησε τῷ ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις, ἀλλὰ πύργῳ παραπλήσιον λίθων μεγάλων εἰς ἑξήκοντα πήχεις ἀνεστηκότα: 7.428. τοῦ βωμοῦ δὲ τὴν κατασκευὴν πρὸς τὸν οἰκεῖον ἐξεμιμήσατο καὶ τοῖς ἀναθήμασιν ὁμοίως ἐκόσμησεν χωρὶς τῆς περὶ τὴν λυχνίαν κατασκευῆς: 7.429. οὐ γὰρ ἐποίησε λυχνίαν, αὐτὸν δὲ χαλκευσάμενος λύχνον χρυσοῦν ἐπιφαίνοντα σέλας χρυσῆς ἁλύσεως ἐξεκρέμασε. τὸ δὲ τέμενος πᾶν ὀπτῇ πλίνθῳ περιτετείχιστο πύλας ἔχον λιθίνας. 7.431. οὐ μὴν ̓Ονίας ἐξ ὑγιοῦς γνώμης ταῦτα ἔπραττεν, ἀλλ' ἦν αὐτῷ φιλονεικία πρὸς τοὺς ἐν τοῖς ̔Ιεροσολύμοις ̓Ιουδαίους ὀργὴν τῆς φυγῆς ἀπομνημονεύοντι, καὶ τοῦτο τὸ ἱερὸν ἐνόμιζε κατασκευάσας εἰς αὐτὸ περισπάσειν ἀπ' ἐκείνων τὸ πλῆθος. 7.432. ἐγεγόνει δέ τις καὶ παλαιὰ πρόρρησις ἔτεσί που πρόσθεν ἑξακοσίοις: ̔Ησαί̈ας ὄνομα τῷ προαγορεύσαντι τοῦδε τοῦ ναοῦ τὴν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ γενησομένην ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς ̓Ιουδαίου κατασκευήν. τὸ μὲν οὖν ἱερὸν οὕτως ἐπεποίητο. | 7.420. 2. Now Lupus did then govern Alexandria, who presently sent Caesar word of this commotion; 7.421. who having in suspicion the restless temper of the Jews for innovation, and being afraid lest they should get together again, and persuade some others to join with them, gave orders to Lupus to demolish that Jewish temple which was in the region called Onion, 7.422. and was in Egypt, which was built and had its denomination from the occasion following: 7.423. Onias, the son of Simon, one of the Jewish high priests, fled from Antiochus the king of Syria, when he made war with the Jews, and came to Alexandria; and as Ptolemy received him very kindly, on account of his hatred to Antiochus, he assured him, that if he would comply with his proposal, he would bring all the Jews to his assistance; 7.424. and when the king agreed to do it so far as he was able, he desired him to give him leave to build a temple somewhere in Egypt, and to worship God according to the customs of his own country; 7.425. for that the Jews would then be so much readier to fight against Antiochus who had laid waste the temple at Jerusalem, and that they would then come to him with greater goodwill; and that, by granting them liberty of conscience, very many of them would come over to him. 7.426. 3. So Ptolemy complied with his proposals, and gave him a place one hundred and eighty furlongs distant from Memphis. That Nomos was called the Nomos of Heliopoli 7.427. where Onias built a fortress and a temple, not like to that at Jerusalem, but such as resembled a tower. He built it of large stones to the height of sixty cubits; 7.428. he made the structure of the altar in imitation of that in our own country, and in like manner adorned with gifts, excepting the make of the candlestick, 7.429. for he did not make a candlestick, but had a [single] lamp hammered out of a piece of gold, which illuminated the place with its rays, and which he hung by a chain of gold; 7.430. but the entire temple was encompassed with a wall of burnt brick, though it had gates of stone. The king also gave him a large country for a revenue in money, that both the priests might have a plentiful provision made for them, and that God might have great abundance of what things were necessary for his worship. 7.431. Yet did not Onias do this out of a sober disposition, but he had a mind to contend with the Jews at Jerusalem, and could not forget the indignation he had for being banished thence. Accordingly, he thought that by building this temple he should draw away a great number from them to himself. 7.432. There had been also a certain ancient prediction made by [a prophet] whose name was Isaiah, about six hundred years before, that this temple should be built by a man that was a Jew in Egypt. And this is the history of the building of that temple. |
|
19. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 115 3.4. בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרָיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם: | 3.4. One who has had a seminal emission utters the words [of the Shema] in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them. |
|
20. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 6.1. ארץ הכותים טהורה מקוותיה ומדוריה ושביליה טהורות. ארץ העמים טמאה מקוותיה ומדוריה ושביליה טמאין. מקוואות העמים שבחוצה לארץ כשרים לבעלי קריין ופסולין לכל הטמאין ושבארץ ישראל שחוץ מן המפתח לכל הטמאין וא\"צ לומר לבעלי קריין ושלפנים מן המפתח פסולין לבעלי קריין וא\"צ לומר לכל הטמאין דברי ר\"מ ר' יהודה אומר כשרין לבעלי קריין מפני שבעל קרי טובל במ' סאה בכל מקום. ושחוץ מן המפתח כשרין אף לנדות. אמר רשב\"ג הלכה אין לי. אלא מעשה במערה שהיתה בגינתו של מוסק אחד בדמיו שהיו כהנים כובשין את הגדר ויורדין וטובלין לתוכה. <א\"ר יהודה> מעשה במקוה שבין אושא לשפרעם <ושל שפרעם היה> והיה ר' דוסא מושיב בו <עליו> ב' תלמידי חכמים כדי שיקוו בו המים מ' סאה. שוב מעשה ברום בתענת שקוות יתר מאלפים כור ובאו ושאלו את ר' חנניא בן תרדיון ופסל שאני אומר נכנסו עובדי כוכבים וזלפוה בלילה וחזרו ומילאו אותו בקילון. ומעשה בר\"ג ואונקלוס הגר שהיו באשקלון וטבל ר\"ג במרחץ ואונקלוס בים. אמר ר' יהושע בן קופסאי עמהן הייתי ולא טבל ר\"ג אלא בים. | |
|
21. Tosefta, Terumot, 2.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 2.12. ספינה הבאה מחו\"ל והיו בה פירות מחוט ולפנים אם היא גוששת חייבת לפי חשבון והיוצא לחוץ לארץ אין חייבת לפי חשבון ר' אליעזר אומר עפר ארץ ישראל כל [שהוא] חייב [לפי חשבון]. | |
|
22. Tosefta, Shevi It, 4.6-4.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 4.6. מודה ר' עקיבה שאין זורעין ואין חורשין ואין מנכשין בסוריא לפי שאין כיוצא בהן [מותר] בארץ שכל כיוצא בו מותר בארץ עושין אותו בסוריא אין עושין אותו במחובר בקרקע בסוריא אבל עוקרין ואוגד על ידיהן ובלבד שלא יהא הוא מלקט והן אוגדין על ידיו בוצרין ודורך על ידיהן מוסקין ואוטם על ידיהן בד\"א במוציא פירות לחבירו מתוך ביתו או ששלח לו חבירו פירות אבל הלוקח לו מן השוק הרי זה [מלקט ביד] ואינו חושש. 4.7. בצלים שנכנסו מערב שביעית לשביעית או שיצאו משביעית למוצאי שביעית אם עשו כיוצא בהן מותרין ואם לאו אסורין אמר ר' יוסי מעשה שזרעו כרם גדול בצלים בציפורי למוצאי שביעית זרעוהו שעורין והיו פועלין יורדין ומנכשין בתוכו ומביאין ירק בתוך קופותיהן ובא מעשה לפני ר' יוחנן בן נורי ואמר אם עשו כיוצא בהן מותרין ואם לאו אסורין. 4.8. אוכלין עלי ירק מן האפיל על הבכיר מן הרחוק על הקרוב הותר מקום אחד הותרו כל המקומות הלוף והשום והבצלים הותרו יבשים הותרו לחין לא הותרו יבשים עד שתגיע הגורן אין מינו מתיר [את] מינו ואין מתירין את מינן אלא ע\"פ חכם וכולן למוצאי שביעית חייבות במעשרות. 4.9. ירק שנטעו בערב ראש השנה של שביעית הרי זה לא יטול ממנו בשביעית עד [שיתיר את החדש] ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר נוטל הימנו שלו ומכניס לתוך ביתו אע\"פ שאין כיוצא בהן נמכר בשוק. 4.11. פירות שביעית שבאו לארץ אין מוכרין אותם לא במדה ולא במשקל ולא במנין אלא הרי הן כפירות הארץ. | |
|
23. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 12.106, 13.62-13.72 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 109, 114 12.106. πρωὶ̈ δὲ πρὸς τὴν αὐλὴν παραγινόμενοι καὶ τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ἀσπαζόμενοι πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸν αὐτὸν ἀπῄεσαν τόπον καὶ τῇ θαλάσσῃ τὰς χεῖρας ἀπονιπτόμενοι καὶ καθαίροντες αὑτοὺς οὕτως ἐπὶ τὴν τῶν νόμων ἑρμηνείαν ἐτρέποντο. 13.62. ̔Ο δὲ ̓Ονίου τοῦ ἀρχιερέως υἱὸς ὁμώνυμος δὲ ὢν τῷ πατρί, ὃς ἐν ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳ φυγὼν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον τὸν ἐπικαλούμενον Φιλομήτορα διῆγεν, ὡς καὶ πρότερον εἰρήκαμεν, ἰδὼν τὴν ̓Ιουδαίαν κακουμένην ὑπὸ τῶν Μακεδόνων καὶ τῶν βασιλέων αὐτῶν, 13.63. βουλόμενος αὑτῷ δόξαν καὶ μνήμην αἰώνιον κατασκευάσαι, διέγνω πέμψας πρὸς Πτολεμαῖον τὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὴν βασίλισσαν Κλεοπάτραν αἰτήσασθαι παρ' αὐτῶν ἐξουσίαν, ὅπως οἰκοδομήσειεν ναὸν ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ παραπλήσιον τῷ ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις καὶ Λευίτας καὶ ἱερεῖς ἐκ τοῦ ἰδίου γένους καταστήσῃ. 13.64. τοῦτο δ' ἐβούλετο θαρρῶν μάλιστα τῷ προφήτῃ ̔Ησαί̈ᾳ, ὃς ἔμπροσθεν ἔτεσιν ἑξακοσίοις πλέον γεγονὼς προεῖπεν, ὡς δεῖ πάντως ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ οἰκοδομηθῆναι ναὸν τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ ὑπ' ἀνδρὸς ̓Ιουδαίου. διὰ ταῦτα οὖν ἐπηρμένος ̓Ονίας γράφει Πτολεμαίῳ καὶ Κλεοπάτρᾳ τοιαύτην ἐπιστολήν: 13.65. “πολλὰς καὶ μεγάλας ὑμῖν χρείας τετελεκὼς ἐν τοῖς κατὰ πόλεμον ἔργοις μετὰ τῆς τοῦ θεοῦ βοηθείας, καὶ γενόμενος ἔν τε τῇ κοίλῃ Συρίᾳ καὶ Φοινίκῃ, καὶ εἰς Λεόντων δὲ πόλιν τοῦ ̔Ηλιοπολίτου σὺν τοῖς ̓Ιουδαίοις καὶ εἰς ἄλλους τόπους ἀφικόμενος τοῦ ἔθνους, 13.66. καὶ πλείστους εὑρὼν παρὰ τὸ καθῆκον ἔχοντας ἱερὰ καὶ διὰ τοῦτο δύσνους ἀλλήλοις, ὃ καὶ Αἰγυπτίοις συμβέβηκεν διὰ τὸ πλῆθος τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ τὸ περὶ τὰς θρησκείας οὐχ ὁμόδοξον, ἐπιτηδειότατον εὑρὼν τόπον ἐν τῷ προσαγορευομένῳ τῆς ἀγρίας Βουβάστεως ὀχυρώματι βρύοντα ποικίλης ὕλης καὶ τῶν ἱερῶν ζῴων μεστόν, 13.67. δέομαι συγχωρῆσαί μοι τὸ ἀδέσποτον ἀνακαθάραντι ἱερὸν καὶ συμπεπτωκὸς οἰκοδομῆσαι ναὸν τῷ μεγίστῳ θεῷ καθ' ὁμοίωσιν τοῦ ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις αὐτοῖς μέτροις ὑπὲρ σοῦ καὶ τῆς σῆς γυναικὸς καὶ τῶν τέκνων, ἵν' ἔχωσιν οἱ τὴν Αἴγυπτον κατοικοῦντες ̓Ιουδαῖοι εἰς αὐτὸ συνιόντες κατὰ τὴν πρὸς ἀλλήλους ὁμόνοιαν ταῖς σαῖς ἐξυπηρετεῖν χρείαις: 13.68. καὶ γὰρ ̔Ησαί̈ας ὁ προφήτης τοῦτο προεῖπεν: ἔσται θυσιαστήριον ἐν Αἰγύπτῳ κυρίῳ τῷ θεῷ: καὶ πολλὰ δὲ προεφήτευσεν ἄλλα τοιαῦτα διὰ τὸν τόπον.” 13.69. Καὶ ταῦτα μὲν ὁ ̓Ονίας τῷ βασιλεῖ Πτολεμαίῳ γράφει. κατανοήσειε δ' ἄν τις αὐτοῦ τὴν εὐσέβειαν καὶ Κλεοπάτρας τῆς ἀδελφῆς αὐτοῦ καὶ γυναικὸς ἐξ ἧς ἀντέγραψαν ἐπιστολῆς: τὴν γὰρ ἁμαρτίαν καὶ τὴν τοῦ νόμου παράβασιν εἰς τὴν ̓Ονίου κεφαλὴν ἀνέθεσαν: 13.71. ἐπεὶ δὲ σὺ φῂς ̔Ησαί̈αν τὸν προφήτην ἐκ πολλοῦ χρόνου τοῦτο προειρηκέναι, συγχωροῦμέν σοι, εἰ μέλλει τοῦτ' ἔσεσθαι κατὰ τὸν νόμον: ὥστε μηδὲν ἡμᾶς δοκεῖν εἰς τὸν θεὸν ἐξημαρτηκέναι.” 13.72. Λαβὼν οὖν τὸν τόπον ὁ ̓Ονίας κατεσκεύασεν ἱερὸν καὶ βωμὸν τῷ θεῷ ὅμοιον τῷ ἐν ̔Ιεροσολύμοις, μικρότερον δὲ καὶ πενιχρότερον. τὰ δὲ μέτρα αὐτοῦ καὶ τὰ σκεύη νῦν οὐκ ἔδοξέ μοι δηλοῦν: ἐν γὰρ τῇ ἑβδόμῃ μου βίβλῳ τῶν ̓Ιουδαϊκῶν ἀναγέγραπται. | 12.106. But in the morning they came to the court and saluted Ptolemy, and then went away to their former place, where, when they had washed their hands, and purified themselves, they betook themselves to the interpretation of the laws. 13.62. 1. But then the son of Onias the high priest, who was of the same name with his father, and who fled to king Ptolemy, who was called Philometor, lived now at Alexandria, as we have said already. When this Onias saw that Judea was oppressed by the Macedonians and their kings, 13.63. out of a desire to purchase to himself a memorial and eternal fame he resolved to send to king Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra, to ask leave of them that he might build a temple in Egypt like to that at Jerusalem, and might ordain Levites and priests out of their own stock. 13.64. The chief reason why he was desirous so to do, was, that he relied upon the prophet Isaiah, who lived above six hundred years before, and foretold that there certainly was to be a temple built to Almighty God in Egypt by a man that was a Jew. Onias was elevated with this prediction, and wrote the following epistle to Ptolemy and Cleopatra: 13.65. “Having done many and great things for you in the affairs of the war, by the assistance of God, and that in Celesyria and Phoenicia, I came at length with the Jews to Leontopolis, and to other places of your nation, 13.66. where I found that the greatest part of your people had temples in an improper manner, and that on this account they bare ill-will one against another, which happens to the Egyptians by reason of the multitude of their temples, and the difference of opinions about divine worship. Now I found a very fit place in a castle that hath its name from the country Diana; this place is full of materials of several sorts, and replenished with sacred animals; 13.67. I desire therefore that you will grant me leave to purge this holy place, which belongs to no master, and is fallen down, and to build there a temple to Almighty God, after the pattern of that in Jerusalem, and of the same dimensions, that may be for the benefit of thyself, and thy wife and children, that those Jews which dwell in Egypt may have a place whither they may come and meet together in mutual harmony one with another, and he subservient to thy advantages; 13.68. for the prophet Isaiah foretold that, ‘there should be an altar in Egypt to the Lord God;’” and many other such things did he prophesy relating to that place. 13.69. 2. And this was what Onias wrote to king Ptolemy. Now any one may observe his piety, and that of his sister and wife Cleopatra, by that epistle which they wrote in answer to it; for they laid the blame and the transgression of the law upon the head of Onias. And this was their reply: 13.70. “King Ptolemy and queen Cleopatra to Onias, send greeting. We have read thy petition, wherein thou desirest leave to be given thee to purge that temple which is fallen down at Leontopolis, in the Nomus of Heliopolis, and which is named from the country Bubastis; on which account we cannot but wonder that it should be pleasing to God to have a temple erected in a place so unclean, and so full of sacred animals. 13.71. But since thou sayest that Isaiah the prophet foretold this long ago, we give thee leave to do it, if it may be done according to your law, and so that we may not appear to have at all offended God herein.” 13.72. 3. So Onias took the place, and built a temple, and an altar to God, like indeed to that in Jerusalem, but smaller and poorer. I do not think it proper for me now to describe its dimensions or its vessels, which have been already described in my seventh book of the Wars of the Jews. |
|
24. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 22.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 115 22.4. דָּבָר אַחֵר, וְיִתְרוֹן אֶרֶץ, עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָאֵים עַל גַּבֵּי נַהֲרָא וְחָמָא חָדָא אוּרְדְּעָן טָעֲנָא חָדָא עַקְרָב וּמְגִזְתֵּיהּ נַהֲרָא, אָמַר זוֹ מוּכֶנֶת לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָא אַגִּיזְתָּא נַהֲרָא וַאֲזָלַת וַעֲבָדַת שְׁלִיחוּתָהּ וַחֲזָרַת יָתָהּ לְאַתְרָהּ, וְנִשְׁמַע קוֹל יְלָלָה בָּעִיר פְּלוֹנִי נְשָׁכוֹ עַקְרָב וָמֵת. רַבִּי פִּנְחָס בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חָנִין דְּצִפּוֹרִי אָמַר עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה קָאֵים וְחָפַר בַּהֲדָא בִּקְעַת בֵּית שׁוֹפָרֵי, חָמָא חַד עֵשֶׂב וְלָקֵיט יָתֵיהּ וְעָבְדָא כְּלִילָא לְרֵאשֵׁיהּ, אָזַל חַד חִוְיָא וּמָחָא יָתֵיהּ וְקָטַל יָתֵיהּ, אָתָא חַד חָבֵר וְקָם לֵיהּ סָקַר בְּהַהוּא חִוְיָא אָמַר תָּמַהּ אֲנָא עַל מַאן דְּקָטַל הֲדָא חִוְיָא, אֲמַר הַהוּא גַבְרָא אֲנָא קְטָלִית יָתֵיהּ, תָּלָה אַפּוֹי וְחָמָא הַהוּא עִשְׂבָּא עָבֵיד בָּהּ כְּלִילָא עַל רֵישֵׁיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן קוּשְׁטָא אֲנָא קְטָלִית יָתֵיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ יָכֵיל מֵרִים הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא מִן רֵישָׁא, אָמַר לֵיהּ אִין, כֵּיוָן דְּאָרֵים יָתֵיהּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ אַתְּ יָכֵיל קָרֵב הָדֵין חִוְיָא בְּהָדֵין חוּטְרָא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ אִין, כֵּיוָן דְּקָרַב לְהַהוּא חִוְיָא מִיָּד נָשְׁלוּ אֵבָרָיו. רַבִּי יַנַּאי הֲוָה יָתֵיב מַתְנֵי עַל תְּרַע קַרְתָּא, וְרָאָה נָחָשׁ אֶחָד מַרְתִּיעַ וּבָא וַהֲוָה מְרַדֵּף לֵיהּ מִן הָדֵין סִטְרָא וְהוּא חָזַר מִן הָדֵין סִטְרָא, אָמַר זֶה מוּכָן לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ, מִיָּד נָפְלָה הֲבָרָה בָּעִיר אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי נְשָׁכוֹ נָחָשׁ וָמֵת. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲוָה יָתֵיב וּמְטַיֵּיל בְּבֵית הַכִּסֵּא, אָתָא חַד רוֹמִי וּמְקִים יָתֵיהּ וִיתֵיב, אֲמַר הֲדָא לָא עַל מַגָּן, מִיָּד נָפְקָא חַד חִוְיָא וּמָחָא יָתֵיהּ וְקָטְלֵיהּ, קָרֵי עֲלֵיהּ (ישעיה מג, ד): וְאֶתֵּן אָדָם תַּחְתֶּיךָ. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הֲוָה קָאֵים עַל חָדָא שׁוּנִיתָא דְּיַמָּא דְקֵיסָרִין וְרָאָה קוּלְיָא אַחַת שֶׁהָיְתָה מִתְגַּלְגֶּלֶת וּבָאָה וַהֲוָה מַצְנַע לָהּ וְהָא מִתְגַּלְגְּלָא, אָמַר זוֹ מוּכֶנֶת לַעֲשׂוֹת שְׁלִיחוּתָא, לְבָתַר יוֹמִין עָבַר חַד בַּלְדָּר, אִתְגַּלְגְּלַת בֵּין רַגְלָיו וְנִכְשַׁל בָּהּ וְנָפַל וּמֵת, אָזְלִין וּפַשְׁפְּשׁוּנֵיהּ וְאַשְׁכְּחוּן יָתֵיהּ טָעַן כְּתָבִין בִּישִׁין עַל יְהוּדָאי דְקֵיסָרִין. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן הֲוָה עַסְקָן בִּדְבָרִים, הֲוָה לֵיהּ חַד פַּרְדֵּס, חַד זְמַן הֲוָה יָתֵיב בֵּיהּ וַהֲוָה בֵּיהּ חַד סַדָּן, חָמָא הֲדָא דוּכִיפַת דְּעָבֵיד לֵיהּ קֵן בְּגַוָּהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מַה בָּעֵי הָדֵין עוֹפָא מְסָאֲבָא בַּהֲדֵין פַּרְדֵּס, אָזַל רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן וְסָתְרֵיהּ לְהַהוּא קִנָּא, אָזַל הַהוּא דוּכִיפַת וְתַקְנֵיהּ, מָה עֲבַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָזַל אַיְיתֵי חַד לוּחַ וְיַהֲבָהּ בְּאַפּוֹי דְהַהוּא קִנָּא וִיהַב בֵּיהּ חַד מַסְמֵר. מָה עֲבַד הַהוּא דוּכִיפַת אָזַל אַיְיתֵי חַד עֵשֶׂב וְיַהֲבֵיהּ עַל הַהוּא מַסְמְרָא וְשָׂרְפֵהּ. מָה עֲבַד רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אָמַר טוֹב לְמִגְנְזָא הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא דְּלָא יֵילְפוּן גַּנָּבַיָא לְמֶעְבַּד כֵּן וְיַחְרְבוּן בְּרִיָּיתָא. חֲמַרְתָּא דְּרַבִּי יַנַּאי אֲכָלַת עִשְׂבָּא וְאִיסְתַּמֵּית וַאֲכָלַת עִשְׂבָּא אָחֳרִי וְאִתְפַּתְּחַת. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּתְרֵין גַּבְרֵי דַּהֲווֹ עָיְלִין בְּאִילֵין שְׁבִילַיָּא דִּטְבֶרְיָא, חַד סַמְיָא וְחַד מְפַתַּח, וַהֲוָה הַהִיא פְּתִיחָה גָּדֵישׁ לֵיהּ לְהַהוּא סַמְיָא, יָתְבוּן לְמִקַרְטָא בְּאוֹרְחָא וַאֲרָעַת שַׁעְתָּא וְאָכְלִין מִן עִשְׂבָּא, דֵין דַּהֲוָה סַמֵּי אִתְפַּתַּח וְדֵין דַּהֲוָה פָּתִיחַ אִסְתַּמֵּי, וְלָא עָלוּן מִן תַּמָּן עַד דִּגְדַשׁ הַהוּא סַמְיָא לִפְתִיחָא. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בְּחַד גַּבְרָא דַּהֲוָה סָלֵיק מִן בָּבֶל, יָתֵיב לְמִקַרְטָא בְּאוֹרְחָא, וְחָמָא תַּרְתֵּין צִפֳּרִין מִתְנַצְיָין חָדָא עִם חָדָא, וְקָטְלַת חָדָא מִנְּהוֹן חֲבֶרְתָּהּ, אָזְלַת הַהִיא אַחְרִיתֵּי וְאַתְיָא עִשְׂבָּא וִיהַב עֲלָהּ וְאַחְיַית יָתָהּ, אֲמַר טַב לִי נְסַב מִן הָדֵין עִשְׂבָּא וְאַחְיֵה בֵּיהּ מֵתַיָא דְאַרְעָא דְיִשְׂרָאֵל, כִּי פָרֵי וְסָלַק חָמָא חַד תַּעֲלָא מִית מִקְלַק בְּאוֹרְחָא, אֲמַר טַב לִי מְנַסְיָא בַּהֲדֵין תַּעֲלָא, וִיהַב עֲלֵיהּ וְאַחְיֵיהּ, וְסָלֵיק עַד שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלַמֵּי צוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁהִגִּיעַ לְסוּלַמֵּי צוֹר חָמֵי חַד אֲרִי קְטֵיל וּמִקְלַק בְּאָרְחָא, אֲמַר טַב לִי מְנַסְיָא בַּהֲדֵין אֲרִי, וִיהַב עֲלוֹהִי מִן עִשְׂבָּא וַחֲיָה, וְקָם וַאֲכַל יָתֵיהּ, הוּא דִּבְרִיָּתָא אָמְרֵי טַב לְבִישׁ עֲבַדְתְּ בִּישָׁא עֲבַדְתְּ, טַב לְבִישׁ לָא תַעֲבֵיד וּבִישׁ לָא מָטֵי לָךְ. אָמַר רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא אֲפִלּוּ בְּמַיִם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עוֹשֶׂה שְׁלִיחוּתוֹ. מַעֲשֶׂה בְּמֻכֶּה שְׁחִין אֶחָד שֶׁיָּרַד לִטְבֹּל בִּטְבֶרְיָא וַאֲרָעַת שַׁעְתָּא וְטָפַת לְבֵירָא דְמִרְיָם וְאַסְחֵי וְאִתְּסֵי, וְהֵיכָן הִיא בְּאֵרָהּ שֶׁל מִרְיָם אָמַר רַבִּי חִיָּא בַּר אַבָּא כְּתִיב (במדבר כא, כ): וְנִשְׁקָפָה עַל פְּנֵי הַיְשִׁימֹן, שֶׁכָּל מִי שֶׁהוּא עוֹלֶה עַל רֹאשׁ הַר יְשִׁימוֹן וְרוֹאֶה כְּמִין כְּבָרָה קְטַנָּה בְּיַם טְבֶרְיָא, זוֹ הִיא בְּאֵרָהּ שֶׁל מִרְיָם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי שַׁעֲרוּתָא רַבָּנָן וְהוּא מְכַוְּנָא כָּל קְבֵיל תַּרְעֵי מְצִיעַיָא דִכְנִשְׁתָּא עַתִּיקָא דִטְבֶרְיָא. | |
|
25. Mishna, Challah, 4.8, 4.10-4.11 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 4.8. רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, שָׁלֹשׁ אֲרָצוֹת לַחַלָּה. מֵאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל וְעַד כְּזִיב, חַלָּה אֶחָת. מִכְּזִיב וְעַד הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר. מִן הַנָּהָר וְעַד אֲמָנָה וְלִפְנִים, שְׁתֵּי חַלּוֹת, אַחַת לָאוּר וְאַחַת לַכֹּהֵן. שֶׁל אוּר אֵין לָהּ שִׁעוּר, וְשֶׁל כֹּהֵן יֶשׁ לָהּ שִׁעוּר. וּטְבוּל יוֹם אוֹכְלָהּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ טְבִילָה. וַאֲסוּרָה לַזָּבִים וְלַזָּבוֹת לַנִּדָּה וְלַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וְנֶאֱכֶלֶת עִם הַזָּר עַל הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְנִתֶּנֶת לְכָל כֹּהֵן: 4.11. בֶּן אַנְטִינוֹס הֶעֱלָה בְכוֹרוֹת מִבָּבֶל, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. יוֹסֵף הַכֹּהֵן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרֵי יַיִן וְשֶׁמֶן, וְלֹא קִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הוּא הֶעֱלָה אֶת בָּנָיו וּבְנֵי בֵיתוֹ לַעֲשׂוֹת פֶּסַח קָטָן בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, וְהֶחֱזִירוּהוּ, שֶׁלֹּא יִקָּבַע הַדָּבָר חוֹבָה. אֲרִיסְטוֹן הֵבִיא בִכּוּרָיו מֵאַפַּמְיָא, וְקִבְּלוּ מִמֶּנּוּ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁאָמְרוּ, הַקּוֹנֶה בְסוּרְיָא, כְּקוֹנֶה בְּפַרְוָר שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלָיִם: | 4.8. Rabban Gamaliel says: there are three territories with regard to [liability to] hallah:From the land of Israel to Chezib: one hallah-portion. From Chezib to the river and to Amanah: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has a minimum measure, and the one for the priest does not have a minimum measure. From the river and from Amanah and inward: two hallah-portions. One for the fire and one for the priest. The one for the fire has no minimum measure, and the one for the priest has a minimum measure. And [a priest] who has immersed himself during the day [and has not waited till sunset for his purification to be complete] may eat it. Rabbi Yose says: he does not require immersion. But it is forbidden to zavim and zavot, to menstruants, and to women after childbirth; It may be eaten with a non-priest at the [same] table; And it may be given to any priest. 4.10. Nittai of Tekoa brought hallah-portions from Be-Yitur, but they did not accept from him. The people of Alexandria brought hallah, but they did not accept from them. The people from Mt. Zevoim brought bikkurim prior to Atzeret (Shavuot), but they did not accept from them, on for it is written in the Torah: “And the festival of the harvest, the first-fruits of your labors, which you have sown in the field” (Exodus 23:16). 4.11. Ben Antigonus brought up firstlings from Babylon, but they did not accept from him. Joseph the priest brought first fruits of wine and oil, but they did not accept from him. He also brought up his sons and members of his household to celebrate Pesah katan in Jerusalem, but they turned him back, so that the thing should not become firmly fixed as an obligation. Ariston brought his first fruits from Apamea and they accepted from him, because they said, one who buys [a field] in Syria is as one who buys [a field] in the outskirts of Jerusalem. |
|
26. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 46.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 46.2. Κἀγὼ πάλιν· Συσκεψώμεθα κἀκεῖνο, εἰ ἔνεστιν, ἔλεγον, φυλάσσειν τὰ διὰ Μωσέως διαταχθέντα ἅπαντα νῦν. Κἀκεῖνος ἀπεκρίνατο· Οὔ· γνωρίζομεν γὰρ ὅτι, ὡς ἔφης, οὔτε πρόβατον τοῦ πάσχα ἀλλαχόσε θύειν δυνατὸν οὔτε τοὺς τῇ νηστείᾳ κελευσθέντας προσφέρεσθαι χιμάρους οὔτε τὰς ἄλλας ἁπλῶς ἁπάσας προσφοράς. Κἀγώ· Τίνα οὖν ἃ δυνατόν ἐστι φυλάσσειν, παρακαλῶ, λέγε αὐτός· πεισθήσῃ γὰρ ὅτι μὴ φυλάσσων τὰ αἰώνια δικαιώματά τις ἢ πράξας σωθῆναι ἐκ παντὸς ἔχει. Κἀκεῖνος· Τὸ σαββατίζειν λέγω καὶ τὸ περιτέμνεσθαι καὶ τὸ τὰ [fol. 95] ἔμμηνα φυλάσσειν καὶ τὸ βαπτίζεσθαι ἁψάμενόν τινος ὧν ἀπηγόρευται ὑπὸ Μωσέως ἢ ἐν συνουσίᾳ γενόμενον. | |
|
27. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 4.22.142 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
28. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Greeks, 6.70 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 109 |
29. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 51 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
30. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, 22a, 21b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה | 21b. or a case where he prayed as part of a congregation and began to repeat it as part of a congregation; however, in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that an individual vis-à-vis the congregation is considered as one who has not prayed. Therefore, he taught us that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. And, on the other hand, if he had taught us here only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is because he did not yet begin to recite the prayer, but there, in the case where he already began to recite the prayer, say that this is not the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are necessary.,Rav Huna said: One who did not yet pray and enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is in the midst of reciting the Amida prayer, if he is able to begin and complete his own prayer before the prayer leader reaches the blessing of thanksgiving [modim], he should begin to pray, and, if not, he should not begin to pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete his prayer before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [kedusha], then he should begin to pray. If not, then he should not begin to pray.,The Gemara clarifies: With regard to what do they disagree? The basis for their dispute is that one Sage, Rav Huna, holds: An individual is permitted to recite kedusha on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; and the other Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, holds that an individual may not recite kedusha alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches kedusha.,Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, in accordance with the second opinion: From where is it derived that an individual may not recite kedusha alone? As it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel” (Leviticus 22:32), any expression of sanctity may not be recited in a quorum of fewer than ten men.,The Gemara asks: How is this inferred from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a baraita, which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferred by means of a verbal analogy [gezera shava] between the words among, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there, regarding Korah’s congregation, it is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” (Numbers 16:21). Just as there among connotes ten, so too here, among connotes ten. The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten.,And, in any case, everyone agrees that one may not interrupt his prayer in order to respond to kedusha.,However, a dilemma was raised before the Sages of the yeshiva: What is the ruling? Is one permitted to interrupt his prayer in order to recite: “May His great name be blessed” in kaddish? When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupt his prayer for anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as even if one was engaged in the exalted study of the Act of the Divine Chariot [Ma’aseh Merkava] (see Ezekiel 1) he stops to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: The halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.,We learned in the mishna that Rabbi Yehuda says with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward in both the case of Shema and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted to engage in matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where in the Torah is it derived that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah? As it is stated: “Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, and you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. And, juxtaposed to it, is the verse: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that just as below, at the revelation at Mount Sinai, those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, so too here, throughout the generations, those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited from engaging in Torah study.,And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, didn’t Rav Yosef already say: Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah, nevertheless, derives them in Deuteronomy [Mishne Torah], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in Mishne Torah.,And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught in a baraita with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, ben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that was to say: Just as one who lies with a beast is executed by stoning (see Leviticus 20), so too a sorceress is executed by stoning.,With regard to this proof Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does the fact that the Torah juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking this person out to be stoned? Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis Rather, the source is: Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out from the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard are executed by stoning, so too is a sorceress executed by stoning.,And from where do we derive that Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Mishne Torah? As it was taught in another baraita: Rabbi Eliezer said that a man may wed a woman raped by his father and one seduced by his father; a woman raped by his son and one seduced by his son. Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them.,And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits him from marrying a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said that Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion? As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: A skirt that has been seen by his father, i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, may not be uncovered by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her.,And from where do we know that the verse is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As the previous section, juxtaposed to it, deals with the laws of rape: “And the man who lay with her must give her father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? They replied: Indeed, in Mishne Torah Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from the juxtaposition of verses, but he requires these juxtaposed verses in order to derive another statement of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him credit as if he received the Torah from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” (Deuteronomy 4:9) after which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.” Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah.,We learned in a mishna that a zav who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse with her husband and she saw menstrual blood, all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless require ritual immersion in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. And Rabbi Yehuda exempts them from immersion.,However, Rabbi Yehuda only exempted from immersion in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the zav. But, in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda requires immersion before he may engage in Torah matters.,And if you say: The same is true even in the case of one who experienced a seminal emission alone, that Rabbi Yehuda also exempts him from immersion, and the fact that they disagree in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone is in order to convey the far-reaching nature of the opinion of the Rabbis, who require immersion even in this case. If so, say the last case of that same mishna: A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw menstrual blood requires immersion.,The Gemara seeks to clarify: In accordance with whose opinion was this case in the mishna taught? If you say that it is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, that is obvious; if in the case of a zav who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, when he experienced the seminal emission, the Rabbis nevertheless require immersion, all the more so wouldn’t they require immersion for a woman who engaged in intercourse and only then saw blood, who was fit to immerse herself from the outset, when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? Rather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion, and this case was taught specifically in order to teach |
|
31. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 14b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 14b. כיון דהך גזור ברישא הא תו למה לי אלא הך גזור ברישא והדר גזור בכולהו ידים,וטבול יום טבול יום דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ויקרא כב, ז) ובא השמש וטהר סמי מכאן טבול יום,והאוכלין שנטמאו במשקין במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא יא, לד) וכל משקה אשר ישתה אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת ידים וגזירה משום משקין הבאין מחמת שרץ,והכלים שנטמאו במשקין כלים דאיטמאו במשקין דמאי אילימא במשקין דזב דאוריי' נינהו דכתיב (ויקרא טו, ח) וכי ירוק הזב בטהור מה שביד טהור טמאתי לך אלא במשקין הבאין מחמת שרץ וגזירה משום משקין דזב,וידים תלמידי שמאי והלל גזור שמאי והלל גזור דתניא יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יוחנן איש ירושלים גזרו טומאה על ארץ העמים ועל כלי זכוכית שמעון בן שטח תיקן כתובה לאשה וגזר טומאה על כלי מתכות שמאי והלל גזרו טומאה על הידים,וכ"ת שמאי וסיעתו והלל וסיעתו והאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל י"ח דבר גזרו ובי"ח נחלקו ואילו הלל ושמאי לא נחלקו אלא בג' מקומות דא"ר הונא בג' מקומות נחלקו ותו לא וכ"ת אתו אינהו גזור לתלות ואתו תלמידייהו וגזרו לשרוף והאמר אילפא ידים תחלת גזירתן לשריפה אלא אתו אינהו גזור ולא קבלו מינייהו ואתו תלמידייהו גזרו וקבלו מינייהו,ואכתי שלמה גזר דא"ר יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שתיקן שלמה עירובין ונטילת ידים יצתה בת קול ואמרה (משלי כג, טו) בני אם חכם לבך ישמח לבי גם אני (משלי כז, יא) חכם בני ושמח לבי ואשיבה חורפי דבר אתא | 14b. once they decreed that first, why do I need that decree of impurity on hands that touch a sacred scroll as well? Once the Sages decreed impurity on hands in general, there is no longer a necessity to decree impurity on hands that touched a Torah scroll, as hands are impure in any case. Rather, certainly the Sages decreed impurity on this, hands that touched a Torah scroll, first. And then they decreed impurity on all hands.,Among the decrees listed in the mishna, there is the decree that contact with one who immersed himself during the day disqualifies teruma. The Gemara asks: One who immersed himself during the day transmits impurity by Torah law, as it is written: “One who touches it remains impure until evening. He should not eat of the consecrated items and he must wash his flesh with water. And the sun sets and it is purified. Afterward, he may eat from the teruma, for it is his bread” (Leviticus 22:6–7). Consequently, until sunset he is prohibited by Torah law from touching consecrated items, and the same is true for teruma. The Gemara answers: Delete from here, from the list of decrees in the mishna, one who immersed himself during the day.,And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the impurity of the foods that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: With liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, they are impure by Torah law, as it is written with regard to the impurity of creeping animals: “And every liquid that is drunk in any vessel, will be impure” (Leviticus 11:34). Rather, the mishna is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with impure hands. The Sages issued this decree due to liquids that come to be impure through contact with a creeping animal.,And among the decrees that were listed, there is also the decree concerning the vessels that became impure through contact with liquids. The Gemara asks: Vessels that became impure due to contact with liquids that became impure due to contact with what source of impurity? If you say that they become impure due to contact with liquids secreted by a zav, e.g., spittle, urine, etc., they are impure by Torah law, as it is written: “And if a zav spits on a pure person and he should wash his clothes and wash in water and he is impure until the evening” (Leviticus 15:8). The Sages interpreted homiletically: Whatever is in the hand of the pure person I made impure for you. Not only did the person who came into contact with the liquids of the zav become impure, but the objects in his hand did as well. Rather, here it is referring to liquids that come to be impure due to contact with a creeping animal, which by Torah law do not transmit impurity to vessels. And the Sages issued a decree with regard to those liquids due to their similarity to the liquids of a zav.,Among the list of items in the mishna with regard to which the disciples of Shammai and Hillel instituted decrees, were the hands of any person who did not purify himself for the sake of purity of teruma. If he came into contact with teruma, the Sages decreed it impure. The Gemara asks: And with regard to hands, was it the disciples of Shammai and Hillel who issued the decree of impurity? Shammai and Hillel themselves issued the decree. As it was taught in a baraita: Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yoḥa of Jerusalem decreed impurity on the land of the nations, that the land outside Eretz Yisrael transmits impurity; and they decreed impurity on glass vessels, even though glass is not listed in the Torah among the vessels that can become impure. Shimon ben Shataḥ instituted the formula of a woman’s marriage contract and also decreed special impurity on metal vessels. Shammai and Hillel decreed impurity on the hands.,And if you say that the baraita is referring to Shammai and his faction and Hillel and his faction, didn’t Rav Yehuda say that Shmuel said: With regard to eighteen matters they issued decrees that day, and with regard to those eighteen matters they disagreed prior to that? The eighteen disputes were only between the disciples of Shammai and Hillel, whereas Hillel and Shammai themselves argued only in three places. Clearly, they were neither party to the disputes nor the decrees. As Rav Huna said: Shammai and Hillel disagreed in only three places and no more. And if you say that Hillel and Shammai came and decreed that teruma that came into contact with hands would be in abeyance, and their students came and decreed to burn teruma that came into contact with hands, then the following difficulty arises. Didn’t Ilfa, one of the Sages, say: With regard to hands, from the beginning their decree was that teruma that comes into contact with them is to be burned? According to Ilfa, there is no uncertainty. Teruma that came into contact with definite impurity is burned. Teruma that is in abeyance may not be destroyed. One must wait until it becomes definitely impure or decomposes on its own. Rather, the explanation is that they came and issued a decree and the people did not accept the decree from them, and their disciples came and issued a decree and they accepted it from them.,The Gemara asks further: Still, the matter is not clear, as the decree of hands was issued by King Solomon. As Rav Yehuda said that Shmuel said: At the time that Solomon instituted the ordices of eiruv and of washing hands to purify them from their impurity, a Divine Voice emerged and said in his praise: “My son, if your heart is wise my heart will be glad, even mine” (Proverbs 23:15), and so too: “My son, be wise and make my heart glad, that I may respond to those who taunt me” (Proverbs 27: 11). The Gemara responds: Came |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 10a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 10a. יש אחריה היתר וקדושת ירושלים אין אחריה היתר:, 10a. after the Tabernacle was destroyed, there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed, there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, as the prohibition remains intact.,Rabbi Yitzḥak said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings in the temple of Onias in Egypt at the present time. The Gemara cites the basis for the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. He maintains that the temple of Onias is not a house of idol worship but rather a temple devoted to the service of God, and he maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Therefore, after the destruction of the Temple, the sanctity of Jerusalem lapsed and the sacrifice of offerings elsewhere was no longer prohibited. For these reasons it was permitted to sacrifice offerings in the temple of Onias after the Temple was destroyed.,The Gemara cites the source of this halakha. It is as it is written: “For you are not as yet come to the rest and to the inheritance” (Deuteronomy 12:9), which is interpreted: “Rest,” this is Shiloh; “inheritance,” this is Jerusalem. The verse juxtaposes and likens inheritance to rest: Just as in the place of rest, Shiloh, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars, so too in the place of inheritance, Jerusalem, after its destruction there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars.,The Gemara reports that the other Sages said to Rabbi Yitzḥak: Did you say this halakha with regard to the temple of Onias? He said to them: No, I did not say that. Rava said, reinforcing his assertion with an oath: By God! Rabbi Yitzḥak did in fact say this, and I myself learned it from him, but he later retracted this ruling.,The Gemara asks: And what is the reason he retracted his ruling? The Gemara explains: It is due to the difficulty raised by Rav Mari, as Rav Mari raised an objection from the mishna: With regard to the sanctity of Shiloh, after the Tabernacle was destroyed there is permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. But with regard to the sanctity of Jerusalem, after the Temple was destroyed there is no permission to sacrifice offerings on improvised altars. And furthermore, we learned in a mishna (Zevaḥim 112b): Once they came to Jerusalem, improvised altars were prohibited, and they did not again have permission to do so, and Jerusalem became the everlasting inheritance.,The Gemara comments: This matter is subject to a dispute between tanna’im, as it is taught in a mishna (Eduyyot 8:6): Rabbi Eliezer said: I heard that when they were building the Sanctuary in the Second Temple, they fashioned temporary hangings for the Sanctuary and temporary hangings for the courtyard to serve as partitions until construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was only that in building the Sanctuary, the workers built the walls outside the hangings, without entering, and in the courtyard, the workers built the walls inside the hangings.,And Rabbi Yehoshua said: I heard that one sacrifices offerings on the altar even though there is no Temple, one eats offerings of the most sacred order in the Temple courtyard even if there are no hangings, and one eats offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe produce in Jerusalem even if there is no wall surrounding the city, due to the fact that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. Even if the walls do not exist, the sanctity remains intact. The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial sanctification sanctified Jerusalem forever, by inference one can conclude that Rabbi Eliezer holds: It did not sanctify Jerusalem forever. Apparently, this issue is subject to a dispute between tanna’im.,Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where do you draw this inference? Perhaps everyone maintains that the initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time and also sanctified Jerusalem forever. And one Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and one Sage, Rabbi Yehoshua, stated that tradition, which he heard from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. And if you would say: Why then do I need hangings at all according to Rabbi Eliezer? The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and the presence or absence of hangings is irrelevant as well. The Gemara answers: The hangings were established merely for seclusion, as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all.,Rather, this matter is subject to the dispute between these tanna’im, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate these nine cities in tractate Arakhin as cities walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? Weren’t there many more? As, when the exiles ascended to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, they discovered these cities and consecrated them as walled cities; but the sanctity of the first walled cities enumerated in the book of Joshua was negated when settlement in the land was negated and the Jewish people were exiled. Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, maintains: The initial consecration sanctified Jerusalem for its time only and did not sanctify Jerusalem forever.,The Gemara raises a contradiction from a different baraita. Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Were these cities that were enumerated in tractate Arakhin the only walled cities? Wasn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argov” (Deuteronomy 3:4), and concerning these cities it is written: “All these cities were fortified with high walls, gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:5), indicating that there were a great number of walled cities? Rather, why then did the Sages enumerate these specific cities? It is due to the fact that when the exiles ascended from Babylonia they discovered these and consecrated them as walled cities.,The Gemara asks: Consecrated them? If their sanctity remained, why was it necessary to consecrate them? | |
|
33. Palestinian Talmud, Shev 6 (36C), 6 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
34. Palestinian Talmud, Shab 1 (3D) 4, 17,, 1 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
35. Palestinian Talmud, Pes 1 (27D) 17,, 1 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
36. Palestinian Talmud, Ket 8 (32C) 17,, 8 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
37. Mishnah, Oh, 2.3, 17.5, 18.6 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
38. Babylonian Talmud, Bk, 82a Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
39. Palestinian Talmud, Meg 4 (75D), 4 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
40. Mishnah, Shev, 6.1, 9.2 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113, 114 |
41. Babylonian Talmud, Bablonian Talmud (Bavli), 4 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 112 |
42. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 305 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 109 | 305. after saluting the king went back to their own place. And as is the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea and prayed to God and then devoted themselves to reading and |
|
43. Anon., Challah, 2.5 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 114 |
44. Tosefta, Ah, 17.6, 18.1-18.5 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 113 |
45. Palestinian Talmud, Meg 3 (74A) 36,, 3 Tagged with subjects: •halakha in diaspora Found in books: Tomson, Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries (2019) 115 |