1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 5.14-5.16, 5.18, 19.4-19.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, and emergence of the โselfโ โข hermeneutical method, intention in law โข intention
Found in books: Beck (2021), Repetition, Communication, and Meaning in the Ancient World, 340, 343; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 132; Pedersen (2004), Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostraโs Contra Manichaeos. 44; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 154
sup>
5.14 ืึฐืืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึฐืึดืืขึดื ืฉืึทืึผึธืช ืึทืืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึนื ืชึทืขึฒืฉืึถื ืึธืึพืึฐืึธืืึธื ืึทืชึผึธื ืึผืึดื ึฐืึธึพืึผืึดืชึผึถืึธ ืึฐืขึทืึฐืึผึฐืึธึพืึทืึฒืึธืชึถืึธ ืึฐืฉืืึนืจึฐืึธ ืึทืึฒืึนืจึฐืึธ ืึฐืึธืึพืึผึฐืึถืึฐืชึผึถืึธ ืึฐืึตืจึฐืึธ ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึผึดืฉืึฐืขึธืจึถืืึธ ืึฐืึทืขึทื ืึธื ืึผืึท ืขึทืึฐืึผึฐืึธ ืึทืึฒืึธืชึฐืึธ ืึผึธืืึนืึธื 5.15 ืึฐืึธืึทืจึฐืชึผึธ ืึผึดืึพืขึถืึถื ืึธืึดืืชึธ ืึผึฐืึถืจึถืฅ ืึดืฆึฐืจึทืึดื ืึทืึผึนืฆึดืึฒืึธ ืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึดืฉืึผึธื ืึผึฐืึธื ืึฒืึธืงึธื ืึผืึดืึฐืจึนืขึท ื ึฐืืึผืึธื ืขึทืึพืึผึตื ืฆึดืึผึฐืึธ ืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึทืขึฒืฉืืึนืช ืึถืชึพืืึนื ืึทืฉืึทืึผึธืชื 5.16 ืึผึทืึผึตื ืึถืชึพืึธืึดืืึธ ืึฐืึถืชึพืึดืึผึถืึธ ืึผึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืฆึดืึผึฐืึธ ืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึฐืึทืขึทื ืึทืึฒืจึดืืึปื ืึธืึถืืึธ ืึผืึฐืึทืขึทื ืึดืืึทื ืึธืึฐ ืขึทื ืึธืึฒืึธืึธื ืึฒืฉืึถืจึพืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ื ึนืชึตื ืึธืึฐื
5.18 ืึฐืึนื ืชึทืึฐืึนื ืึตืฉืึถืช ืจึตืขึถืึธ ืึฐืึนื ืชึดืชึฐืึทืึผึถื ืึผึตืืช ืจึตืขึถืึธ ืฉืึธืึตืืึผ ืึฐืขึทืึฐืึผืึน ืึทืึฒืึธืชืึน ืฉืืึนืจืึน ืึทืึฒืึนืจืึน ืึฐืึนื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึฐืจึตืขึถืึธื
19.4 ืึฐืึถื ืึผึฐืึทืจ ืึธืจึนืฆึตืึท ืึฒืฉืึถืจึพืึธื ืึผืก ืฉืึธืึผึธื ืึธืึธื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึทืึผึถื ืึถืชึพืจึตืขึตืืึผ ืึผึดืึฐืึดืึพืึทืขึทืช ืึฐืืึผื ืึนืึพืฉืึนื ึตื ืืึน ืึดืชึผึฐืึนื ืฉืึดืึฐืฉืึนืื 19.5 ืึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึธืึนื ืึถืชึพืจึตืขึตืืึผ ืึทืึผึทืขึทืจ ืึทืึฐืึนื ืขึตืฆึดืื ืึฐื ึดืึผึฐืึธื ืึธืืึน ืึทืึผึทืจึฐืึถื ืึดืึฐืจึนืช ืึธืขึตืฅ ืึฐื ึธืฉืึทื ืึทืึผึทืจึฐืึถื ืึดืึพืึธืขึตืฅ ืึผืึธืฆึธื ืึถืชึพืจึตืขึตืืึผ ืึธืึตืช ืืึผื ืึธื ืึผืก ืึถืึพืึทืึทืช ืึถืขึธืจึดืืึพืึธืึตืึผึถื ืึธืึธืื'' None | sup>
5.14 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thine ox, nor thine ass, nor any of thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; that thy man-servant and thy maid-servant may rest as well as thou. 5.15 And thou shalt remember that thou was a servant in the land of Egypt, and the LORD thy God brought thee out thence by a mighty hand and by an outstretched arm; therefore the LORD thy God commanded thee to keep the sabbath day. 5.16 Honour thy father and thy mother, as the LORD thy God commanded thee; that thy days may be long, and that it may go well with thee, upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.
5.18 Neither shalt thou covet thy neighbourโs wife; neither shalt thou desire thy neighbourโs house, his field, or his man-servant, or his maid-servant, his ox, or his ass, or any thing that is thy neighbourโs.
19.4 And this is the case of the manslayer, that shall flee thither and live: whoso killeth his neighbour unawares, and hated him not in time past; 19.5 as when a man goeth into the forest with his neighbour to hew wood, and his hand fetcheth a stroke with the axe to cut down the tree, and the head slippeth from the helve, and lighteth upon his neighbour, that he die; he shall flee unto one of these cities and live;'' None |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 20.2-20.17, 21.12-21.14 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข hermeneutical method, intention in law โข intention โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 32; Beck (2021), Repetition, Communication, and Meaning in the Ancient World, 340, 343; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 132; Pedersen (2004), Demonstrative Proof in Defence of God: A Study of Titus of Bostraโs Contra Manichaeos. 44; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 57
sup>
20.2 ืึธื ึนืึดื ืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืืึนืฆึตืืชึดืืึธ ืึตืึถืจึถืฅ ืึดืฆึฐืจึทืึดื ืึดืึผึตืืช ืขึฒืึธืึดืืื
20.2 ืึนื ืชึทืขึฒืฉืืึผื ืึดืชึผึดื ืึฑืึนืึตื ืึถืกึถืฃ ืึตืืึนืึตื ืึธืึธื ืึนื ืชึทืขึฒืฉืืึผ ืึธืึถืื 20.3 ืึนื ืึดืึฐืึถืึพืึฐืึธ ืึฑืึนืึดืื ืึฒืึตืจึดืื ืขึทืึพืคึผึธื ึธืึท 20.4 ืึนื ืชึทืขึฒืฉืึถืึพืึฐืึธ ืคึถืกึถื ืึฐืึธืึพืชึผึฐืืึผื ึธื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึผึทืฉืึผึธืึทืึดื ืึดืึผึทืขึทื ืึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึผึธืึธืจึถืฅ ืึดืชึผึธึทืึทืช ืึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึผึทืึผึทืึดื ืึดืชึผึทืึทืช ืึธืึธืจึถืฅ 20.5 ืึนืึพืชึดืฉืึฐืชึผึทืึฐืึถื ืึธืึถื ืึฐืึนื ืชึธืขึธืึฐืึตื ืึผึดื ืึธื ึนืึดื ืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึตื ืงึทื ึผึธื ืคึผึนืงึตื ืขึฒืึบื ืึธืึนืช ืขึทืึพืึผึธื ึดืื ืขึทืึพืฉืึดืึผึตืฉืึดืื ืึฐืขึทืึพืจึดืึผึตืขึดืื ืึฐืฉืึนื ึฐืึธืื 20.6 ืึฐืขึนืฉืึถื ืึถืกึถื ืึทืึฒืึธืคึดืื ืึฐืึนืึฒืึทื ืึผืึฐืฉืึนืึฐืจึตื ืึดืฆึฐืึบืชึธืื 20.7 ืึนื ืชึดืฉืึผึธื ืึถืชึพืฉืึตืึพืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ืึทืฉืึผึธืึฐื ืึผึดื ืึนื ืึฐื ึทืงึผึถื ืึฐืืึธื ืึตืช ืึฒืฉืึถืจึพืึดืฉืึผึธื ืึถืชึพืฉืึฐืืึน ืึทืฉืึผึธืึฐืื 20.8 ืึธืืึนืจ ืึถืชึพืืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึทืึผึธืช ืึฐืงึทืึผึฐืฉืืึน 20.9 ืฉืึตืฉืึถืช ืึธืึดืื ืชึผึทืขึฒืึนื ืึฐืขึธืฉืึดืืชึธ ืึผึธืึพืึฐืึทืืึฐืชึผึถืึธ' '20.11 ืึผึดื ืฉืึตืฉืึถืชึพืึธืึดืื ืขึธืฉืึธื ืึฐืืึธื ืึถืชึพืึทืฉืึผึธืึทืึดื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึธืึธืจึถืฅ ืึถืชึพืึทืึผึธื ืึฐืึถืชึพืึผึธืึพืึฒืฉืึถืจึพืึผึธื ืึทืึผึธื ึทื ืึผึทืึผืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึฐืึดืืขึดื ืขึทืึพืึผึตื ืึผึตืจึทืึฐ ืึฐืืึธื ืึถืชึพืืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึทืึผึธืช ืึทืึฐืงึทืึผึฐืฉืึตืืึผื 20.12 ืึผึทืึผึตื ืึถืชึพืึธืึดืืึธ ืึฐืึถืชึพืึดืึผึถืึธ ืึฐืึทืขึทื ืึทืึฒืจึดืืึผื ืึธืึถืืึธ ืขึทื ืึธืึฒืึธืึธื ืึฒืฉืึถืจึพืึฐืืึธื ืึฑืึนืึถืืึธ ื ึนืชึตื ืึธืึฐื 20.13 ืึนื ืชึผึดืจึฐืฆึธืื ืึนื ืชึผึดื ึฐืึธืฃื ืึนื ืชึผึดืึฐื ึนืื ืึนืึพืชึทืขึฒื ึถื ืึฐืจึตืขึฒืึธ ืขึตื ืฉืึธืงึถืจื 20.14 ืึนื ืชึทืึฐืึนื ืึผึตืืช ืจึตืขึถืึธ ืึนืึพืชึทืึฐืึนื ืึตืฉืึถืช ืจึตืขึถืึธ ืึฐืขึทืึฐืึผืึน ืึทืึฒืึธืชืึน ืึฐืฉืืึนืจืึน ืึทืึฒืึนืจืึน ืึฐืึนื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึฐืจึตืขึถืึธื 20.15 ืึฐืึธืึพืึธืขึธื ืจึนืึดืื ืึถืชึพืึทืงึผืึนืึนืช ืึฐืึถืชึพืึทืึผึทืคึผึดืืึดื ืึฐืึตืช ืงืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึนืคึธืจ ืึฐืึถืชึพืึธืึธืจ ืขึธืฉืึตื ืึทืึผึทืจึฐื ืึธืขึธื ืึทืึผึธื ึปืขืึผ ืึทืึผึทืขึทืึฐืืึผ ืึตืจึธืึนืงื 20.16 ืึทืึผึนืืึฐืจืึผ ืึถืึพืึนืฉืึถื ืึผึทืึผึตืจึพืึทืชึผึธื ืขึดืึผึธื ืึผ ืึฐื ึดืฉืึฐืึธืขึธื ืึฐืึทืึพืึฐืึทืึผึตืจ ืขึดืึผึธื ืึผ ืึฑืึนืึดืื ืคึผึถืึพื ึธืืึผืชื 20.17 ืึทืึผึนืืึถืจ ืึนืฉืึถื ืึถืึพืึธืขึธื ืึทืึพืชึผึดืืจึธืืึผ ืึผึดื ืึฐืึทืขึฒืืึผืจ ื ึทืกึผืึนืช ืึถืชึฐืึถื ืึผึธื ืึธืึฑืึนืึดืื ืึผืึทืขึฒืืึผืจ ืชึผึดืึฐืึถื ืึดืจึฐืึธืชืึน ืขึทืึพืคึผึฐื ึตืืึถื ืึฐืึดืึฐืชึผึดื ืชึถืึฑืึธืืึผื
21.12 ืึทืึผึตื ืึดืืฉื ืึธืึตืช ืืึนืช ืืึผืึธืชื 21.13 ืึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึนื ืฆึธืึธื ืึฐืึธืึฑืึนืึดืื ืึดื ึผึธื ืึฐืึธืืึน ืึฐืฉืึทืึฐืชึผึดื ืึฐืึธ ืึธืงืึนื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึธื ืึผืก ืฉืึธืึผึธืื 21.14 ืึฐืึดืึพืึธืึดื ืึดืืฉื ืขึทืึพืจึตืขึตืืึผ ืึฐืึธืจึฐืืึน ืึฐืขึธืจึฐืึธื ืึตืขึดื ืึดืึฐืึผึฐืึดื ืชึผึดืงึผึธืึถื ึผืึผ ืึธืืึผืชื'' None | sup>
20.2 I am the LORD thy God, who brought thee out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 20.3 Thou shalt have no other gods before Me. 20.4 Thou shalt not make unto thee a graven image, nor any manner of likeness, of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; 20.5 thou shalt not bow down unto them, nor serve them; for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate Me; 20.6 and showing mercy unto the thousandth generation of them that love Me and keep My commandments. 20.7 Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless that taketh His name in vain. 20.8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 20.9 Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work; 20.10 but the seventh day is a sabbath unto the LORD thy God, in it thou shalt not do any manner of work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, nor thy man-servant, nor thy maid-servant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates; 20.11 for in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested on the seventh day; wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 20.12 Honour thy father and thy mother, that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 20.13 Thou shalt not murder. Thou shalt not commit adultery. Thou shalt not steal. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. 20.14 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbourโs house; thou shalt not covet thy neighbourโs wife, nor his man-servant, nor his maid-servant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbourโs. 20.15 And all the people perceived the thunderings, and the lightnings, and the voice of the horn, and the mountain smoking; and when the people saw it, they trembled, and stood afar off. 20.16 And they said unto Moses: โSpeak thou with us, and we will hear; but let not God speak with us, lest we die.โ 20.17 And Moses said unto the people: โFear not; for God is come to prove you, and that His fear may be before you, that ye sin not.โ
21.12 He that smiteth a man, so that he dieth, shall surely be put to death. 21.13 And if a man lie not in wait, but God cause it to come to hand; then I will appoint thee a place whither he may flee. 21.14 And if a man come presumptuously upon his neighbour, to slay him with guile; thou shalt take him from Mine altar, that he may die.' ' None |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 3.5, 7.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Ritual/Law, intention โข intention โข intention,of priest/slaughterer โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 47, 62; Fishbane (2003), Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 185; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35, 39
sup>
3.5 ืึฐืึดืงึฐืึดืืจืึผ ืึนืชืึน ืึฐื ึตืึพืึทืึฒืจึนื ืึทืึผึดืึฐืึผึตืึธื ืขึทืึพืึธืขึนืึธื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืขึทืึพืึธืขึตืฆึดืื ืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืขึทืึพืึธืึตืฉื ืึดืฉืึผึตื ืจึตืืึท ื ึดืืึนืึท ืึทืืืึธืื
7.18 ืึฐืึดื ืึตืึธืึนื ืึตืึธืึตื ืึดืึผึฐืฉืึทืจึพืึถืึทื ืฉืึฐืึธืึธืื ืึผึทืึผืึนื ืึทืฉืึผึฐืึดืืฉืึดื ืึนื ืึตืจึธืฆึถื ืึทืึผึทืงึฐืจึดืื ืึนืชืึน ืึนื ืึตืึธืฉืึตื ืืึน ืคึผึดืึผืึผื ืึดืึฐืึถื ืึฐืึทื ึผึถืคึถืฉื ืึธืึนืึถืึถืช ืึดืึผึถื ึผืึผ ืขึฒืึบื ึธืึผ ืชึผึดืฉืึผึธืื'' None | sup>
3.5 And Aaronโs sons shall make it smoke on the altar upon the burnt-offering, which is upon the wood that is on the fire; it is an offering made by fire, of a sweet savour unto the LORD.
7.18 And if any of the flesh of the sacrifice of his peace-offerings be at all eaten on the third day, it shall not be accepted, neither shall it be imputed unto him that offereth it; it shall be an abhorred thing, and the soul that eateth of it shall bear his iniquity.'' None |
|
4. Cicero, On Duties, 3.104-3.108 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: โข intent โข intention
Found in books: Hickson (1993), Roman prayer language: Livy and the Aneid of Vergil, 108, 125; Mackey (2022), Belief and Cult: Rethinking Roman Religion, 301
sup>
3.104 Non fuit Iuppiter metuendus ne iratus noceret, qui neque irasci solet nec nocere. Haec quidem ratio non magis contra Reguli quam contra omne ius iurandum valet. Sed in iure iurando non qui metus, sed quae vis sit, debet intellegi; est enim ius iurandum affirmatio religiosa; quod autem affirmate quasi deo teste promiseris, id tenendum est. Iam enim non ad iram deorum, quae nulla est, sed ad iustitiam et ad fidem pertinet. Nam praeclare Ennius: ร Fides alma รกpta pinnis รฉt ius iurandรบm Iovis! Qui ius igitur iurandum violat, is Fidem violat, quam in Capitolio vicinam Iovis optimi maximi, ut in Catonis oratione est, maiores nostri esse voluerunt. 3.105 At enim ne iratus quidem Iuppiter plus Regulo nocuisset, quam sibi nocuit ipse Regulus. Certe, si nihil malum esset nisi dolere. Id autem non modo non summum malum, sed ne malum quidem esse maxima auctoritate philosophi affirmant. Quorum quidem testem non mediocrem, sed haud scio an gravissimum Regulum nolite, quaeso, vituperare. Quem enim locupletiorem quaerimus quam principem populi Romani, qui retinendi officii causa cruciatum subierit voluntarium? Nam quod aiunt: minima de malis, id est ut turpiter potius quam calamitose, an est ullum maius malum turpitudine? quae si in deformitate corporis habet aliquid offensionis, quanta illa depravatio et foeditas turpificati animi debet videri! 3.106 Itaque nervosius qui ista disserunt, solum audent malum dicere id, quod turpe sit, qui autem remissius, ii tamen non dubitant summum malum dicere. Nam illud quidem: Nรฉque dedi neque do รญnfideli cuรญquam idcirco recte a poeta, quia, cum tractaretur Atreus, personae serviendum fuit. Sed si hoc sibi sument, nullam esse fidem, quae infideli data sit, videant, ne quaeratur latebra periurio. 3.107 Est autem ius etiam bellicum fidesque iuris iurandi saepe cum hoste servanda. Quod enim ita iuratum est, ut mens conciperet fieri oportere, id servandum est; quod aliter, id si non fecerit, nullum est periurium. Ut, si praedonibus pactum pro capite pretium non attuleris, nulla fraus sit, ne si iuratus quidem id non feceris; nam pirata non est ex perduellium nurnero definitus, sed communis hostis omnium; cum hoc nec fides debet nec ius iurandum esse commune. 3.108 Non enim falsum iurare periurare est, sed, quod EX ANIMI TUI SENTENTIA iuraris, sicut verbis concipitur more nostro, id non facere periurium est. Scite enim Euripides: Iurรกvi lingua, mรฉntem iniuratรกm gero. Regulus vero non debuit condiciones pactionesque bellicas et hostiles perturbare periurio. Cum iusto enim et legitimo hoste res gerebatur, adversus quem et totum ius fetiale et multa sunt iura communia. Quod ni ita esset, numquam claros viros senatus vinctos hostibus dedidisset.'' None | sup>
3.104 \xa0"He need not have been afraid that Jupiter in anger would inflict injury upon him; he is not wont to be angry or hurtful." This argument, at all events, has no more weight against Regulus\'s conduct than it has against the keeping of any other oath. But in taking an oath it is our duty to consider not what one may have to fear in case of violation but wherein its obligation lies: an oath is an assurance backed by religious sanctity; and a solemn promise given, as before God as one\'s witness, is to be sacredly kept. For the question no longer concerns the wrath of the gods (for there is no such thing) but the obligations of justice and good faith. For, as Ennius says so admirably: "Gracious Good Faith, on wings upborne; thou oath in Jupiter\'s great name!" Whoever, therefore, violates his oath violates Good Faith; and, as we find it stated in Cato\'s speech, our forefathers chose that she should dwell upon the Capitol "neighbour to Jupiter Supreme and Best." < 3.105 \xa0"But," objection was further made, "even if Jupiter had been angry, he could not have inflicted greater injury upon Regulus than Regulus brought upon himself." Quite true, if there is no evil except pain. But philosophers of the highest authority assure us that pain is not only not the supreme evil but no evil at all. And pray do not disparage Regulus, as no unimportant witness รข\x80\x94 nay, I\xa0am rather inclined to think he was the very best witness รข\x80\x94 to the truth of their doctrine. For what more competent witness do we ask for than one of the foremost citizens of Rome, who voluntarily faced torture for the sake of being true to his moral duty? Again, they say, "of evils choose the least"\xa0รข\x80\x94 that is, shall one "choose moral wrong rather than misfortune," or is there any evil greater than moral wrong? For if physical deformity excites a certain amount of aversion, how offensive ought the deformity and hideousness of a demoralized soul to seem! < 3.106 \xa0Therefore, those who discuss these problems with more rigour make bold to say that moral wrong is the only evil, while those who treat them with more laxity do not hesitate to call it the supreme evil. Once more, they quote the sentiment: "None have\xa0I given, none give\xa0I ever to the faithless." It was proper for the poet to say that, because, when he was working out his Atreus, he had to make the words fit the character. But if they mean to adopt it as a principle, that a pledge given to the faithless is no pledge, let them look to it that it be not a mere loophole for perjury that they seek. <' "3.107 \xa0Furthermore, we have laws regulating warfare, and fidelity to an oath must often be observed in dealings with an enemy: for an oath sworn with the clear understanding in one's own mind that it should be performed must be kept; but if there is no such understanding, it does not count as perjury if one does not perform the vow. For example, suppose that one does not deliver the amount agreed upon with pirates as the price of one's life, that would be accounted no deception รข\x80\x94 not even if one should fail to deliver the ransom after having sworn to do so; for a pirate is not included in the number of lawful enemies, but is not included in the number of lawful enemies, but is the common foe of all the world; and with him there ought not to be any pledged word nor any oath mutually binding. <" '3.108 \xa0For swearing to what is false is not necessarily perjury, but to take an oath "upon your conscience," as it is expressed in our legal formulas, and then fail to perform it, that is perjury. For Euripides aptly says: "My tongue has sworn; the mind I\xa0have has sworn no oath." But Regulus had no right to confound by perjury the terms and covets of war made with an enemy. For the war was being carried on with a legitimate, declared enemy; and to regulate our dealings with such an enemy, we have our whole fetial code as well as many other laws that are binding in common between nations. Were this not the case, the senate would never have delivered up illustrious men of ours in chains to the enemy. <'' None |
|
5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 13.372 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Antiquities (Josephus), intentional omissions โข intention,
Found in books: Noam (2018), Shifting Images of the Hasmoneans: Second Temple Legends and Their Reception in Josephus and Rabbinic Literature, 126, 127, 212; Rubenstein(1995), The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, 196
sup>
13.372 ฬฮฮปฮตฬฮพฮฑฮฝฮดฯฮฟฯ ฮดฮตฬ ฯฯอฮฝ ฮฟฮนฬฮบฮตฮนฬฯฮฝ ฯฯฮฟฬฯ ฮฑฯ
ฬฯฮฟฬฮฝ ฯฯฮฑฯฮนฮฑฯฮฑฬฮฝฯฯฮฝ, ฮตฬฯฮฑฮฝฮตฬฯฯฮท ฮณฮฑฬฯ ฮฑฯ
ฬฯฯออ
ฯฮฟฬ ฮตฬฬฮธฮฝฮฟฯ ฮตฬฮฟฯฯฮทอฯ ฮฑฬฮณฮฟฮผฮตฬฮฝฮทฯ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฮตฬฯฯฯอฯฮฟฯ ฮฑฯ
ฬฯฮฟฯ
อ ฮตฬฯฮนฬ ฯฮฟฯ
อ ฮฒฯฮผฮฟฯ
อ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฮธฯ
ฬฮตฮนฮฝ ฮผฮตฬฮปฮปฮฟฮฝฯฮฟฯ ฮบฮนฯฯฮนฬฮฟฮนฯ ฮฑฯ
ฬฯฮฟฬฮฝ ฮตฬฬฮฒฮฑฮปฮปฮฟฮฝ, ฮฝฮฟฬฮผฮฟฯ
ฮฟฬฬฮฝฯฮฟฯ ฯฮฑฯฮฑฬ ฯฮฟฮนอฯ ฬฮฮฟฯ
ฮดฮฑฮนฬฮฟฮนฯ ฮตฬฮฝ ฯฮทออ
ฯฮบฮทฮฝฮฟฯฮทฮณฮนฬฮฑอ
ฮตฬฬฯฮตฮนฮฝ ฮตฬฬฮบฮฑฯฯฮฟฮฝ ฮธฯ
ฬฯฯฮฟฯ
ฯ ฮตฬฮบ ฯฮฟฮนฮฝฮนฬฮบฯฮฝ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฮบฮนฯฯฮนฬฯฮฝ, ฮดฮตฮดฮทฮปฯฬฮบฮฑฮผฮตฮฝ ฮดฮตฬ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฯฮฑฯ
อฯฮฑ ฮตฬฮฝ ฮฑฬฬฮปฮปฮฟฮนฯ, ฯฯฮฟฯฮตฮพฮตฮปฮฟฮนฮดฮฟฬฯฮทฯฮฑฮฝ ฮด' ฮฑฯ
ฬฯฮฟฬฮฝ ฯฬฯ ฮตฬฮพ ฮฑฮนฬฯฮผฮฑฮปฯฬฯฯฮฝ ฮณฮตฮณฮฟฮฝฮฟฬฯฮฑ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฯฮทอฯ ฯฮนฮผฮทอฯ ฮบฮฑฮนฬ ฯฮฟฯ
อ ฮธฯ
ฬฮตฮนฮฝ ฮฑฬฮฝฮฑฬฮพฮนฮฟฮฝ,"" None | sup>
13.372 5. As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons which they then had in their hands, because the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related. They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing.'' None |
|
6. Mishnah, Makhshirin, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข intention
Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 205; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 41
sup>
1.1 ืึผึธื ืึทืฉืึฐืงึถื ืฉืึถืชึผึฐืึดืึผึธืชืึน ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื ืึทืฃ ืขึทื ืคึผึดื ืฉืึถืึตืื ืกืึนืคืึน ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื, ืืึน ืฉืึถืกึผืึนืคืึน ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื ืึทืฃ ืขึทื ืคึผึดื ืฉืึถืึตืื ืชึผึฐืึดืึผึธืชืึน ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื, ืึฒืจึตื ืึถื ืึฐืึดื ืึปืชึผึทื. ืึทืฉืึฐืงึดืื ืึฐืึตืึดืื ืึฐืึทืึผึฐืึดืื ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื ืึฐืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึฐืจึธืฆืึนื:'' None | sup>
1.1 Any liquid which was desired at the beginning though it was not desired at the end, or which was desired at the end though it was not desired at the beginning, comes under the law of \\"if water be put.\\" Unclean liquids render unclean whether their action is desired or is not desired.'' None |
|
7. Mishnah, Berachot, 2.1, 4.5, 5.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, circumcision โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention โข intention, and religious experience โข intention, in fulfilling mitsvot โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 32; Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 204, 206; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 506; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35, 46; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 67, 111, 112
sup>
2.1 ืึธืึธื ืงืึนืจึตื ืึทืชึผืึนืจึธื, ืึฐืึดืึผึดืืขึท ืึฐืึทื ืึทืึผึดืงึฐืจึธื, ืึดื ืึผึดืึผึตื ืึดืึผืึน, ืึธืฆึธื. ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื. ืึผึทืคึผึฐืจึธืงึดืื ืฉืืึนืึตื ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึผืึตืฉืึดืื, ืึผืึธืึถืึฐืฆึทืข ืฉืืึนืึตื ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึดืจึฐืึธื ืึผืึตืฉืึดืื, ืึผึดืึฐืจึตื ืจึทืึผึดื ืึตืึดืืจ. ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฐืืึผืึธื ืืึนืึตืจ, ืึผึธืึถืึฐืฆึทืข ืฉืืึนืึตื ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึดืจึฐืึธื, ืึผืึตืฉืึดืื ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึธืืึนื, ืึผึทืคึผึฐืจึธืงึดืื ืฉืืึนืึตื ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึธืืึนื, ืึผืึตืฉืึดืื ืฉืึธืืึนื ืึฐืึธื ืึธืึธื:
4.5 ืึธืึธื ืจืึนืึตื ืขึทื ืึทืึฒืืึนืจ, ืึตืจึตื. ืึฐืึดื ืึตืื ืึน ืึธืืึนื ืึตืืจึตื, ืึทืึฒืึดืืจ ืึถืช ืคึผึธื ึธืื, ืึฐืึดื ืึตืื ืึน ืึธืืึนื ืึฐืึทืึฒืึดืืจ ืึถืช ืคึผึธื ึธืื, ืึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึถืช ืึดืึผืึน ืึผึฐื ึถืึถื ืึผึตืืช ืงึนืึถืฉื ืึทืงึผึธืึธืฉืึดืื:
5.1 ืึตืื ืขืึนืึฐืึดืื ืึฐืึดืชึฐืคึผึทืึผึตื ืึถืึผึธื ืึดืชึผืึนืึฐ ืึผึนืึถื ืจึนืืฉื. ืึฒืกึดืืึดืื ืึธืจึดืืฉืืึนื ึดืื ืึธืืึผ ืฉืืึนืึดืื ืฉืึธืขึธื ืึทืึทืช ืึผืึดืชึฐืคึผึทืึผึฐืึดืื, ืึผึฐืึตื ืฉืึถืึผึฐืึทืึผึฐื ืึผ ืึถืช ืึดืึผึธื ืึทืึผึธืงืึนื. ืึฒืคึดืึผืึผ ืึทืึผึถืึถืึฐ ืฉืืึนืึตื ืึผึดืฉืึฐืืึนืืึน, ืึนื ืึฐืฉืึดืืึถื ึผืึผ. ืึทืึฒืคึดืึผืึผ ื ึธืึธืฉื ืึผึธืจืึผืึฐ ืขึทื ืขึฒืงึตืืึน, ืึนื ืึทืคึฐืกึดืืง:'' None | sup>
2.1 If one was reading in the Torah the section of the Shema and the time for its recital arrived, if he directed his heart to fulfill the mitzvah he has fulfilled his obligation. In the breaks between sections one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting; in the middle of a section one may give greeting out of fear and return it, the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says: in the middle one may give greeting out of fear and return it out of respect, in the breaks one may give greeting out of respect and return greeting to anyone.
4.5 If he is riding on a donkey, he gets down and prays. If he is unable to get down he should turn his face towards Jerusalem, and if he cannot turn his face, he should direct his heart to the Holy of Holies.
5.1 One should not stand up to say Tefillah except in a reverent state of mind. The pious men of old used to wait an hour before praying in order that they might direct their thoughts to God. Even if a king greets him while praying he should not answer him: even if a snake is wound round his heel he should not stop.'' None |
|
8. Mishnah, Eduyot, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข intention (editorial), arrangement of memrot and sugyot โข intention, of giver/owner
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 38; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 252
sup>
7.9 ืึตืขึดืื ืจึทืึผึดื ื ึฐืืึผื ึฐืึธื ืึถื ืึผึปืึฐืึผึฐืึธื ืขึทื ืึทืึตืจึถืฉืึถืช ืฉืึถืึดืฉึผืึดืืึธืึผ ืึธืึดืืึธ, ืฉืึถืึดืื ืืึนืฆึฐืึธื ืึฐืึตื. ืึฐืขึทื ืงึฐืึทื ึผึธื ืึทืช ืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื ืฉืึถื ึผึดืฉึผืึตืืช ืึฐืึนืึตื, ืฉืึถืึดืื ืืึนืึถืึถืช ืึผึทืชึผึฐืจืึผืึธื, ืึฐืึดื ืึตืชึธื, ืึผึทืขึฐืึธืึผ ืืึนืจึฐืฉืึธืึผ. ืึฐืขึทื ืึทืึผึธืจึดืืฉื ืึทืึผึธืืึผื ืฉืึถืึผึฐื ึธืืึน ืึทืึผึดืืจึธื, ืฉืึถืึผึดืชึผึตื ืึถืช ืึผึธืึธืื. ืึฐืขึทื ืึทืึทืึผึธืืช ืึทืึผึฐืืึผืึธื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ื ืึนืึฐืขึธื ืึธืจึทืึผึดืื, ืฉืึถืึดืื ืึฐืึทืคึผึถืจึถืช, ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืชึดืงึผืึผื ืึทืึผึดืึฐืึผึตืึท:'' None | sup>
7.9 Rabbi Nehunia ben Gudgada testified concerning a deaf-mute whose father had given her in marriage, that she could be sent away with a bill of divorcement; And concerning a minor, daughter of an Israelite who married a priest, that she could eat terumah, and if she died her husband inherited from her; And concerning a stolen beam that had been built into a palace, that it might be restored by the payment of its value; And concerning a sin-offering that had been stolen, and this was not known to many, that it caused atonement because of the welfare of the altar.'' None |
|
9. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7-2.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Ritual/Law, intention โข intention (editorial), of baraitot โข intention, of giver/owner โข offering, designation of, intention encapsulated in โข redaction, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 43; Fishbane (2003), Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 184; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 203; Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 191
sup>
2.7 ืึทืฉึผืืึนืึตื ืึฐื ึธืึฐืจึดื, ืฉืึฐืึดืืึธืชืึน ืึฐืฉืึตืจึธื. ืึฐืจึทืึผึดื ืึฑืึดืืขึถืึถืจ ืคึผืึนืกึตื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฑืึดืืขึถืึถืจ, ืึฒืคึดืึผืึผ ืฉืึฐืึธืึธืึผ ืฉืึถืึผึนืืึทื ืึทื ึผึธืึฐืจึดื ืึตืึฒืฆึทืจ ืึผึธืึตื ืฉืึถืึผึธืึผ, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื, ืฉืึถืกึผึฐืชึธื ืึทืึฒืฉืึถืึถืช ื ึธืึฐืจึดื ืึทืขึฒืืึนืึธื ืึธืจึธื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึดื ืืึนืกึตื, ืงึทื ืึธืึนืึถืจ ืึทืึผึฐืึธืจึดืื, ืึผืึทื ืึผึดืึฐืงืึนื ืฉืึถืึทืึผึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื ืคืึนืกึถืึถืช, ืึผึฐืึปืงึฐืึผึธืฉืึดืื, ืึตืื ืึทืึผึนื ืืึนืึตืึฐ ืึถืึผึธื ืึทืึทืจ ืึธืขืึนืึตื, ืึฐืงืึนื ืฉืึถืึตืื ืึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื ืคืึนืกึถืึถืช, ืึผึฐืึปืึผึดืื, ืึตืื ืึน ืึดืื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึฐืึตื ืึทืึผึนื ืืึนืึตืึฐ ืึถืึผึธื ืึทืึทืจ ืึทืฉึผืืึนืึตื: 2.8 ืึทืฉึผืืึนืึตื ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึธืจึดืื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึผึฐืึธืขืึนืช, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึทืึผึดืื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ื ึฐืึธืจืึนืช, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดืึฐืึผึธืจืึนืช, ืฉืึฐืึดืืึธืชืึน ืคึฐืกืึผืึธื. ืฉืึฐื ึทืึดื ืืึนืึฒืึดืื ืึผึฐืกึทืึผึดืื ืึฐืฉืืึนืึฒืึดืื, ืึถืึธื ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึทืึทื ืึดืึผึธื ืึตืึผืึผ, ืึฐืึถืึธื ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึผึธืึธืจ ืึผึธืฉืึตืจ, ืฉืึฐืึดืืึธืชืึน ืคึฐืกืึผืึธื:'' None | sup>
2.7 If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat only its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters! 2.8 If one slaughtered an animal as a sacrifice to mountains, hills, seas, rivers, or deserts, the slaughtering is invalid. If two persons held a knife and slaughtered an animal, one intending it as a sacrifice to one of these things and the other for a legitimate purpose, the slaughtering is invalid.'' None |
|
10. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.5, 7.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Greek tenses and idioms, infinitive of intent โข Intention โข Mishna, redactional intention โข redaction, intention in
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 44; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 191, 192; Moxon (2017), Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9โ16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective. 177
sup>
7.5 ืึทืึผึทืึผึดืืจ ืึถืช ืึดืฉืึฐืชึผืึน ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืชึตืึตืึฐ ืึฐืึตืืช ืึธืึตืึถื ืืึน ืึฐืึตืืช ืึทืึผึดืฉืึฐืชึผึถื, ืืึนืฆึดืื ืึฐืึดืชึผึตื ืึผึฐืชึปืึผึธื, ืึดืคึผึฐื ึตื ืฉืึถื ึผืึนืขึตื ืึผึฐืคึธื ึถืืึธ. ืึฐืึดื ืึธืึธื ืืึนืขึตื ืึดืฉึผืืึผื ืึผึธืึธืจ ืึทืึตืจ, ืจึทืฉึผืึธืื. ืึธืึทืจ ืึธืึผ, ืขึทื ืึฐื ึธืช ืฉืึถืชึผึนืืึฐืจึดื ืึดืคึฐืืึนื ึดื ืึทื ืฉึผืึถืึธืึทืจึฐืชึผึฐ ืึดื ืืึน ืึทื ืฉึผืึถืึธืึทืจึฐืชึผึดื ืึธืึฐ, ืืึน ืฉืึถืชึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึทืึผึฐืึธื ืึผืึฐืขึธืจึธื ืึธืึทืฉืึฐืคึผึธื, ืืึนืฆึดืื ืึฐืึดืชึผึตื ืึผึฐืชึปืึผึธื:' ' None | sup>
7.5 If a man forbade his wife by vow from visiting a house of mourning or a house of feasting, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah, because he has closed peoples doors against her. If he claims that his vow was due to some other cause he is permitted to forbid her. If he said to her: โThere shall be no prohibition provided you tell so-and-so what you have told meโ or โwhat I have told youโ or โthat you will fill and pour out in the garbageโ, he must divorce her and give her the ketubah.
7.10 These are the ones who are forced to divorce their wives: one who is afflicted with boils, one who has a polypus, a gatherer of dog feces for the treatment of hides, a coppersmith or a tanner whether they were in such a condition before they married or whether they arose after they had married. And concerning all these Rabbi Meir said: although the man made a condition with her that she accept him despite these defects she may nevertheless say, โI thought I could accept him, but now I cannot accept him.โ The Sages say: she must accept such a person against her will, the only exception being a man afflicted with boils, because she by her intercourse will enervate him. It once happened at Sidon that a tanner died, and he had a brother who was also a tanner. The Sages said: she may say, โI was able to accept your brother but I cannot accept you.โ'' None |
|
11. Mishnah, Kelim, 25.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข intention โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 32; Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 204, 207
sup>
25.9 ืึผึฐืึตื ืึทืงึผึนืึถืฉื ืึตืื ืึธืึถื ืึฒืืึนืจึทืึดื ืึธืชืึนืึฐ, ืึฐืึตืื ืึธืึถื ืึผึตืืช ืฆึฐืึดืืขึธื. ืึฐืึตืื ืึทืึฐืึผึดืืึดืื ืึผึตืึดืื ืึฐืชืึนืึฐ ืึผึตืึดืื ืึฐืงึนืึถืฉื. ืึผึธื ืึทืึผึตืึดืื ืืึนืจึฐืึดืื ืึดืืึตื ืึปืึฐืึธืชึธื ืึผึฐืึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื, ืึฐืึตืื ึธื ืขืึนืึดืื ืึดืืึตื ืึปืึฐืึธืชึธื ืึถืึผึธื ืึฐืฉืึดื ึผืึผื ืึทืขึฒืฉืึถื, ืฉืึถืึทืึผึทืขึฒืฉืึถื ืึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึดืึผึทื ืึทืึผึทืขึฒืฉืึถื ืึผืึดืึผึทื ืึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื, ืึผืึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื ืึตืื ึธืึผ ืึฐืึทืึผึถืึถืช ืึนื ืึดืึผึทื ืึทืขึฒืฉืึถื ืึฐืึนื ืึดืึผึทื ืึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื:'' None | sup>
25.9 Holy vessels do not have outer and inner sides or a part by which they are held. One may not immerse vessels within one another for sacred use. All vessels become susceptible to uncleanness by intention, but they cannot be rendered insusceptible except by a change-effecting act, for an act annuls an earlier act as well as an earlier intention, but an intention annuls neither an earlier act nor an earlier intention.'' None |
|
12. Mishnah, Megillah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, circumcision โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention
Found in books: Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35, 46; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 67, 112
sup>
2.2 ืงึฐืจึธืึธืึผ ืกึตืจืึผืึดืื, ืึผืึดืชึฐื ึทืึฐื ึตื, ืึธืฆึธื. ืึธืึธื ืืึนืชึฐืึธืึผ, ืึผืึนืจึฐืฉืึธืึผ, ืึผืึทืึผึดืืึธืึผ, ืึดื ืึผึดืึผึตื ืึดืึผืึน, ืึธืฆึธื. ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื. ืึธืึฐืชึธื ืึผึฐืชืึผืึธื ืึผึฐืกึทื, ืึผืึฐืกึดืงึฐืจึธื, ืึผืึฐืงืึนืืึนืก ืึผืึฐืงึทื ึฐืงึทื ึฐืชึผืึนื, ืขึทื ืึทื ึผึฐืึธืจ ืึฐืขึทื ืึทืึผึดืคึฐืชึผึฐืจึธื, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื, ืขึทื ืฉืึถืชึผึฐืึตื ืึผึฐืชืึผืึธื ืึทืฉึผืืึผืจึดืืช, ืขึทื ืึทืกึผึตืคึถืจ ืึผืึดืึฐืืึน:'' None | sup>
2.2 If one reads it with breaks, or naps in between readings, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he was copying it, explaining it or correcting a scroll of Esther, if he directed his heart, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not, he has not fulfilled his obligation. If it was written with arsenic, with red chalk, with gum or with sulfate of copper, or on paper or on scratch paper, he has not fulfilled his obligation, unless it is written in Assyrian on parchment and in ink.'' None |
|
13. Mishnah, Menachot, 1.1, 13.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention โข intention, and religious experience โข intention, and validity โข intention, in fulfilling mitsvot โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 36, 39; Hayes (2022), The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning, 506; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35, 39; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 112
sup>
1.1 ืึผึธื ืึทืึผึฐื ึธืืึนืช ืฉืึถื ึผึดืงึฐืึฐืฆืึผ ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืึผึฐืฉืึตืจืึนืช, ืึถืึผึธื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืขึธืืึผ ืึทืึผึฐืขึธืึดืื ืึดืฉึผืืึผื ืืึนืึธื, ืืึผืฅ ืึดืึผึดื ึฐืึทืช ืืึนืึตื, ืึผืึดื ึฐืึทืช ืงึฐื ึธืืึนืช. ืึดื ึฐืึทืช ืืึนืึตื ืึผืึดื ึฐืึทืช ืงึฐื ึธืืึนืช ืฉืึถืงึผึฐืึธืฆึธื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ื ึธืชึทื ืึผึทืึผึฐืึดื, ืึฐืึดืึผึตืึฐ, ืึฐืึดืงึฐืึดืืจ ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืืึน ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื ืึฐืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืืึน ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื ืึฐืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืืึนืช. ืึผึตืืฆึทื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื ืึฐืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดื ึฐืึทืช ืืึนืึตื ืึผืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดื ึฐืึทืช ื ึฐืึธืึธื, ืืึน ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื ืึฐืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดื ึฐืึทืช ื ึฐืึธืึธื ืึผืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดื ึฐืึทืช ืืึนืึตื:
13.11 ื ึถืึฑืึทืจ ืึผึฐืขืึนืึทืช ืึทืึผึฐืึตืึธื ืึดืฉึผืึตื ืจึตืืึท ื ึดืืึนืึท (ืืืงืจื ื), ืึผืึฐืขืึนืึทืช ืึธืขืึนืฃ ืึดืฉึผืึตื ืจึตืืึท ื ึดืืึนืึท (ืฉื), ืึผืึทืึผึดื ึฐืึธื ืึดืฉึผืึตื ืจึตืืึท ื ึดืืึนืึท (ืฉื ื), ืึฐืึทืึผึตื, ืฉืึถืึถืึธื ืึทืึผึทืจึฐืึผึถื ืึฐืึถืึธื ืึทืึผึทืึฐืขึดืื, ืึผืึดืึฐืึทื ืฉืึถืึผึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึธืึธื ืึถืช ืึผึทืขึฐืชึผืึน ืึทืฉึผืึธืึธืึดื:'' None | sup>
1.1 All minhahs from which the handful was taken not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their ownersโ obligation, with the exception of the sinner's minhah and the minhah of jealousy. A sinnerโs minhah and the minhah of jealousy from which he removed the handful not in their own name, or he put into the vessel, or brought to the altar, or burned not in their own name, or for their own name and not for their own name, or not for their own name and for their own name, they are invalid. How can they be โfor their own name and not for their own nameโ? If offered it as a sinner's minhah and as a voluntary minhah. And how can they be โnot for their own name and for their own nameโ? If offered it as a voluntary minhah and as a sinner's minhah." 13.11 It is said of the olah of cattle, โAn offering made by fire of pleasing odorโ (Leviticus 1:9); and of the olah of birds, โAn offering made by fire of pleasing odor (vs. 17); and of the minhah, โAn offering made by fire of pleasing odorโ (Leviticus 2:2): to teach you that it is the same whether one offers much or little, so long as one directs oneโs heart to heaven. Congratulations! We have finished Tractate Menahot! It is a tradition at this point to thank God for helping us finish learning the tractate and to commit ourselves to going back and relearning it, so that we may not forget it and so that its lessons will stay with us for all of our lives. It is no accident that the last mishnah of the tractate finishes with the message that we learned today. After having learned 14 chapters of Zevahim and 13 chapters of Menahot, there is a grave danger that one could learn that all God cares about, and all that is important in Judaism, is bringing the proper sacrifice in the proper manner. Our mishnah teaches that the important issue is the proper intent, that oneโs intent in sacrifice should be to worship God. This is not to deny that that the minutiae of rules are extremely important, both in the eyes of the rabbis and surely in the eyes of the priests who served in the Temple while it still stood. Rather, what todayโs mishnah seems to say is that the rules are an outer manifestation of the inner kavannah, intent, of the worshipper. Without following the rules, there is no way to bring that intent into the world. But without the intent, the rules are just empty exercises devoid of meaning. I believe that this is a message that is as true of Judaism today as it was in Temple times. Mishnah Menahot has probably been a great challenge for many of you; I know it was for me. So please accept an extra congratulations on completing it. Tomorrow we begin Hullin, the one tractate in all of Seder Kodashim that does not deal with sacrifices or the Temple.'" None |
|
14. Mishnah, Pesahim, 3.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, building a sukkah โข intention
Found in books: Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 69
sup>
3.7 ืึทืืึนืึตืึฐ ืึดืฉืึฐืึนื ืึถืช ืคึผึดืกึฐืืึน, ืึฐืึธืืึผื ืึถืช ืึผึฐื ืึน, ืึฐืึถืึฑืึนื ืกึฐืขึปืึผึทืช ืึตืจืึผืกึดืื ืึผึฐืึตืืช ืึธืึดืื, ืึฐื ึดืึฐืึผึทืจ ืฉืึถืึผึถืฉื ืืึน ืึธืึตืฅ ืึผึฐืชืึนืึฐ ืึผึตืืชืึน, ืึดื ืึธืืึนื ืึทืึฒืึนืจ ืึผืึฐืึทืขึตืจ ืึฐืึทืึฒืึนืจ ืึฐืึดืฆึฐืึธืชืึน, ืึทืึฒืึนืจ ืึดืืึทืขึตืจ. ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึฐืึทืึผึฐืืึน ืึฐืึดืึผืึน. ืึฐืึทืฆึผึดืื ืึดื ืึทื ึผึธืึฐืจึดืื, ืึผืึดื ืึทื ึผึธืึธืจ, ืึผืึดื ืึทืึผึดืกึฐืึดืื, ืึผืึดื ืึทืึผึฐืึตืงึธื, ืึผืึดื ืึทืึผึทืคึผึนืึถืช, ืึฐืึทืึผึตื ืึผึฐืึดืึผืึน. ืึฐืึดืฉืึฐืึผึนืช ืฉืึฐืึดืืชึทืช ืึธืจึฐืฉืืึผืช, ืึทืึฒืึนืจ ืึดืึผึธื:'' None | sup>
3.7 He who is on his way to slaughter his Pesah sacrifice or to circumcise his son or to dine at a betrothal feast at the house of his father-in-law, and remembers that he has chametz at home: if he is able to go back, remove it, and then return to his religious duty, he must go back and remove it; but if not, he annuls it in his heart. If he is on his way to save from an invasion or from a river or from brigands or from a fire or from a collapse of a building, he annuls it in his heart. But if to rest for pleasure, he must return immediately.'' None |
|
15. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 3.7-3.8, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention โข Intention, circumcision โข Intention, deriving benefit/pleasure โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention โข intention, and validity โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 26; Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 32, 39; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35, 46; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 65, 67, 112, 113, 118, 119
sup>
3.7 ืึทืชึผืึนืงึตืขึท ืึฐืชืึนืึฐ ืึทืึผืึนืจ ืืึน ืึฐืชืึนืึฐ ืึทืึผืึผืช ืืึน ืึฐืชืึนืึฐ ืึทืคึผึดืึผึธืก, ืึดื ืงืึนื ืฉืืึนืคึธืจ ืฉืึธืึทืข, ืึธืฆึธื. ืึฐืึดื ืงืึนื ืึฒืึธืจึธื ืฉืึธืึทืข, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื. ืึฐืึตื ืึดื ืฉืึถืึธืึธื ืขืึนืึตืจ ืึฒืืึนืจึตื ืึตืืช ืึทืึผึฐื ึถืกึถืช, ืืึน ืฉืึถืึธืึธื ืึตืืชืึน ืกึธืืึผืึฐ ืึฐืึตืืช ืึทืึผึฐื ึถืกึถืช, ืึฐืฉืึธืึทืข ืงืึนื ืฉืืึนืคึธืจ ืืึน ืงืึนื ืึฐืึดืึผึธื, ืึดื ืึผึดืึผึตื ืึดืึผืึน, ืึธืฆึธื, ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื. ืึทืฃ ืขึทื ืคึผึดื ืฉืึถืึผึถื ืฉืึธืึทืข ืึฐืึถื ืฉืึธืึทืข, ืึถื ืึผึดืึผึตื ืึดืึผืึน ืึฐืึถื ืึนื ืึดืึผึตื ืึดืึผืึน:' "3.8 ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึผึทืึฒืฉืึถืจ ืึธืจึดืื ืืฉืึถื ืึธืืึน ืึฐืึธืึทืจ ืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื ืึฐืืึน' (ืฉืืืช ืื), ืึฐืึดื ืึธืึธืื ืฉืึถื ืืฉืึถื ืขืึนืฉืืึนืช ืึดืึฐืึธืึธื ืืึน ืฉืืึนืึฐืจืึนืช ืึดืึฐืึธืึธื. ืึถืึผึธื ืืึนืึทืจ ืึฐืึธ, ืึผึธื ืึฐืึทื ืฉืึถืึธืืึผ ืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื ืึดืกึฐืชึผึทืึผึฐืึดืื ืึผึฐืึทืคึผึตื ืึทืขึฐืึธื ืึผืึฐืฉืึทืขึฐืึผึฐืึดืื ืึถืช ืึดืึผึธื ืึทืึฒืึดืืึถื ืฉืึถืึผึทืฉึผืึธืึทืึดื ืึธืืึผ ืึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึฐืจึดืื. ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึธืืึผ ื ืึนืคึฐืึดืื. ืึผึทืึผืึนืฆึตื ืึทืึผึธืึธืจ ืึทืชึผึธื ืืึนืึตืจ (ืืืืืจ ืื), ืขึฒืฉืึตื ืึฐืึธ ืฉืึธืจึธืฃ ืึฐืฉืึดืื ืึนืชืึน ืขึทื ื ึตืก, ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึผึธื ืึทื ึผึธืฉืืึผืึฐ ืึฐืจึธืึธื ืึนืชืึน ืึธืึธื. ืึฐืึดื ื ึธืึธืฉื ืึตืึดืืช, ืืึน ื ึธืึธืฉื ืึฐืึทืึผึถื. ืึถืึผึธื, ืึผึดืึฐืึทื ืฉืึถืึผึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื ืึดืกึฐืชึผึทืึผึฐืึดืื ืึผึฐืึทืคึผึตื ืึทืขึฐืึธื ืึผืึฐืฉืึทืขึฐืึผึฐืึดืื ืึถืช ืึดืึผึธื ืึทืึฒืึดืืึถื ืฉืึถืึผึทืฉึผืึธืึทืึดื, ืึธืืึผ ืึดืชึฐืจึทืคึผึฐืึดืื, ืึฐืึดื ืึธืื, ืึธืืึผ ื ึดืึผืึนืงึดืื. ืึตืจึตืฉื, ืฉืืึนืึถื, ืึฐืงึธืึธื, ืึตืื ืืึนืฆึดืืึดืื ืึถืช ืึธืจึทืึผึดืื ืึฐืึตื ืืึนืึธืชึธื. ืึถื ืึทืึผึฐืึธื, ืึผึนื ืฉืึถืึตืื ืึน ืึฐืึปืึผึธื ืึผึทืึผึธืึธืจ, ืึตืื ืึน ืืึนืฆึดืื ืึถืช ืึธืจึทืึผึดืื ืึฐืึตื ืืึนืึธืชึธื:" 4.8 ืฉืืึนืคึธืจ ืฉืึถื ืจึนืืฉื ืึทืฉึผืึธื ึธื, ืึตืื ืึทืขึฒืึดืืจึดืื ืขึธืึธืื ืึถืช ืึทืชึผึฐืืึผื, ืึฐืึตืื ืึฐืคึทืงึผึฐืึดืื ืขึธืึธืื ืึถืช ืึทืึผึทื, ืึนื ืขืึนืึดืื ืึผึฐืึดืืึธื, ืึฐืึนื ืจืึนืึฐืึดืื ืขึทื ืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึตืึธื, ืึฐืึนื ืฉืึธืึดืื ืขึทื ืคึผึฐื ึตื ืึทืึผึทืึดื, ืึฐืึตืื ืืึนืชึฐืึดืื ืืึนืชืึน ืึผึตืื ืึผึฐืึธืึธืจ ืฉืึถืืึผื ืึดืฉึผืืึผื ืฉืึฐืืึผืช, ืึผืึตืื ืึผึฐืึธืึธืจ ืฉืึถืืึผื ืึดืฉึผืืึผื ืึนื ืชึทืขึฒืฉืึถื. ืึฒืึธื ืึดื ืจึธืฆึธื ืึดืชึผึตื ืึฐืชืึนืืึน ืึทืึดื ืืึน ืึทืึดื, ืึดืชึผึตื. ืึตืื ืึฐืขึทืึผึฐืึดืื ืึถืช ืึทืชึผึดืื ืึนืงืึนืช ืึดืึผึดืชึฐืงืึนืขึท, ืึฒืึธื ืึดืชึฐืขึทืกึผึฐืงึดืื ืขึดืึผึธืึถื ืขึทื ืฉืึถืึผึดืึฐืึฐืืึผ. ืึฐืึทืึผึดืชึฐืขึทืกึผึตืง, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื, ืึฐืึทืฉึผืืึนืึตืขึท ืึดื ืึทืึผึดืชึฐืขึทืกึผึตืง, ืึนื ืึธืฆึธื:'' None | sup>
3.7 One who blows into a pit or a cistern or a jug, if he heard the sound of the shofar, he has fulfilled his obligation, but if he hears the echo also, he has not fulfilled his obligation. And also one who was passing behind a synagogue or if his house was next to the synagogue and he heard the sound of the shofar or of the megillah being read, if he directed his heart (had intention), then he has fulfilled his obligation, but if not he has not fulfilled his obligation. Even though this one heard and this one heard, this one directed his heart and this one did not. 3.8 โAnd it came to pass, when Moses held up his hand Israel prevailedโ etc. (Exodus 17:1. Did the hands of Moses wage war or break Israelโs ability to wage war? Rather this teaches that as long as Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven they prevailed, and if not they fell. Similarly, โMake for yourself a fiery serpent and mount it on a pole. And if anyone who is bitten shall look at it, he shall liveโ (Numbers 21:8). Did the serpent kill or did the serpent keep alive? Rather, when Israel would look upwards and subject their hearts to their Father in heaven, they were healed, and if not their flesh would melt away. A deaf-mute, a lunatic and a minor cannot cause others to fulfill their religious obligation. This is the general principle: one who is not himself obligated in the matter cannot perform it on behalf of others.
4.8 For the sake of the shofar of Rosh Hashanah one is not allowed to go past the Shabbat border, nor remove a pile of rocks, nor climb a tree, nor ride on an animal, nor swim on the water. One may not cut it, neither with an instrument forbidden because of shevut, nor with an instrument forbidden by a negative commandment. But if he wants to pour wine or water into it he may do so. They need not prevent children from blowing the shofar on Rosh Hashanah; on the contrary, they may help them until they learn how to blow. One who is just practicing has not fulfilled his obligation, and the one hears the blast made by another when practicing has not fulfilled his obligation.'' None |
|
16. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข Intention, homicide โข intention โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 32; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 34; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 57, 138
sup>
9.2 ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึทืึฒืจึนื ืึถืช ืึทืึผึฐืึตืึธื ืึฐืึธืจึทื ืึถืช ืึธืึธืึธื, ืึทื ึผึธืึฐืจึดื ืึฐืึธืจึทื ืึถืช ืึดืฉืึฐืจึธืึตื, ืึดื ึฐืคึธืึดืื, ืึฐืึธืจึทื ืึผึถื ืงึฐืึธืึธื, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ. ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืชืึน ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื ืึฐืึนื ืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึดืึผืึน ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืขึทื ืึดืึผืึน, ืึธืึตืช, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ. ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืชืึน ืขึทื ืึดืึผืึน ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืขึทื ืึดืึผืึน ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื ืึฐืึนื ืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื, ืึธืึตืช, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ. ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืช ืึถืช ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึฐืึนื ืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึทืงึผึธืึธื ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืึถืช ืึทืงึผึธืึธื, ืึธืึตืช, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ. ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืช ืึถืช ืึทืงึผึธืึธื ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืึถืช ืึทืงึผึธืึธื ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึฐืึนื ืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืึถืช ืึทืึผึธืืึนื, ืึธืึตืช, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ. ืึฒืึธื ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืช ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืขึทื ืึธืชึฐื ึธืื ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึดืึผืึน, ืึธืึตืช, ืึทืึผึธื. ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืช ืึถืช ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึฐืึธืึธื ืึธืึผ ืึผึฐืึตื ืึฐืึธืึดืืช ืึถืช ืึทืึผึธืืึนื ืึฐืึธืึฐืึธื ืึธืึผ ืขึทื ืึทืงึผึธืึธื, ืึธืึตืช, ืึทืึผึธื. ืจึทืึผึดื ืฉืึดืึฐืขืึนื ืืึนืึตืจ, ืึฒืคึดืึผืึผ ื ึดืชึฐืึผึทืึผึตื ืึทืึฒืจึนื ืึถืช ืึถื ืึฐืึธืจึทื ืึถืช ืึถื, ืคึผึธืืึผืจ:'' None | sup>
9.2 If he intended to kill an animal but killed a man, or he intended to kill a non-Jew and he killed an Israelite, or if he intended to kill a prematurely born child who was bound to die in any case and he killed a viable child, he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on his loins, and the blow was insufficient to kill when struck on his loins, but struck the heart instead, where it was sufficient to kill, and he died he is not liable. If he intended to strike him on the heart, where it was sufficient to kill but struck him on the loins, where it was not sufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike an adult, and the blow was insufficient to kill an adult, but the blow landed on a child, whom it was enough to kill, and he died, he is not liable. If he intended to strike a child with a blow sufficient to kill a child, but struck an adult, for whom it was insufficient to kill, and yet he died, he is not liable. But if he intended to strike his loins with sufficient force to kill, but struck the heart instead, he is liable. If he intended to strike an adult with a blow sufficient to kill an adult, but struck a child instead, and he died, he is liable. Rabbi Shimon said: โEven if he intended to kill one but killed another, he is not liable.'' None |
|
17. Mishnah, Sukkah, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, building a sukkah โข Intention, deriving benefit/pleasure โข intention,
Found in books: Rubenstein(1995), The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, 218; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 69, 143
sup>
1.1 ืึผึทืึดืช ืฉืึถื ึผึดืคึฐืึทืช ืึฐืกึดืึผึตืึฐ ืขึทื ืึผึทืึผึธืื, ืึดื ืึตืฉื ืึดื ืึทืึผึนืชึถื ืึทืกึผึดืึผืึผืึฐ ืึทืจึฐืึผึทืข ืึทืึผืึนืช, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื. ืึฐืึตื ืึธืฆึตืจ ืฉืึถืึดืื ืึปืงึผึถืคึถืช ืึทืึฐืกึทืึฐืจึธื. ืกึปืึผึธื ืึฐืืึนืึธื, ืฉืึถืึดืงึผึดืืคืึผืึธ ืึฐืึธืึธืจ ืฉืึถืึตืื ืึฐืกึทืึผึฐืึดืื ืึผืึน, ืึดื ืึตืฉื ืชึผึทืึฐืชึผึธืื ืึทืจึฐืึผึทืข ืึทืึผืึนืช, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื:1.1 ืกึปืึผึธื ืฉืึถืึดืื ืึฐืืึนืึธื ืึฐืึทืขึฐืึธื ืึตืขึถืฉืึฐืจึดืื ืึทืึผึธื, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื. ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฐืืึผืึธื ืึทืึฐืฉืึดืืจ. ืึฐืฉืึถืึตืื ึธืึผ ืึผึฐืืึนืึธื ืขึฒืฉืึธืจึธื ืึฐืคึธืึดืื, ืึฐืฉืึถืึตืื ืึธืึผ ืฉืึฐืึนืฉืึธื ืึผึฐืคึธื ืึนืช, ืึฐืฉืึถืึทืึผึธืชึธืึผ ืึฐืจึปืึผึธื ืึดืฆึผึดืึผึธืชึธืึผ, ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื. ืกึปืึผึธื ืึฐืฉืึธื ึธื, ืึผึตืืช ืฉืึทืึผึทืื ืคึผืึนืกึฐืึดืื, ืึผืึตืืช ืึดืึผึตื ืึทืึฐืฉืึดืืจึดืื. ืึฐืึตืืืึน ืึดืื ืกึปืึผึธื ืึฐืฉืึธื ึธื, ืึผึธื ืฉืึถืขึฒืฉืึธืึธืึผ ืงึนืึถื ืึถืึธื ืฉืึฐืืฉืึดืื ืืึนื. ืึฒืึธื ืึดื ืขึฒืฉืึธืึธืึผ ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึธื, ืึฒืคึดืึผืึผ ืึดืชึผึฐืึดืึผึทืช ืึทืฉึผืึธื ึธื, ืึผึฐืฉืึตืจึธื: ' None | sup>
1.1 A sukkah which is more than twenty cubits high is not valid. Rabbi Judah validates it. One which is not ten handbreadths high, or which does not have three walls, or which has more sun than shade, is not valid. An old sukkah: Bet Shammai invalidates it and Bet Hillel validates it. What is an โold sukkahโ? Any one which he made thirty days before the festival; but if he made it for the purpose of the festival, even at the beginning of the year, it is valid.'' None |
|
18. Mishnah, Zevahim, 1.1, 2.3, 3.6, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข Intention, homicide โข action, and intention โข intention โข intention, and validity โข intention, and work of blood, โข intention, versus action โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in โข offering, designation of, intention encapsulated in โข owner, intention of
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 39, 40, 46, 48, 72; Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 207, 212; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 39, 40; Petropoulou (2012), Animal Sacrifice in Ancient Greek Religion, Judaism, and Christianity, 100 BC to AD 200, 191; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 138
sup>
1.1 ืึผึธื ืึทืึผึฐืึธืึดืื ืฉืึถื ึดืึฐืึผึฐืืึผ ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื, ืึผึฐืฉืึตืจึดืื, ืึถืึผึธื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืขึธืืึผ ืึทืึผึฐืขึธืึดืื ืึฐืฉืึตื ืืึนืึธื. ืืึผืฅ ืึดื ืึทืคึผึถืกึทื ืึผืึดื ืึทืึทืึผึธืืช. ืึทืคึผึถืกึทื ืึผึดืึฐืึทื ึผืึน, ืึฐืึทืึทืึผึธืืช, ืึผึฐืึธื ืึฐืึธื. ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฑืึดืืขึถืึถืจ ืืึนืึตืจ, ืึทืฃ ืึธืึธืฉืึธื. ืึทืคึผึถืกึทื ืึผึดืึฐืึทื ึผืึน, ืึฐืึทืึทืึผึธืืช ืึฐืึธืึธืฉืึธื, ืึผึฐืึธื ืึฐืึธื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฑืึดืืขึถืึถืจ, ืึทืึทืึผึธืืช ืึผึธืึธื ืขึทื ืึตืึฐื, ืึฐืึธืึธืฉืึธื ืึผึธื ืขึทื ืึตืึฐื. ืึทื ืึทืึผึธืืช ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึธื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธืึผ, ืึทืฃ ืึธืึธืฉืึธื ืคึผึธืกืึผื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืืึน:
2.3 ืึถื ืึทืึผึฐืึธื, ืึผึธื ืึทืฉึผืืึนืึตื ืึฐืึทืึฐืงึทืึผึตื ืึฐืึทืึฐืึทืึผึตืึฐ ืึฐืึทืึผืึนืจึตืง, ืึถืึฑืึนื ืึผึธืึธืจ ืฉืึถืึผึทืจึฐืึผืึน ืึถืึฑืึนื, ืึฐืึทืงึฐืึดืืจ ืึผึธืึธืจ ืฉืึถืึผึทืจึฐืึผืึน ืึฐืึทืงึฐืึดืืจ, ืืึผืฅ ืึดืึฐืงืึนืืึน, ืคึผึธืกืึผื ืึฐืึตืื ืึผืึน ืึธืจึตืช. ืืึผืฅ ืึดืึฐืึทื ึผืึน, ืคึผึดืึผืึผื ืึฐืึทืึผึธืึดืื ืขึธืึธืื ืึผึธืจึตืช, ืึผืึดืึฐืึทื ืฉืึถืึผึดืงึฐืจึทื ืึทืึผึทืชึผึดืืจ ืึผึฐืึดืฆึฐืึธืชืึน:
3.6 ืฉืึฐืึธืืึน ืขึทื ืึฐื ึธืช ืึฐืึทื ึผึดืืึท ืึผึธืืึน ืืึน ืึถืช ืึตืืึผืจึธืื ืึฐืึธืึธืจ, ืืึน ืึฐืืึนืฆึดืืึธื ืึทืืึผืฅ, ืจึทืึผึดื ืึฐืืึผืึธื ืคืึนืกึตื, ืึทืึฒืึธืึดืื ืึทืึฐืฉืึดืืจึดืื. ืฉืึฐืึธืืึน ืขึทื ืึฐื ึธืช ืึดืชึผึฐื ืึน ืขึทื ืึผึทืึผึตื ืึทืึผึถืึถืฉื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึฐื ึถืึถื ืึทืึฐืกืึนื, ืึดืชึผึตื ืึถืช ืึทื ึผึดืชึผึธื ึดืื ืึฐืึทืึผึธื, ืึฐืึทืขึฐืึธื, ืึฐืึถืช ืึทื ึผึดืชึผึธื ึดืื ืึฐืึทืขึฐืึธื, ืึฐืึทืึผึธื, ืึถืช ืึทื ึผึดืชึผึธื ึดืื ืึผึดืคึฐื ึดืื, ืึผึทืืึผืฅ, ืึฐืึถืช ืึทื ึผึดืชึผึธื ึดืื ืึผึทืืึผืฅ, ืึผึดืคึฐื ึดืื, ืฉืึถืึผึนืืึฐืืึผืืึผ ืึฐืึตืึดืื, ืฉืึถืึผึทืงึฐืจึดืืืึผืืึผ ืึฐืึตืึดืื, ืฉืึถืึผึนืืึฐืืึผืืึผ ืขึฒืจึตืึดืื, ืฉืึถืึผึทืงึฐืจึดืืืึผืืึผ ืขึฒืจึตืึดืื, ืึฐืฉืึทืึผึตืจ ืขึทืฆึฐืืึนืช ืึทืคึผึถืกึทื ืึฐืึถืึฑืึนื ืึตืืึถื ึผืึผ ื ึธื, ืึฐืขึธืจึตื ืึผึธืืึน ืึฐืึทื ืคึผึฐืกืึผืึดืื, ืึผึธืฉืึตืจ, ืฉืึถืึตืื ืึทืึผึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื ืคืึนืกึถืึถืช ืึถืึผึธื ืืึผืฅ ืึดืึฐืึทื ึผืึน ืึฐืืึผืฅ ืึดืึฐืงืึนืืึน, ืึฐืึทืคึผึถืกึทื ืึฐืึทืึทืึผึธืืช ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึดืฉืึฐืึธื:
4.6 ืึฐืฉืึตื ืฉืึดืฉึผืึธื ืึฐืึธืจึดืื ืึทืึผึถืึทื ื ึดืึฐืึผึธื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึถืึทื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืืึนืึตืึท, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึทืฉึผืึตื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึดืฉึผืึดืื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืจึตืืึท, ืึฐืฉืึตื ื ึดืืืึนืึท. ืึฐืึทืึทืึผึธืืช ืึฐืึธืึธืฉืึธื, ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึตืึฐื. ืึธืึทืจ ืจึทืึผึดื ืืึนืกึตื, ืึทืฃ ืึดื ืฉืึถืึผึนื ืึธืึธื ืึฐืึดืึผืึน ืึฐืฉืึตื ืึทืึทื ืึดืึผึธื ืึตืึผืึผ, ืึผึธืฉืึตืจ, ืฉืึถืืึผื ืชึฐื ึทืื ืึผึตืืช ืึผึดืื, ืฉืึถืึตืื ืึทืึผึทืึฒืฉืึธืึธื ืืึนืึถืึถืช ืึถืึผึธื ืึทืึทืจ ืึธืขืึนืึตื:'' None | sup>
1.1 All sacrifices slaughtered not in their own name are valid, except that they do not count in fulfilling their ownersโ obligation, with the exception of the pesah and the hatat (sin-offering). This is true for a pesah in its proper time and a hatat at all times. Rabbi Eliezer says: also the asham (guilt-offering). This is true for a pesah in its proper time and a hatat and an asham at all times. Rabbi Eliezer said: the hatat comes on account of sin, and the asham comes on account of sin: just as a hatat slaughtered not in its own name is invalid, so the asham is invalid if slaughtered not in its own name.
2.3 This is the general rule: anyone who slaughters or receives the blood, or carries it or sprinkles it intending to eat as much as an olive of that which is normally eaten or to burn on the altar as much as an olive of that which is normally burned outside its prescribed place, the sacrifice is invalid, but it does not involve karet; Intending to eat or burn after its designated time, it is piggul and it involves karet. Provided that the mattir is offered in accordance with the law.
3.6 If he slaughtered it with the intention of leaving its blood or its innards for the next day, or of carrying them outside of their place: Rabbi Judah disqualifies it, But the sages declare it valid. If he slaughtered it with the intention of sprinkling the blood on the ascent, or on the altar but not against its base; or of applying below the scarlet line what should be applied above, or above what should be applied below, or without what should be applied within, or within what should be applied without; Or with the intention that unclean persons should eat it, or that unclean priests should offer it; Or that uncircumcised persons should eat it, or that uncircumcised persons should offer it; Or with the intention of breaking the bones of the pesah, or eating of it before it is roasted; Or of mingling its blood with the blood of invalid sacrifices; In all of these cases it is valid, because an illegitimate intention does not disqualify a sacrifice except when it refers to after its time or outside its prescribed place, and in the case of a pesah and a hatat, the intention to slaughter them for the sake of their being a different sacrifice.
4.6 The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the Divine Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper.'' None |
|
19. New Testament, Acts, 10.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Greek tenses and idioms, infinitive of intent โข intention
Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 66; Moxon (2017), Peter's Halakhic Nightmare: The 'Animal' Vision of Acts 10:9โ16 in Jewish and Graeco-Roman Perspective. 177
sup>
10.9 ฮคแฟ ฮดแฝฒ แผฯฮฑฯฯฮนฮฟฮฝ แฝฮดฮฟฮนฯฮฟฯฮฟฯฮฝฯฯฮฝ แผฮบฮตฮฏฮฝฯฮฝ ฮบฮฑแฝถ ฯแฟ ฯฯฮปฮตฮน แผฮณฮณฮนฮถฯฮฝฯฯฮฝ แผฮฝฮญฮฒฮท ฮ ฮญฯฯฮฟฯ แผฯแฝถ ฯแฝธ ฮดแฟถฮผฮฑ ฯฯฮฟฯฮตฯฮพฮฑฯฮธฮฑฮน ฯฮตฯแฝถ แฝฅฯฮฑฮฝ แผฮบฯฮทฮฝ.'' None | sup>
10.9 Now on the next day as they were on their journey, and got close to the city, Peter went up on the housetop to pray at about noon. '' None |
|
20. New Testament, Matthew, 5.27-5.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข hermeneutical method, intention in law โข intentions
Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 133; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 45
sup>
5.27 แผจฮบฮฟฯฯฮฑฯฮต แฝ
ฯฮน แผฯฯฮญฮธฮท ฮแฝ ฮผฮฟฮนฯฮตฯฯฮตฮนฯ. 5.28 แผฮณแฝผ ฮดแฝฒ ฮปฮญฮณฯ แฝฮผแฟฮฝ แฝ
ฯฮน ฯแพถฯ แฝ ฮฒฮปฮญฯฯฮฝ ฮณฯ
ฮฝฮฑแฟฮบฮฑ ฯฯแฝธฯ ฯแฝธ แผฯฮนฮธฯ
ฮผแฟฯฮฑฮน ฮฑแฝฯแฝดฮฝ แผคฮดฮท แผฮผฮฟฮฏฯฮตฯ
ฯฮตฮฝ ฮฑแฝฯแฝดฮฝ แผฮฝ ฯแฟ ฮบฮฑฯฮดฮฏแพณ ฮฑแฝฯฮฟแฟฆ.'' None | sup>
5.27 "You have heard that it was said, \'You shall not commit adultery;\ '5.28 but I tell you that everyone who gazes at a woman to lust after her has committed adultery with her already in his heart. '' None |
|
21. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, deriving benefit/pleasure โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention
Found in books: Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 35; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 65, 112
|
22. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, deriving benefit/pleasure โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข transgression, intentional
Found in books: Balberg (2023), Fractured Tablets: Forgetfulness and Fallibility in Late Ancient Rabbinic Culture, 102; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 65
|
23. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention โข hermeneutical method, intention in law โข intention
Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 64, 65, 66; Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 133; Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014), Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity, 222, 229, 272, 300, 303, 306, 385, 387, 388, 393, 445, 448
|
24. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Ritual/Law, intention โข intention, and validity โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in โข owner, intention of
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 33; Fishbane (2003), Biblical Myth and Rabbinic Mythmaking, 185, 186, 187
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention
Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 206; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 46; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 119, 121
13a ืื ืฉืืขืงืจ ืืขืงื ืืืงืืื ืืื ืืฉืจืื ืขืืงืจ ืืืขืงื ืืคื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืจ (ืืฉืขืืื ืื, ืื) ืื ืชืืืจื ืจืืฉืื ืืช ืืงืืืื ืืืช ืื ืชืชืืื ื ื ืื ืชืืืจื ืจืืฉืื ืืช ืื ืฉืขืืื ืืืืืืช ืืงืืืื ืืืช ืื ืชืชืืื ื ื ืื ืืฆืืืช ืืฆืจืื (ืืฉืขืืื ืื, ืื),ืื ื ื ืขืืฉื ืืืฉื ืขืชื ืชืฆืื ืชื ื ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืื ืืืืืช ืืื ืืืืื,ืืฉื ืืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ืืืื ืฉืืื ืืืื ืืืจื ืืคืืข ืื ืืื ืื ืืฆื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืกืคืจ ืืืืื ืืขืฉื ืืื ืคืืข ืื ืืจื ืื ืืฆื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืกืคืจ ืืืืื ืืขืฉื ืืจื ืคืืข ืื ื ืืฉ ืื ืืฆื ืืื ื ืฉืื ืืขืฉื ืฉื ืืื ืืืื ืืกืคืจ ืืืืื ืืขืฉื ื ืืฉ ืืฃ ืื ืืฉืจืื ืฆืจืืช ืืืจืื ืืช ืืฉืืืืช ืืช ืืจืืฉืื ืืช:,(ืืืจื ืืืืื ื ื, ืื) ืืืจื ืืื ืืืจืื,ืืชืืื ื ืขืฉื ืื ืืืจื ืืืืกืืฃ ื ืขืฉื ืื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืื,ืฉืจื ืืื ืฉืจื,ืืชืืื ื ืขืฉืืช ืฉืจื ืืืืืชื ืืืืกืืฃ ื ืขืฉืืช ืฉืจื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืื:,ืชื ื ืืจ ืงืคืจื ืื ืืงืืจื ืืืืจืื ืืืจื ืขืืืจ ืืขืฉื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ื) ืืืื ืฉืื ืืืจืื ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืขืืืจ ืืืื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ื) ืืื ืืงืจื ืขืื ืืช ืฉืื ืืืจื,ืืื ืืขืชื ืืงืืจื ืืฉืจื ืฉืจื ืืื ื ืื,ืืชื ืงืืืฉื ืืจืื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืืจืื (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ืื) ืฉืจื ืืฉืชื ืื ืชืงืจื ืืช ืฉืื ืฉืจื ืื ืฉืจื ืฉืื,ืืื ืืขืชื ืืงืืจื ืืืขืงื ืืขืงื ื"ื ,ืฉืื ื ืืชื ืืืืจ ืืืืจืื ืงืจื ืืืชืื (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ื) ืืืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืฉืจืื ืืืจืืืช ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืืขืงื ืืขืงื,ืืชืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืจ ืืืื ืืืืชืืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืจ ืืืืื (ื ืืืื ื, ื) ืืชื ืืื ื\' ืืืืืื ืืฉืจ ืืืจืช ืืืืจื,ืืืจ ืืื ืืชื ื ืืื ืืื ืืงื ืืกืืจ ืืฉืืืื ืืจืืื ื ืืื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื:,| 13a not that the name Jacob will be entirely uprooted from its place, but that the name Israel will be the primary name to which the name Jacob will be secondary, as the Torah continues to refer to him as Jacob after this event. And it also says that the ultimate redemption will overshadow the previous redemption in the verse: โDo not remember the former events, and do not ponder things of oldโ (Isaiah 43:18), and the Gemara explains: โDo not remember the former events,โ that is the subjugation to the kingdoms, and โdo not ponder things of old,โ that is the exodus from Egypt, which occurred before the subjugation to the nations.,With regard to the following verse: โBehold, I will do new things, now it will spring forthโ (Isaiah 43:19), Rav Yosef taught a baraita: This refers to the future war of Gog and Magog, which will cause all earlier events to be forgotten.,The Gemara cites a parable: To what is this comparable? To a person who was walking along the way and a wolf accosted him and he survived it, and he continued to relate the story of the wolf. A lion accosted him and he survived it, and he continued to relate the story of the lion. A snake accosted him and he survived it, he forgot both the lion and the wolf, and he continued to relate the story of the snake. Each encounter was more dangerous and each escape more miraculous than the last, so he would continue to relate the most recent story. So too with Israel; more recent troubles cause the earlier troubles to be forgotten.,Having mentioned the changing of Jacobโs name, the Gemara addresses the changing of the names of Abraham and Sarah. What is the meaning of changing Abramโs name to Abraham? As it is stated: โAbram is Abrahamโ (I Chronicles 1:27).,The Gemara explains: Initially he became a father, a minister, and prominent person, only to Aram, so he was called Abram, father av of Aram, and ultimately with Godโs blessing he became the father of the entire world, so he was called Abraham, father of the masses av hamon, as it is stated: โI have made you the father of a multitude of nationsโ (Genesis 17:5).,Similarly, what is the meaning of changing Saraiโs name to Sarah? The same concept applies to Sarai as to Abram: Sarai is Sarah.โ,The Gemara explains: Initially she was a princess only to her nation: My princess Sarai, but ultimately she became Sarah, a general term indicating that she was princess for the entire world.,Also, with regard to Abrahamโs name, bar Kappara taught: Anyone who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a positive mitzva, as it is stated: โAnd your name will be Abrahamโ (Genesis 17:5). This is a positive mitzva to refer to him as Abraham. Rabbi Eliezer says: One who calls Abraham Abram transgresses a negative mitzva, as it is stated: โAnd your name shall no longer be called Abram, and your name will be Abraham, for I have made you the father of a multitude of nationsโ (Genesis 17:5).,The Gemara asks: But if we consider these obligatory statements, then from here we must infer that one who calls Sarah Sarai also transgresses a positive or negative mitzva.,The Gemara answers: There in the case of Sarah, it is not a general mitzva, rather the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Abraham alone: โAnd God said to Abraham, your wife Sarai, you shall not call her name Sarai; rather, Sarah is her nameโ (Genesis 17:15). In contrast, this is stated regarding Abraham in general terms: โYour name shall no longer be called Abram.โ,Again, the Gemara asks: But if that is so, one who calls Jacob Jacob, about whom it is written: โYour name shall no longer be Jacob, but Israelโ (Genesis 32:29), also transgresses a mitzva.,The Gemara answers: It is different there, as the verse reverts back and God Himself refers to Jacob as Jacob, as it is written before his descent to Egypt: โAnd God said to Israel in the visions of the night, and said, Jacob, Jacob, and he said, โHere I amโโ (Genesis 46:2).,Rabbi Yosei bar Avin, and some say Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, raised an objection to the statements of bar Kappara and Rabbi Eliezer based on what is said in the recounting of the history of the Jewish people: โYou are the Lord, God, Who chose Abram and took him out of Ur Kasdim and made his name Abrahamโ (Nehemiah 9:7). Here the Bible refers to him as Abram.,The Gemara responds: There, the prophet is recounting Godโs praises, including that which was the situation originally, before his name was changed to Abraham. Indeed, the verse continues: โYou took him out of Ur Kasdim and made his name Abraham, and found his heart faithful before You and made a covet with him to give him the land of Canaanโฆto give to his descendants, and You fulfilled Your words for You are righteousโ (Nehemiah 9:7โ8).,,One who was reading the sections of the Torah which comprise Shema, and the time for the recitation of the morning or evening Shema arrived, if he focused his heart, he fulfilled his obligation and need not repeat Shema in order to fulfill his obligation. This is true even if he failed to recite the requisite blessings (Rabbeinu แธคael).,Ab initio, one may not interrupt the recitation of Shema. The tannaโim, however, disagree over how strict one must be in this regard. They distinguish between interruptions between paragraphs and interruptions within each paragraph. At the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet an individual due to the respect that he is obligated to show him, and one may respond to anotherโs greeting due to respect. And in the middle of each paragraph one may greet an individual due to the fear that the individual may harm him if he fails do so (Meโiri) and one may respond to anotherโs greeting due to fear. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yehuda says: There is a distinction between greeting someone and responding to his greeting. In the middle of each paragraph, one may greet another due to fear and respond due to respect. In the breaks between paragraphs, one may greet another due to respect and respond with a greeting to any person who greets him, whether or not he is obligated to show him respect.,As for what constitutes a paragraph, these are the breaks between the paragraphs: Between the first blessing and the second, between the second and Shema, between Shema and the second paragraph: If you indeed heed My commandments VeHaya im Shamoa, between VeHaya im Shamoa and the third paragraph: And the Lord spoke VaYomer and between VaYomer and True and Firm emet veyatziv, the blessing that follows Shema.,The Rabbis held that each blessing and each paragraph of Shema constitutes its own entity, and treat interruptions between them as between the paragraphs. Rabbi Yehuda, however, says: Between VaYomer and emet veyatziv, which begins the blessing that follows Shema, one may not interrupt at all. According to Rabbi Yehuda, these must be recited consecutively.,Since the paragraphs of Shema are not adjacent to one another in the Torah, and they are not recited in the order in which they appear, the mishna explains their placement. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korแธฅa said: Why, in the mitzva of the recitation of Shema, did the portion of Shema precede that of VeHaya im Shamoa? This is so that one will first accept upon himself the yoke of the kingdom of Heaven, the awareness of God and Godโs unity, and only then accept upon himself the yoke of the mitzvot, which appears in the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa. Why did VeHaya im Shamoa precede VaYomer? Because the paragraph of VeHaya im Shamoa is practiced both by day and by night, while VaYomer, which discusses the mitzva of ritual fringes, is only practiced during the day.,Shema in the Torah in order to fulfill his obligation. From here, the Gemara seeks to conclude: Learn from this that mitzvot require intent, when one performs a mitzva, he must intend to fulfill his obligation. If he lacks that intention, he does not fulfill his obligation. With that statement, this Gemara hopes to resolve an issue that is raised several times throughout the Talmud.,The Gemara rejects this conclusion: What is the meaning of: If one focused his heart? It means that one had the intention to read. The Gemara attacks this explanation: How can you say that it means that one must have intention to read? Isnโt he already reading? The case in the mishna refers to a person who is reading from the Torah. Therefore, focused his heart must refer to intention to perform a mitzva.,The Gemara rejects this: Perhaps the mishna speaks of one who is reading the Torah not for the purpose of reciting the words, but in order to emend mistakes in the text. Therefore, if he focused his heart and intended to read the words and not merely emend the text, he fulfills his obligation. He need not have the intention to fulfill his obligation.,The Sages taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis disagreed with regard to the language in which Shema must be recited. This dispute serves as an introduction to a broader analysis of the question of intent: Shema must be recited as it is written, in Hebrew, this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. And the Rabbis say: Shema may be recited in any language.,The Gemara seeks to clarify: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda HaNasiโs opinion? The Gemara answers: The source for his halakha lies in the emphasis on the word: โAnd these words, which I command you this day, will be upon your heartโ (Deuteronomy 6:6). โWill beโ means as they are, so shall they be; they should remain unchanged, in their original language.,The Gemara seeks to clarify further: And what is the reason for the Rabbisโ opinion? The Gemara answers: The source upon which the Rabbis base their opinion is, as it is stated: โHear, Israelโ (Deuteronomy 6:4), which they understand to mean that Shema must be understood. Therefore, one may recite Shema in any language that you can hear and understand.,The Gemara explains how Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi and the Rabbis each contend with the source cited by the other. And according to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, isnโt it also stated: โHear, Israelโ? How does he explain this verse? The Gemara responds: He requires this verse in order to derive a different halakha: Make your ears hear what your mouth utters, i.e., one must recite Shema audibly so he hears it while reciting it.,And from where do the Rabbis derive that one must recite Shema audibly? The Rabbis do not accept the literal interpretation of the word Shema; rather, they hold in accordance with the one who said: One who recited Shema in a manner inaudible to his own ears, fulfilled his obligation.,The Gemara asks: And according to the Rabbis, isnโt it also written: โAnd they will beโ? How do the Sages explain that emphasis in the verse? The Gemara answers: They, too, require this expression to derive that one may not recite Shema out of order. One may not begin reciting Shema from the end, but only in the order in which it is written.,And from where does Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derive the halakha that one may not recite Shema out of order? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi derives it from an additional emphasis in the verse: โAnd the words hadevarim, which I command you this day, will be upon your heart.โ The verse could have conveyed the same idea had it written: Words devarim, without the definite article. However, it says the words hadevarim, employing the definite article, emphasizing that it must be recited in the specific order in which it is written. The Rabbis, however, do not derive anything from the fact that the words, with the definite article, was written in place of words, without the definite article.,The Gemara seeks to link this debate to another: Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the entire Torah, i.e., any portion of the Torah which must be read publicly (Tosafot), or if one studies or reads the Torah in general (Meโiri), may be recited in any language? As if it should enter your mind to say that the entire Torah may only be recited in the holy tongue and not in any other, then why do I need that which the Torah wrote: โAnd they will beโ? Prohibiting recitation of Shema in a language other than Hebrew is superfluous, if indeed one is prohibited from reciting any portion of the Torah in a language other than Hebrew. Since the Torah saw the need to specifically require Shema to be recited in Hebrew, it must be because the rest of the Torah may be recited in any language.,The Gemara rejects this: This is not necessarily so, as the phrase: And they will be is necessary in this case because Shema, hear, is also written. Had it not been for the phrase: And they will be, I would have understood hear, to allow Shema to be recited in any language, in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Therefore, and they will be, was necessary.,The Gemara attempts to clarify: Is that to say that the Rabbis hold that the entire Torah may only be recited in the holy tongue and not in any other? As if it should enter your mind to say that the Torah may be recited in any language, then why do I require that which the Torah wrote: Shema, hear? One is permitted to recite the entire Torah in any language, rendering a specific requirement regarding Shema superfluous.,The Gemara rejects this: Shema is necessary in any case, because and they will be, is also written. Had it not been for Shema, I would have understood this in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, that one is prohibited from reciting Shema in any other language. Therefore, Shema, is necessary.,The interpretation of these verses is the source of a fundamental dispute concerning the obligation to recite Shema and the required intent during its recitation. The Rabbis taught: From: And they will be, it is derived that one may not recite Shema out of order. From: These wordsโฆupon your heart, it is derived that they must be recited with intent. I might have thought that the entire paragraph requires intent? Therefore the verse teaches: These, to indicate that to this point, one must have intent, but from here on one need not have intent, and even if he recites the rest of Shema without intent he fulfills his obligation. This is the statement of Rabbi Eliezer.,Rabbi Akiva said to him: But the verse states:'' None | |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Taylor, J. E., theory of Philos intentions โข intention
Found in books: Kraemer (2010), Unreliable Witnesses: Religion, Gender, and History in the Greco-Roman Mediterranean, 69; Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 106
| 31a ืืื ืงืจื (ืชืืืื ืขื, ื) ืืืขื ืืื ืืชื ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืืข ืืืื ืืืื ืืืฉื ื ืืืฉืชืืืขื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืจืืืื ื, ืื) ืืื ื ืืจื ืืืฉืืืื,ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืขื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ื ืืกืคื ืฉื ืืื ืืื ื ืืชื ืืฆืืขื ืขืืื ืฉืืงืข ืืืื ืืืืื,ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืฉืืฉื ืืืฉืื ืืจืืฉืื ืื ืืื ืืจ ืืืืืจ ืืชืืชืื ืืืฆืขืืื ืืื ืืจ ืืืืืจ ืืืืฆืขื ืืืจืื ืื ืืื ืืจ ืืืืืจ ืืขืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืืืข ืืื ื ืืฆืืช ืืชืืคื ืืืืฆื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฉื,ืืืืื ื ืืชื ื ืืืื ืฉื ื ืงืื ืืจืืืื ืืฉื ืืืจ,ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืื ืงืจื (ืชืืืื ืงืื, ืื) ืืฉืจ ืขืฉืืชื ืืกืชืจ ืจืงืืชื ืืชืืชืืืช ืืจืฅ ืืจืชื ืื ื ืืืจ ืืื ืจืงืืชื,ืืื ืฉื ื ืืืื ื ืงืื ืืจืืืื ืืฉื ืืืจ ืื ืื ืืืจื ืชืฉืืืฉื ืืื ืื ืืืจื ืชืฉืืืฉื ืื ืืืคืืช ืคื ืื ืืื ืืื ืืืคื ืคื ืื,ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืฉืืฉื ืืืฉืื ืืจืืฉืื ืื ืชืฉืืืฉ ืงืฉื ืืืฉื ืืื ืงืฉื ืืืื ืืืฆืขืืื ืงืฉื ืืืฉื ืืืคื ืืืื ืืืจืื ืื ืืคื ืืืฉื ืืืคื ืืืื ืฉืืชืื ืื ื ืืฆื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืจื,ืชื ื ืืืฉืืฉ ืืืชื ืืืื ืชืฉืขืื ืืืืื ืฉืืคื ืืืื ืื ื ืืืข ืืื ืืืจ ืืืื ืืฉืืฉ ืืืืื (ืชืืืื ืงืื, ื) ืืฉืืืจ ืคืชืืื ื\',ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืฉืืฉื ืฉืืชืคืื ืืฉ ืืืื ืืงื"ื ืืืืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืืจืืข ืืืืื ืฉืืื ื ืขืฆืืืช ืืืืืื ืืฆืคืจื ืื ืืืื ืฉืืจืืฉื ืืืืื ืฉืืขืื ืืื ืืืจืขืช ืืืื ืฉืืื ื ืขืืจ ืืืฉืจ ืืฉืขืจืืช ืืฉืืืจ ืฉืืขืื ืืืงื"ื ื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืื ืฉืื ืืงืืกืชืจ ืคื ืื ืืจืืืืช ืืขืื ืืฉืืืขืช ืืืืื ืืืืืจ ืคื ืืืืื ืจืืืื ืืืื ื ืืืฉืื,ืืืืื ืฉืืืืข ืืื ื ืืืคืืจ ืื ืืขืืื ืืงื"ื ื ืืื ืืืงื ืืืืง ืืืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืคื ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืืืื ื ืืืืจื ืืื ืฉื ืคืืฅ ืืืื ืืฉืื ืืฉืจื ืืืืื,ืืจืฉ ืจื ืืื ื ื ืืจ ืคืคื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืืื ื, ื) ืขืืฉื ืืืืืืช ืขื ืืื ืืงืจ ืื ืคืืืืช ืขื ืืื ืืกืคืจ ืื ืืจืื ืฉืื ืืืืช ืืงื"ื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืื ื ืืชื ืืคืฅ ืืืืช ืฆืจืืจื ืืคืื ืืืขืื ืกืคืง ืืฉืชืืจ ืกืคืง ืืื ืืฉืชืืจ ืืืืื ืืงื"ื ืฆืจ ืืขืืืจ ืืืขื ืืฉื ืคืชืืื ืืคืื ืืืื ืืืฉืชืืจ,ืืืจ ืืืจ ืืื ื ืืชื ืืคืฆืื ืืืฃ ืืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืืจื ืืืื ืืืืื ืืงื"ื ืื ืืื ืฉืืืืื ืืืื ืขืืื ืืืขืื,ืืจืฉ ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืชืื {ืชืืืืื ืงืืดื:ืืดื } ืืืื (ื\') ืขื ืื ื ืืจืืืช ื ืคืืืชื ื ืคืืืื ืืขืฉืื ืื ืคืฉื ืืืืขืช ืืื ืื ืืจืื ืฉืื ืืืืช ืืงื"ื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืื ืืืช ืืฉืจ ืืื ืืื ื ืืชื ืืจืขืื ืื ืืขืจืืื ืื ืืืช ืืืืช ืขืืื ืืืื ื ืืืืื ืืงื"ื ืฆืจ ืืขืืืจ ืืืขื ืืฉื ืืืืื ืขืืืื ืืืื ืืื,ืืืจ ืืืจ ืฆืืข ื ืืชื ืกืื ืื ืืืืจื ืืืื ืขืืืื ืืฆืืข ืืื ืืืืื ืืงื"ื ืฆืจ ืืขืืืจ ืืืขื ืืฉื ืื ืืืช ืืืืช ืขืืื ืืืื ื,ืืจืฉ ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืฉืขืืื ืื, ื) ืืืื ื\' ืื ืื ืคืช ืื ืืฉืื ืืคื ืืชื ืืื ื ืืื ืืืชืื ืืืืจ,ืืฉื ื ืื ื ืืื ืฉืืฆืื ืืกืืืจื ืืฉื ืื ืงืืฅ ืืืื ืืื ืืชืืื ืืืจืฃ ืืืืืฃ ืืืืื ืฉืืข ืฉืืืขื ืกืคืื ืชื ืฉื ืืืืจื ืืื ืืชืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ื ืืืจ ืืฉืื ืืคื ืืชื ืืื ื,ืืืืื ื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืื ืืืชืื (ืชืืืื ืขื, ืื) ืขืืฉื ื ืคืืืืช (ืืืืืืช) ืืืื ืืืจืื ืฉื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืคืืื ืืขื ืื ืก ืืื ื ืืืืจ ืื ืกื,ืืจืืฉ ืจืื ืื ืื ื ืืจ ืคืคื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืชืืืื ืงืื, ื) ืืจืื ืืจืืขื ืืจืืช ืืื ืืจืื ืืกืื ืช ืืืื ืฉืื ื ืืฆืจ ืืื ืื ืื ืืืคื ืืื ืื ืืืจืืจ ืฉืื ืชื ื ืืื ืจืื ืืฉืืขืื ืืฉื ืืืื ืฉืืืจื ืืืืช ืืืจื ืืช ื ืืื ืืช ืืืืื ืืื ืื ืืช ืืคืกืืืช,ืืืจืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ืจืื ืืชืื (ืฉืืืื ื ืื, ื) ืืชืืจื ื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืชืืืื ืื, ืื) ืืื ืืืืืจื ื ืืื ืืืจ ืืื ืืคื ื ืืงื"ื ืจืืฉ"ืข ืืืจืืชื ื ืืืจืืชื ื,ืืจืฉ ืจืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืืืืจ ืื, ื) ืื ืื ื ืขืคืจ ืืขืงื ืืืกืคืจ ืืช ืจืืืข ืืฉืจืื ืืืื ืฉืืงื"ื ืืืฉื ืืกืืคืจ ืืช ืจืืืขืืืชืืื ืฉื ืืฉืจืื ืืชื ืชืื ืืืคื ืฉืืฆืืืง ื ืืฆืจ ืืืื ื,ืืขื ืืืจ ืื ื ืกืืืช ืขืื ื ืฉื ืืืขื ืืจืฉืข ืืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืืืจ ืืงืืืฉ ืืืฉืจืชืื ืืืืจืื ืืงืืืฉืื ืืฆืืฅ ืืืืจ ืื ืืื ื ืกืืืช ืขืื ื ืืืชืื (ืืืืืจ ืื, ื) ื ืื ืืืืจ ืฉืชืื ืืขืื,ืืืืื ื ืืืืจ ืจืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืืืชืื (ืืจืืฉืืช ื, ืื) ืืืฉืื ืขืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉืืงื"ื ืกืืืข ืืืืชื ืืขืฉื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ืื) ืืฉืฉืืจ ืืืืจ ืืจื ืืืืจ ืืจื ืื ืืืฉืฉืืจ,ืืืจ ืจืื ืืฆืืง ืืืจ ืจืื ืืื ืืฉื ืืืจืขืช ืชืืืื ืืืืืช ืืืจ ืืืฉ ืืืจืืข ืชืืืื ืืืืืช ื ืงืื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืืงืจื ืื, ืื) ืืฉื ืื ืชืืจืืข ืืืืื ืืืจ,ืชื ื ืจืื ื ืืจืืฉืื ื ืืื ืืืืจืื ืืฉื ืืืจืขืช ืชืืืื ืืืืืช ืืืจ ืืืฉ ืืืจืืข ืชืืื ืืืืืช ื ืงืื ืืื ืคืืจืฉื ืืืืื ืืช ืืืืจ ืขื ืฉืื ืจืื ืฆืืืง ืืคืืจืฉื (ืืจืืฉืืช ืื, ืื) ืืื ืื ื ืืื ืืฉืจ ืืืื ืืืขืงื ืืคืื ืืจื ืืืช ืืื ื ืืชื ืชืื ืืืืจืื ืื ืงืืืช ืื ืงืืืช ืืืืจืื,(ืืืจื ืืืืื ื ื, ื) ืืืืื ืื ื ืืืื ืื ืฉืื ืืืืจื ืืื ืืืจืื ืงืฉืช ืืืจืืื ืื ืื ืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืฉื ืืื ืืืจืืืช ืื ืื ืืื ื ืื ืื ืืื ืืชืื'' None | 31a What is the verse from which it is derived that a fetus is administered an oath on the day of its birth? โUpon You I have relied from birth; You are He Who took me out gozi of my motherโs wombโ (Psalms 71:6). From where may it be inferred that this word: โGozi,โ is a term of administering an oath? As it is written: โCut off gozi your hair and cast it awayโ (Jeremiah 7:29), which is interpreted as a reference to the vow of a nazirite, who must cut off his hair at the end of his term of naziriteship.,And Rabbi Elazar says: To what is a fetus in its motherโs womb comparable? It is comparable to a nut placed in a basin full of water, floating on top of the water. If a person puts his finger on top of the nut, it sinks either in this direction or in that direction.,ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: During the first three months of pregcy, the fetus resides in the lower compartment of the womb; in the middle three months, the fetus resides in the middle compartment; and during the last three months of pregcy the fetus resides in the upper compartment. And once its time to emerge arrives, it turns upside down and emerges; and this is what causes labor pains.,With regard to the assertion that labor pains are caused by the fetus turning upside down, the Gemara notes: And this is the explanation for that which we learned in a baraita: The labor pains experienced by a woman who gives birth to a female are greater than those experienced by a woman who gives birth to a male. The Gemara will explain this below.,And Rabbi Elazar says: What is the verse from which it is derived that a fetus initially resides in the lower part of the womb? โWhen I was made in secret, and I was woven together in the lowest parts of the earthโ (Psalms 139:15). Since it is not stated: I resided in the lowest parts of the earth, but rather: โI was woven together in the lowest parts of the earth,โ this teaches that during the initial stage of a fetusโs development, when it is woven together, its location is in the lower compartment of the womb.,The Gemara asks: What is different about the labor pains experienced by a woman who gives birth to a female, that they are greater than those experienced by a woman who gives birth to a male? The Gemara answers: This one, a male fetus, emerges in the manner in which it engages in intercourse. Just as a male engages in intercourse facing downward, so too, it is born while facing down. And that one, a female fetus, emerges in the manner in which it engages in intercourse, i.e., facing upward. Consequently, that one, a female fetus, turns its face around before it is born, but this one, a male fetus, does not turn its face around before it is born.,ยง The Sages taught in a baraita: During the first three months of pregcy, sexual intercourse is difficult and harmful for the woman and is also difficult for the offspring. During the middle three months, intercourse is difficult for the woman but is beneficial for the offspring. During the last three months, sexual intercourse is beneficial for the woman and beneficial for the offspring; as a result of it the offspring is found to be strong and fair skinned.,The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to one who engages in intercourse with his wife on the ninetieth day of her pregcy, it is as though he spills her blood. The Gemara asks: How does one know that it is the ninetieth day of her pregcy? Rather, Abaye says: One should go ahead and engage in intercourse with his wife even if it might be the ninetieth day, and rely on God to prevent any ensuing harm, as the verse states: โThe Lord preserves the simpleโ (Psalms 116:6).,ยง The Sages taught: There are three partners in the creation of a person: The Holy One, Blessed be He, and his father, and his mother. His father emits the white seed, from which the following body parts are formed: The bones, the sinews, the nails, the brain that is in its head, and the white of the eye. His mother emits red seed, from which are formed the skin, the flesh, the hair, and the black of the eye. And the Holy One, Blessed be He, inserts into him a spirit, a soul, his countece ukelaster, eyesight, hearing of the ear, the capability of speech of the mouth, the capability of walking with the legs, understanding, and wisdom.,And when a personโs time to depart from the world arrives, the Holy One, Blessed be He, retrieves His part, and He leaves the part of the personโs father and mother before them. Rav Pappa said: This is in accordance with the adage that people say: Remove the salt from a piece of meat, and you may then toss the meat to a dog, as it has become worthless.,ยง Rav แธคina bar Pappa taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โWho does great deeds beyond comprehension, wondrous deeds without numberโ (Job 9:10)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that if one puts an article in a flask, even if the flask is tied and its opening faces upward, it is uncertain whether the item is preserved from getting lost, and it is uncertain whether it is not preserved from being lost. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a womanโs open womb, and its opening faces downward, and yet the fetus is preserved.,Another matter that demonstrates the difference between the attributes of God and the attributes of people is that when a person places his articles on a scale to be measured, the heavier the item is, the more it descends. But when the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms a fetus, the heavier the offspring gets, the more it ascends upward in the womb.,Rabbi Yosei HaGelili taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โI will give thanks to You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; wonderful are Your works, and that my soul knows very wellโ (Psalms 139:14)? Come and see that the attribute of flesh and blood is unlike the attribute of the Holy One, Blessed be He. The attribute of flesh and blood is that when a person plants seeds of different species in one garden bed, each and every one of the seeds emerges as a grown plant according to its species. But the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a womanโs womb, and all of the seeds, i.e., those of both the father and the mother, emerge when the offspring is formed as one sex.,Alternatively, when a dyer puts herbs in a cauldron leyora, they all emerge as one color of dye, whereas the Holy One, Blessed be He, forms the fetus in a womanโs womb, and each and every one of the seeds emerges as its own type. In other words, the seed of the father form distinct elements, such as the white of the eye, and the seed of the mother forms other elements, such as the black of the eye, as explained above.,Rav Yosef taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โAnd on that day you shall say: I will give thanks to You, Lord, for You were angry with me; Your anger is turned away, and You comfort meโ (Isaiah 12:1)? With regard to what matter is the verse speaking?,It is referring, for example, to two people who left their homes to go on a business trip. A thorn penetrated the body of one of them, and he was consequently unable to go with his colleague. He started blaspheming and cursing in frustration. After a period of time, he heard that the ship of the other person had sunk in the sea, and realized that the thorn had saved him from death. He then started thanking God and praising Him for his delivery due to the slight pain caused to him by the thorn. This is the meaning of the statement: I will give thanks to You, Lord, for You were angry with me. Therefore, it is stated at the end of the verse: โYour anger is turned away, and You comfort me.โ,And this statement is identical to that which Rabbi Elazar said: What is the meaning of that which is written: โBlessed be the Lord God, the God of Israel, Who does wondrous things alone; and blessed be His glorious name foreverโ (Psalms 72:18โ19)? What does it mean that God โdoes wondrous things aloneโ? It means that even the one for whom the miracle was performed does not recognize the miracle that was performed for him.,Rabbi แธคanina bar Pappa taught: What is the meaning of that which is written: โYou measure zerita my going about orแธฅi and my lying down rivโi, and are acquainted with all my waysโ (Psalms 139:3)? This verse teaches that a person is not created from the entire drop of semen, but from its clear part. Zerita can mean to winnow, while orแธฅi and rivโi can both be explained as references to sexual intercourse. Therefore the verse is interpreted homiletically as saying that God separates the procreative part of the semen from the rest. The school of Rabbi Yishmael taught a parable: This matter is comparable to a person who winnows grain in the granary; he takes the food and leaves the waste.,This is in accordance with a statement of Rabbi Abbahu, as Rabbi Abbahu raises a contradiction: It is written in one of King Davidโs psalms: โFor You have girded me vatazreni with strength for battleโ (II\xa0Samuel 22:40), without the letter alef in vatazreni; and it is written in another psalm: โWho girds me hameโazreni with strengthโ (Psalms 18:33), with an alef in hameโazreini. What is the difference between these two expressions? David said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, You selected me zeiritani, i.e., You separated between the procreative part and the rest of the semen in order to create me, and You have girded me zeraztani with strength.,Rabbi Abbahu taught: What is the meaning of that which is written in Balaamโs blessing: โWho has counted the dust of Jacob, or numbered the stock rova of Israelโ (Numbers 23:10)? The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and counts the times that the Jewish people engage in intercourse reviโiyyoteihem, anticipating the time when the drop from which the righteous person will be created will arrive.,And it was due to this matter that the eye of wicked Balaam went blind. He said: Should God, who is pure and holy, and whose ministers are pure and holy, peek at this matter? Immediately his eye was blinded as a divine punishment, as it is written: โThe saying of the man whose eye is shutโ (Numbers 24:3).,And this statement is the same as that which Rabbi Yoแธฅa said: What is the meaning of that which is written, with regard to Leahโs conceiving Issachar: โAnd he lay with her that nightโ (Genesis 30:16)? The verse teaches that the Holy One, Blessed be He, contributed to that act. The manner in which God contributed to this act is derived from another verse, as it is stated: โIssachar is a large-boned garem donkeyโ (Genesis 49:14). This teaches that God directed Jacobโs donkey toward Leahโs tent so that he would engage in intercourse with her, thereby causing garam Leahโs conceiving Issachar.,ยง Rabbi Yitzแธฅak says that Rabbi Ami says: The sex of a fetus is determined at the moment of conception. If the woman emits seed first, she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female, as it is stated: โIf a woman bears seed and gives birth to a maleโ (Leviticus 12:2).,The Sages taught: At first, people would say that if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, and if the man emits seed first, she gives birth to a female. But the Sages did not explain from which verse this matter is derived, until Rabbi Tzadok came and explained that it is derived from the following verse: โThese are the sons of Leah, whom she bore to Jacob in Paddan Aram, with his daughter Dinahโ (Genesis 46:15). From the fact that the verse attributes the males to the females, as the males are called: The sons of Leah, and it attributes the females to the males,in that Dinah is called: His daughter, it is derived that if the woman emits seed first she gives birth to a male, whereas if the man emits seed first, she bears a female.,This statement is also derived from the following verse: โAnd the sons of Ulam were mighty men of valor, archers, and had many sons and sonsโ sonsโ (I\xa0Chronicles 8:40). Is it in a personโs power to have many sons and sonsโ sons? Rather, because'' None |
|
27. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, fulfillment of mitzvot โข intention,
Found in books: Rubenstein(1995), The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods, 213; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 123
| 114b ืืืจ ืจ"ื ืืืช ืืืืจืช ืืฆืืช ืฆืจืืืืช ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืื ืืืจืืจ ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจื ืคื"ื ืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืืืื ืืืจืืจ ืืืื ืืขื ืืืืืจ ืืืืืืื ืืฉื ืืจืืจ ืืื ืกืืงื ืืขืชื ืืฆืื ืื ืืขืื ืืืื ื ืืื ืื ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ื,ืืืื ืืืืื ืืขืืื ืืฆืืช ืืื ืฆืจืืืืช ืืืื ื ืืืงืืืจืช ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืืื ืืืืืจื ืืชืื ืืงืืช,ืืื ืชืืื ื"ื ืืืฉืืขืื ื ืฉืืจ ืืจืงืืช ืื ืืฉืืขืื ื ืฉืืจ ืืจืงืืช ืืื ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืงืืช ืืื ืืืขืื ื ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืจืช ืืืืื ืื ืืขื ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืงืืฉืืข ืื ืืืคื\' ืืืจืช ืืขืื ื ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืืืจื ืืชืื ืืงืืช,ืืขืื ืชื ืื ืืืื ืืืื ืืฆื ืืืื ืืื ืืชืืืื ืืฆื ืืืื ืืืฆืืื ืืฆื,ืืืืื ืฉืื ืืฉืื ืืื ืืืืื ืืืืืจืชื ืืืชืจ ืืืื ืืืืืช ืคืจืก,ืชื ืื ืืื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืืข"ืค ืฉืืืื ืืืืจืช ืืฆืื ืืืืื ืืคื ืื ืืืจืช ืืืจืืกืช ืืฉื ื ืชืืฉืืืื,ืืืืชื ืืืื ืืืืื ืงืกืืจ ืจืื ืืืกื ืืฆืืช ืืื ืฆืจืืืืช ืืืื ื ืืืื ืืืขืื ื ืชืจื ืืืืืื ืื ืืืื ืืชืืืื ืืืืืจื ืืชืื ืืงืืช ื"ื ืืื ืืฆืื,ืืื ืฉื ื ืชืืฉืืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืกืืืงื ืืืจืืื ืจืื ืืื ืืืืืจ ืืกืืืงื ืืืจืืื ืืืืื ืื ืคืืง ืืคืืืื ืืจื ืืื ื,ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืฉืืข ืืื ื ืืจื ืืื ื ืืืช ืืืืืฉ ืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ื ืืจื ืืชื ืื ืจืื ืืืื ื ืื ื ืืจื ืืืืจ ืืืจื ืืื ืืื ืืื ืืืืืืื ืขื ืืืืืฆื ืืจืช ืืืื ืืืฆื ืื ืืื ืืืืชื ืืคืกื,ืืืงืื ืืืจ ืืคื\' ืื ืืืืฆื ืฉืขืืื ืจื ืืืกืฃ ืืืจ ืฆืจืื ืฉื ื ืืื ื ืืฉืจ ืืื ืืืจ ืืคืกื ืื\' ืืืจ ืืืืืื ืจืืื ื ืืืจ ืืคืืื ืืจืื ืืืืฉืืื,ืคืฉืืื ืืืื ืืืืื ืฉืืจ ืืจืงืืช ืืืจื ืืฉืืจ ืืจืงืืช ืืืจื ืคืจื ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืจืืจ ืืืืื,ืืืื ืืืืื ืืื ืืกื ืืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืื ื ืืืจื ืืขืืงืจื ืืืจืืจ ื"ืค ืืืืื ืืืืื ืืืืกืืฃ ืืืจื ืขืืื ืขื ืืืืืช ืืจืืจ ืืืืื'' None | 114b Reish Lakish said: That is to say that mitzvot require intent. One who performs a mitzva must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the mishna is that since one does not eat the lettuce at the time of his obligation to eat bitter herbs, he eats it after reciting only one blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground. And clearly the reason is that perhaps he did not intend to fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs, and therefore he needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs. For if it could enter your mind that mitzvot do not require intent, why do you need two dippings? But he has already dipped the lettuce once.,The Gemara rejects this contention: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps I can say that actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, why do I need two dippings, perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children, which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.,And if you say: If so, let the tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only แธฅazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even if one has just แธฅazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.,And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: On Passover, if one ate vegetables of doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., he bought the vegetables from an am haโaretz, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them without the intent of the mitzva, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them in halves, by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olive-bulk, he has fulfilled his obligation.,And the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats an olive-bulk in halves, that is the halakha, provided that he does not pause between eating the first half an olive-bulk and the other half an olive-bulk more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine. This baraita indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.,The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require intent is a dispute between tannaโim, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Although one has already dipped the แธฅazeret once, it is a mitzva to bring before him แธฅazeret and แธฅaroset, and two cooked dishes. Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation.,The Gemara asks: And still this is no conclusive proof, as from where do I know that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains that mitzvot do not require intent, and the reason that we require two dippings is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children. The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, for what reason does Rabbi Yosei use the term mitzva? There is no mitzva from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzva is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time.,The Gemara asks: What are these two cooked foods mentioned in the mishna? Rav Huna said: Beets and rice. The Gemara relates that Rava would seek beets and rice for his meal on Passover night, since this ruling came from Rav Hunaโs mouth. Although Rava realized that Rav Huna was merely citing examples and did not mean that one must eat those specific foods, he wanted to fulfill the statement of his teacher precisely.,Rav Ashi said: Learn incidentally another halakha from this statement of Rav Huna, that there is no one who is concerned about that statement of Rabbi Yoแธฅa ben Nuri. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoแธฅa ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain in all regards; and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover, if it was properly baked into matza. It can be inferred from Rav Hunaโs suggestion to use cooked rice, that rice cannot become leavened.,แธคizkiya said: The two cooked foods can even be fish and the egg that that was fried on it. Rav Yosef said: One requires two types of meat on Passover night, one in remembrance of the Paschal lamb and the other one in remembrance of the Festival peace-offering, which was also eaten on Passover night. Ravina said: For the two cooked foods one may use even the meat on the bone and the gravy in which it was cooked.,With regard to the halakha of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies: It is obvious that where there are other vegetables available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping one recites over the other vegetables the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and eats, with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later. And then, at the second dipping, he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, on the lettuce and eats it.,However, what is the halakha where there is only lettuce available? When should one recite each blessing? Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, over the bitter herbs, i.e., the lettuce, and eats them. And ultimately, after the matza, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, over the lettuce and eats it.'' None |
|
28. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข Intention, homicide โข intention
Found in books: Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 48; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 138
33b ืฉื ืื ืืฉืืฉื ืืงืืืืช ืืื ืื ืืืจ ืืคืกืื,ืืื ืื ืืชืืจ ืืื ืืชืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืขื ืืื ืืจืืืื ืืขืืื ืคืกืื ืืืจ ืจื ืืกืื ืืืจ ืื ืจืืื ื ืืืืื ืืืจื ืืืืงืื ืืืื ืืขืืจื ื"ืฉ ืืื ืขื ืืื ืฉืืืจืืช ืืื ืขื ืืื ืืจืืงืืช ืืื ื ืืืืก ืืื ืืืฉืจ,ืืืจ ืจื ืคืคื ืืืืืืช ืืฉืืืจืืช ืืืืื ืื"ืจ ืื ืื ื ืืื ืื ืฉืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืงื:,ืื ืืืขืื ืืฉืจ: ืืืขืืื ืื ืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืงืืื ืืืืืืื ืคืฉืืื ืืื ืืืชืจ ืืืืืืื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื ืืื ืชืคืฉืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื ืื ืืื ืืืื,ืืขืืื ืืชืจ ืืืืืื ืืงืกืืจ ืืื ืืืื ื ืืขืืื ืืื ืืืืื ื ืืขืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื:,ืืืื ืืืขืืื ืืื"ื: ืื ืขืืจ ืืืงืื ืืื ืืฉืจ ืืืฉืืืจ ืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ืืืชืืื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื ืืื ืชืคืฉืื ืืื ื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื ืืื ืืื ืืืื,ืืื ืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ืืืื ืืื ื ืจืื ืื ืืื ืืื ืฉืืขืช ืืื ื ื ืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืจืื,ืื ืืขืืื ืืืฉืืืจ ืืขืืงืจื ืืืื ืืขืืงืจื ืืื ืืื ืืืื ืชืคืฉืื ืืื ื ืืื ื ืจืื ืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืจืื ืื ืชืคืฉืื,ืช"ืจ ืืื ืืืขืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืฉืื ืจ\' ืืืืขืืจ ืืจ\' ืฉืืขืื ืืืจื ืืืขืืื ืืื ืงื ืืชืงื ืื ื ืืื"ื,ืืืจ ืจื ืืฉื ืืืื ืฉืืงืื ืืืืืื ืืจ\' ืืืืขืืจ ืืจ\' ืฉืืขืื ืกืืจ ืื ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืืืจ ืฉืืื ืืชืืืื ืืืชืจ,ืืื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืืจื ืชืจืืืืื ืืืื ืจ"ืฉ ืืคืกืืง ืจืืฉืื ืืื ืืืืช,ืื"ืข ืืืืช ืืื ืืืฉืขื ื ืืืจืืชื,ืช"ืจ ืืืชืจ ืืืื ืืื"ื ืืืืื ืืืืืื ืฉื ืืจืง ืืืืื ืืืขื ืืื ืืืขื ื ืื ืื ื ืจ\' ืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจ ืขื ืืื ืงืฉืืจื ืืขืืืืชื ืืื,ืื ืจ\' ืืืืื ืืื ืืขืืืืชื ืืขื ืืื ืชื ื ืกืืจ ืื ืืืืชืื ืืืื ืืคืืื ืขืืื ืืืื:,| 33b If the berries are distributed in two or three places, the myrtle branch is speckled with different colors in different places. It lacks beauty and is certainly unfit.,Rather, emend the text: If this statement was stated, it was stated as follows: Or, if its berries were more numerous than its leaves, it is unfit. Rav แธคisda said: This statement was stated by our great rabbi, Rav, and may the Omnipresent come to his assistance: The Sages taught this halakha only with regard to ripe, black berries, since they stand in stark contrast to the green leaves of the branch, which then appears speckled. However, if its berries are green, they are considered of the same type as the myrtle branch, as they are the same color. Consequently, the branch does not appear speckled, and therefore it is fit.,Rav Pappa said: The legal status of red berries is like that of black ones, as Rabbi แธคanina said: In the case of menstrual blood, this black blood is actually red blood, except that it deteriorated. Red and black are considered two shades of the same color.,ยง The mishna continues: If he diminished their number, it is fit. The Gemara asks: This is a case where he diminished their number when? If you say that he did so before he bound the lulav, it is obvious that it is fit. When he performs the mitzva with it, the leaves outnumber the berries. Rather, it must be that he diminished their number after he bound the lulav with the other species. If so, it is a case of disqualification from the outset, as it was unfit at the time that it was bound. Resolve from here the dilemma that was raised and conclude that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Actually, it is a case where he diminished the number of berries after he bound it. And that Sage holds that binding does not render the three bound species a lulav used for a mitzva. Rather, it is mere designation of the species for the mitzva, and mere designation is not anything of significance. The fact that the berries outnumbered the leaves at the time that it was bound is not disqualification from the outset, as binding is a stage prior to the outset.,ยง The mishna continues: But one may not diminish the number on the Festival itself. The Gemara asks: But if one violated the prohibition and picked them, what is the halakha? The myrtle branch is fit, as the mishna prohibited doing so ab initio but did not deem it unfit. The Gemara clarifies: This is a case that the berries turned black when? If you say that they were black from yesterday, the Festival eve, the myrtle is disqualified from the outset, as it is unfit at the start of the Festival. If so, resolve from here that disqualification from the outset is not permanent disqualification, as the mishna says that if one picked the berries, the myrtle branch is fit.,Rather, is it not that they turned black on the Festival itself and he picked them that day. That then is a case where the myrtle branch was fit and then disqualified, as at the start of the Festival the berries were green and only later turned black, rendering the myrtle branch unfit. Conclude from it that an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit again, thereby resolving an unresolved dilemma.,The Gemara rejects that conclusion. No, actually, it is a case where the berries turned black from the outset, prior to the Festival. Resolve from it that an item disqualified from the outset is not permanently disqualified. However, do not resolve the dilemma concerning whether an item that was fit and then disqualified can then be rendered fit, as no clear proof can be adduced from here.,The Sages taught: One may not diminish the number of berries on the Festival to render the myrtle branch fit. In the name of Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, they said: One may diminish their number. The Gemara asks: But isnโt he preparing a vessel on a Festival, as he renders an unfit myrtle branch fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva?,Rav Ashi said: It is a case where he picked them for the purpose of eating them, as it is permitted to pick berries from a branch unattached to the ground, and preparing the myrtle branch for use is permitted because he did not intend to do so. And Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Shimon, holds in accordance with the opinion of his father, who said: An unintentional act, i.e., a permitted action from which a prohibited labor inadvertently ensues, is permitted on Shabbat or on a Festival. Here too, oneโs intention is to eat the berries. Although the myrtle branch is prepared for use in the process, picking the berries is permitted because that was not his intention.,The Gemara challenges: But didnโt Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon concedes in the case of: Cut off its head and will it not die? Even Rabbi Shimon, who says that an unintentional act is permitted, said so only in cases where the prohibited result is possible but not guaranteed. However, when a prohibited result is inevitable, just as death inevitably ensues from decapitation, the act is prohibited. In the case of picking berries off of a myrtle branch for food, one cannot claim that he did not intend for the prohibited result of preparing the myrtle branch for use to ensue. In this case, the myrtle branch will inevitably be rendered fit; how is this permitted?,The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here? It is with a case where he has another fit myrtle branch. Therefore, one is not considered to be preparing a vessel. Since the ultimate objective is to render the lulav and the accompanying species, which constitute the vessel in question, fit, and those species are already fit, picking the berries from the myrtle branch is not inevitable preparation of a vessel. Therefore, if one ate the berries, and the myrtle branch is thereby rendered fit, it is fit for use in the mitzva.,ยง The Sages taught: If the binding of the lulav was untied on the Festival, one may bind it again. One may not bind it with a sophisticated knot as before, but with a knot like the one used in a binding of vegetables, by merely winding the string around the species. The Gemara asks: But why merely wind it? Let him tie a bow, which is permitted on Shabbat or a Festival, as he is not tying an actual knot. The Gemara answers: Whose opinion is it in this baraita? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and therefore it is prohibited to tie one on the Festival.,The Gemara answers: If the baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, since he holds that a lulav requires binding, as he derived from the Paschal lamb, he requires the binding to be a full-fledged binding. How, then, can winding the string like the binding of vegetables suffice in fulfillment of the mitzva? The Gemara answers: This tanna of the baraita holds in accordance with his opinion in one matter, i.e., that a bow is a full-fledged knot, and disagrees with him in one matter, as the tanna holds that binding the species is merely to enhance the beauty of the mitzva, but it is not a Torah requirement.,A willow branch that was stolen or is completely dry is unfit. One from a tree worshipped as idolatry asheira or from a city whose residents were incited to idolatry is unfit. If the top was severed, or its leaves were severed, or if it is the tzaftzafa, a species similar to, but not actually a willow, it is unfit. However, a willow branch that is slightly dried, and one that a minority of its leaves fell, and a branch from a willow that does not grow by the river, but instead is from a non-irrigated field, is fit.,The Sages taught: โWillows of the brookโ (Leviticus 23:40) means willows that grow by the brook. Alternatively, โwillows of the brookโ is an allusion to the tree in question. It is a tree whose leaf is elongated like a brook.,It was taught in another baraita: From โwillows of the brook,โ I have derived only actual willows of the brook that grow on the banks of the brook. With regard to willows of the non-irrigated field and willows of the mountains, from where do I derive that they are fit as well? The verse states: โWillows of the brook,โ in the plural, teaching that the branches of willows are fit in any case.'' None | |
|
29. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: โข intention โข intentions โข sin, intention and
Found in books: Libson (2018), Law and self-knowledge in the Talmud, 50; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 47
| 29a ืืจืืืจื ืขืืืจื ืงืฉื ืืขืืืจื ืืกืืื ืื ืจืืื ืืืืฉืจื ืฉืืืื ืืงืืืื ืงืฉืื ืืงืืืื ืืกืืื ืื ืชื ืืจื ืฉืืืจื,ืืืฉืชื ืืกืืชืื ืงืฉืื ืืืงืืืื ืืกืืื ืื ืชื ืืจื ืงืจืืจื ืืืืืจ ืืขืชืืงืชื ืงืฉืื ืืืืชื ืืกืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืจ ืืื ื,ื"ืจ ืืืื ื"ื ืืจืื ืืืชืื (ืชืืืื ืื, ื) ืืื ืฆื ืขื ืืืืช ืืฉืืจ ืื ืืืื ืื ืงืจื ืื ืืคืฆืืืืช ืืืื ืืืืื ืืฃ ืฉืืจ ืื ืืคืฆืืข ืืืื ืืืืื,ื"ืจ ืืืจื ืืื ื ืืฉืื ืืกืชืจ ืืืืื ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืืื ืจืืื ืฆืจ ืืืืืื ืขื ืืขืื ืื ืฉืขื ืืฉืขื ืืฉืขื ืจืืฉืื ื ืืฃ ืืกืชืจ ืืืชื ืืืืื ืขื ืืืฉืืจืืฉ ืื ืฉืขื ืืฉืขื ืืฉืขื ืจืืฉืื ื ื"ืจ ืืกื ืืื ื ืืฉืื ืืกืชืจ ืืฉืืจ ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืฉืืจ ืกืืฃ ืื ืืืืื ืืฃ ืืกืชืจ ืกืืฃ ืื ืื ืกืื,ืืื ืืืื ืื ืืื ื ืืชื ื ืืืชืื ืงื ืืืจืื ื ืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืกืชืจ ื ืืชื ื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืจ ืืกืชืจ ืื ื ืืชื ื ืืืชืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืืืจ,ืืืงืื ืื ืืจ\' ืื ืืืื ืืจ ืืคืช ืืืจ ืจ\' ืืืขืืจ ืืืืจ ืจืื ืื ืืืื ืืจ ืืคืช ืืืจ ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืื ื ืืฉืื ืชืคืืชื ืฉื ืฆืืืงืื ืืืืืช ืืืืจ ืื ืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืืืืช ืงืจื ืื ืืคืฆืืืืช ืืฃ ืฆืืืงืื ืื ืืื ืฉืืจืืื ืืชืคืื ืชืคืืชื ื ืฉืืขืช,ืฉืืื ืืช ืืชืืื ืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืฉืืจ ืืืืช ืืฉื ื ืื ืกืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืืื ืืืคืืจืื ืืืืจ ืืืื ื ืื ืืืื,ืืื ืงืืืจ ืืืืื ืืืคืืจืื ืื ืืืจ ืืจืง ืืจืงืื ืืืจืืื ื"ื ืืืืช ืืืืืื,ืชื ื ืืืื ืืจืื ืืืื ืื ืื ืืืื ืืืจื ืืื ืืฃ ืืืืงืช ืืขืืฃ ืืงืืืฆืช ืื ืื ืืืืื ืชืฉืจืฃ ืืฉืืื ืขืืืช ืืขืืฃ ืืื ืืืื ืืื ืืื ืงืืืฅ'' None | 29a Thoughts of transgression are worse than transgression itself, and your mnemonic is the odor of meat. The smell of roasting meat is more appetizing than actually eating the meat. The heat of the end of summer is more oppressive than the heat of the summer itself, and your mnemonic is a heated oven. After an oven has been heated several times in the course of a day, lighting it again, even slightly, will produce powerful heat. So too, at the end of the summer, since everything is hot, the heat is more oppressive.,A fever in the winter is more powerful than a fever in the summer, and your mnemonic is a cold oven. Heating a cold oven requires greater heat than heating a hot oven. A fever that succeeds in raising the body temperature in the winter must be more powerful than a fever that raises the body temperature in the summer. Relearning old material that was known and forgotten is more difficult than learning from new material. And your mnemonic is mixing mortar from mortar. It is harder to take hardened mortar, crush it, and mix new mortar than it is to simply mix new mortar.,Apropos moonlight and sunlight discussed previously, Rabbi Abbahu said: What is the rationale for the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that sunlight diffuses and in that sense is dissimilar to moonlight? It is as it is written: โFor the leader, about the morning hindโ (Psalms 22:1); just as the antlers of a hind branch out to here and to there, so too, the light of dawn diffuses to here and to there.,In tractate Megilla, the Gemara states that Queen Esther prophetically recited this Psalm in reference to her situation as she was about to come before King Ahasuerus without being summoned. Rabbi Zeira said: Why is Esther likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as in the case of a hind its womb is narrow and it is desirable to its mate at each and every hour like it is at the first hour, so too, Esther was desirable to Ahasuerus at each and every hour like she was at the first hour. Rabbi Asi said: Why was Esther likened to the dawn? It is to tell you: Just as the dawn is the conclusion of the entire night, so too, Esther was the conclusion of all miracles performed for the entire Jewish people.,The Gemara asks: But isnโt there the miracle of Hanukkah, which was performed many years later? The Gemara answers: It is true that additional miracles were performed after the miracle of Purim; however, it is with regard to miracles for which permission was granted to write them in the Bible that we are saying that the miracle of Purim was the last one. The Gemara asks: That works out well according to the one who said: Permission was granted to write the Scroll of Esther in the Bible as a book whose sanctity equals that of the other books of the Bible. However, according to the one who said: Permission was not granted to write the Scroll of Esther in the Bible, and its sanctity does not reach the level of the other books of the Bible, what can be said?,The Gemara answers: Actually, Purim was not the conclusion of all miracles performed for the entire Jewish people, and the one who holds that permission was not granted for the Scroll of Esther to be written establishes the analogy between Esther and the hind in accordance with the statement that Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said; as Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: Why are the prayers of the righteous likened to a hind? It is to tell you: Just as with regard to a hind, as long as it grows its antlers they continue to branch out; so too, with regard to the righteous, as long as they engage more in prayer their prayer is heard.,ยง The mishna relates that as a result of the confusion, they slaughtered the daily offering before dawn. The Gemara asks: When did this incident occur? If we say it occurred during the rest of the days of the year, is there no alternative to having the service performed by the High Priest? The mishna states that after slaughtering the daily offering, they led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion. On all the other days of the year, the High Priest need not perform the service and it may be performed by a common priest. Rather, it must be that this incident occurred on Yom Kippur, when the service is performed exclusively by the High Priest. However, in that case, is there moonlight? According to the lunar cycle, the moon never rises in the east adjacent to dawn on Yom Kippur.,The Gemara answers that this is what the mishna is saying: The incident occurred during the rest of the year, at which point they instituted that the appointed priest announce the arrival of dawn in the Temple. And on Yom Kippur, when the appointed priest said: The light flashed, they immediately led the High Priest down to the Hall of Immersion.,Apropos this fundamental halakha, the father of Rabbi Avin taught a baraita: Not only this, that a daily offering slaughtered before dawn is disqualified and burned, did they say; rather, even in the case of the pinching of the neck of a bird and the taking of the handful of a meal-offering that are performed at night, these items must be burned. The Gemara analyzes the baraita: Granted, a bird sacrificed as a burnt-offering is disqualified if pinched before dawn; what was, was. The situation can no longer be remedied, and the bird must be burned. However, why should the handful of a meal-offering be burned?'' None |
|
30. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None
Tagged with subjects: โข Intention, forbidden labor on the Sabbath โข legislation, rabbinic, intention in โข owner, intention of
Found in books: Balberg (2017), Blood for Thought: The Reinvention of Sacrifice in Early Rabbinic Literature, 46; Schick (2021), Intention in Talmudic Law: Between Thought and Deed, 64
47a ืื ืื ืืืชืขืกืง ืืงืืฉืื ืฉืืื ืคืกืื ืฉื ืืืจ (ืืืงืจื ื, ื) ืืฉืื ืืช ืื ืืืงืจ ืืคื ื ื\' ืขื ืฉืชืื ืฉืืืื ืืฉื ืื ืืงืจ,ื"ื ืื ืืืืื ื ืืื ืืขืื ืื ืื ื"ื (ืืืงืจื ืื, ื) ืืจืฆืื ืื ืชืืืืื ืืืขืชืื ืืืืื:,ืฉืืื ืืืืฉืื ืืืืืช ืืื ืืืจ ืืขืืื: ืืชื ื\' ืืื ืื ืืื ืชื ื ืืชื ืื ื"ืจ ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืฉืืขืชื ืฉืืืขืืื ืืคืืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ื"ื ืืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืืจ ืงืจื ืืืงืจืื ืืืงืจืื,ืืืจ ืืืื ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืจ"ืฉ ืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืืื ืกืืืจื ืืื ืื ืืืฉืื ืืื ืขืืื ืืืื ืืืฉืื ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืื ืืืืจื,ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืชื ื ืืฉืืื ืืขืืื ืืืืืื ืฉืืืืชื ืืฉืจื ืืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืคืืกื,ืจ"ืฉ ืื ืืืขืืจ ืืชื ื ืืื ืืืจ ืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืื ืืืขืืจ ืื ืฉืืื ืืฉืจ ืืืฆื ืืข ืืืื ืืฆื ืืขืื ืืืืื ืืืืฉืจ ืืื ืืืฆื ืืขื ืืื ืืืจ ืืืืฆืืื ื ืชืืืื ืื ืืืืฉืื ืฉื ืื,ืชืจืืืืื ืืืช ืืื ืืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืฉืชื ืืืืฅ ืืืจืื ื ืืคื ืื ืืืืขืื,ืจืื ืืืขืืจ ืืจืื ืืืกื ืืืช ืืื ืืชืจืืืืื ืืืื ืืคื ืื ืืื ืืืืจืื ื ืืืืฅ ืื ืืืจืื ื,ืจ"ืฉ ืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืช ืืื ืืจ\' ืืืืขืืจ ืืฉืชื ืืฉืืช ืืืจืื ื ืืขืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืืืขืื,ืจืื ืืืืขืืจ ืืืช ืืื ืืจืื ืฉืืขืื ืื ืืืขืืจ ืืืื ืืขืืืืช ืืืืืื ืืื ืืืืจืช ืืขืื ืืคื ืื ืืื ืฉืืช ืืืืืช ืืืฉืืช ืืกืจื ืชืืจื:,| 47a From where is it derived with regard to one who acts unawares in the case of consecrated items, i.e., if one slaughtered an offering without intending to perform the act of slaughter at all, but rather like one occupied with other matters, that the offering is disqualified? Rav Huna said to Shmuel: It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: โAnd he shall slaughter the young bull before the Lordโ (Leviticus 1:5), teaching that the mitzva is not performed properly unless the slaughter is for the sake of a young bull, i.e., knowing that he is performing an act of slaughter.,Shmuel said to Rav Huna: We have this as an established halakha already, that it is a mitzva to slaughter the offering for the sake of a bull, but from where is it derived that this requirement is indispensable? Rav Huna said to him that the verse states: โWith your will you shall slaughter itโ (Leviticus 19:5), i.e., with your full awareness you shall slaughter it, in the form of a purposeful action.,ยง The mishna teaches: Because the intent follows only the one performing the sacrificial rite. The Gemara comments: The mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of this tanna, as it is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: I heard that even the owner of an offering can render it piggul through improper intention. Rava says: What is the reason of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei? As the verse states: โThen he who sacrifices shall sacrifice his offering to the Lordโ (Numbers 15:4). The term โhe who sacrificesโ is a reference to the owner; since the owner is considered one who sacrifices, he too can render his offering piggul with an improper intention.,Abaye says: Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, and Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar all hold that even in a case involving two people, where this one has intention and that one performs the service, it is the intention that is relevant, i.e., it is as though the one performing the service had the intention. The Gemara explains: The statement of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, is that which we just said, that the owner can render his offering piggul through improper intention despite the fact that it is the priest who performs the service.,The statement of Rabbi Eliezer is as we learned in a mishna (แธคullin 38b): With regard to one who slaughters an animal on behalf of a gentile, his slaughter is valid and a Jew may eat the meat of this animal. But Rabbi Eliezer deems it unfit, as the intention of the gentile, which is presumably to use the animal for idol worship, invalidates the act of slaughter performed by the Jew.,The statement of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar is as we learned in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar stated a principle: In the case of any item that is not fit to be stored, and therefore people do not typically store items like it, but it was deemed fit for storage by this person and he stored it, and another person came and carried out on Shabbat the item that was stored, that one who carried it out is rendered liable by the thought of this one who stored it.,The Gemara notes: These two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although their rulings are stated in the context of entirely different matters, accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei. The Gemara explains: Now that concerning matters outside the Temple, i.e., non-sacred slaughter and carrying on Shabbat, with regard to which the Torah makes no reference to intention, we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to state that the same halakha applies to matters inside the Temple, i.e., offerings, with regard to which it is explicitly stated that intention is effective, as indicated by the verse: โWith your will you shall slaughter itโ (Leviticus 19:5)?,But Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Yosei, does not necessarily accept as halakha the rulings of these two Sages, Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar. The Gemara explains: Perhaps it is only concerning inside the Temple that we say that one personโs intention is effective for the action of another, whereas concerning outside the Temple, we do not say this.,The Gemara further differentiates between the opinions of those two Sages themselves. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar accepts as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Eliezer: Now that with regard to Shabbat we say that the intention of one person is effective for the action of another, is it necessary to say that the same applies concerning idol worship, where the actions are somewhat similar to those performed in the Temple?,But Rabbi Eliezer does not necessarily accept as halakha the ruling of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar: Perhaps it is only with regard to idol worship that you say that one personโs intention is effective for the action of another, as idol worship is somewhat similar to service performed inside the Temple. Consequently, it is reasonable that one personโs intention is effective for the action of another in the case of idolatry, as it does for offerings. But with regard to Shabbat, the Torah prohibited only planned, constructive labor, i.e., one is liable only for an action that includes the creative intent of the doer, and here the one who took the item out did not intend to perform a labor.,,What is the location of the slaughtering and consumption of offerings? The principle is that with regard to offerings of the most sacred order, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard.,Specifically, with regard to the bull and the goat of Yom Kippur, their slaughter is in the north and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling between the staves of the Ark in the Holy of Holies, and upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and on the golden altar. Concerning all those sprinklings, failure to perform even one placement of their blood disqualifies the offering. As to the remainder of the blood, which is left after those sprinklings, a priest would pour it onto the western base of the external altar. But if he did not place the remainder of the blood on the western base, it does not disqualify the offering.,With regard to bulls that are burned and goats that are burned, their slaughter is in the north of the Temple courtyard, and the collection of their blood in a service vessel is in the north, and their blood requires sprinkling upon the Curtain separating the Sanctuary and Holy of Holies, and upon the golden altar,'' None | |
|
31. Vergil, Aeneis, 6.376
Tagged with subjects: โข intention โข intentions
Found in books: Farrell (2021), Juno's Aeneid: A Battle for Heroic Identity, 243; Mackey (2022), Belief and Cult: Rethinking Roman Religion, 301
sup>
6.376 Desine fata deum flecti sperare precando.'' None | sup>
6.376 Like Scylla, or the dragon Lerna bred, '' None |
|
32. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: โข homicide, intentional โข intention
Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 22; Petrovic and Petrovic (2016), Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion, 283
|
33. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: โข allegoresis (general), and authorial intention โข grammatical archive, commentarial assumptions, intention (ฮดฮนแฝฑฮฝฮฟฮนฮฑ/ voluntas ) โข intention, and allegoresis
Found in books: Ward (2022), Clement and Scriptural Exegesis: The Making of a Commentarial Theologian, 45; Wolfsdorf (2020), Early Greek Ethics, 367
|
