|1. Septuagint, Tobit, 1.21-1.22, 3.3-3.4, 11.19, 14.10 (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrian, court • Assyrians, court tales • Assyrians, court talesnan • court tales
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 200, 216, 281; Toloni (2022), The Story of Tobit: A Comparative Literary Analysis, 119, 120, 121, 123, 131, 145, 173, 174
1.21 But not fifty days passed before two of Sennacheribs sons killed him, and they fled to the mountains of Ararat. Then Esarhaddon, his son, reigned in his place; and he appointed Ahikar, the son of my brother Anael, over all the accounts of his kingdom and over the entire administration. 1.22 Ahikar interceded for me, and I returned to Nineveh. Now Ahikar was cupbearer, keeper of the signet, and in charge of administration of the accounts, for Esarhaddon had appointed him second to himself. He was my nephew.
3.3 Remember me and look favorably upon me; do not punish me for my sins and for my unwitting offences and those which my fathers committed before thee. 3.4 For they disobeyed thy commandments, and thou gavest us over to plunder, captivity, and death; thou madest us a byword of reproach in all the nations among which we have been dispersed.
11.19 and Tobias marriage was celebrated for seven days with great festivity.
14.10 Bury me properly, and your mother with me. And do not live in Nineveh any longer. See, my son, what Nadab did to Ahikar who had reared him, how he brought him from light into darkness, and with what he repaid him. But Ahikar was saved, and the other received repayment as he himself went down into the darkness. Ahikar gave alms and escaped the deathtrap which Nadab had set for him; but Nadab fell into the trap and perished.'' None
|2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.8, 17.8-17.10, 17.12, 17.14-17.20, 18.20, 19.17, 21.2, 25.7-25.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Court • Court, of Seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin) • Court, of Ten • Court, of Three • Court, of Twelve • Court, of Twenty-three (Small Sanhedrin) • Court, the • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Law, Jewish (courts, Jewish legal) • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Lawyers and legal system, rabbinic court system • court, Rabbinic • court, biblical • courts, ad hoc • courts, tannaitic • high court decisions, status of
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 163; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant (2014), Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible 273, 275, 276, 282, 285, 286; Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 224, 326, 332, 334; Gera (2014), Judith, 366; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 96; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 208, 217; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 630, 635; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28, 44, 49; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 46, 49, 54
13.8 מֵאֱלֹהֵי הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתֵיכֶם הַקְּרֹבִים אֵלֶיךָ אוֹ הָרְחֹקִים מִמֶּךָּ מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ׃
17.8 כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט בֵּין־דָּם לְדָם בֵּין־דִּין לְדִין וּבֵין נֶגַע לָנֶגַע דִּבְרֵי רִיבֹת בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ וְקַמְתָּ וְעָלִיתָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ׃ 17.9 וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט׃' 17.12 וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמֹעַ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן הָעֹמֵד לְשָׁרֶת שָׁם אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אוֹ אֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵט וּמֵת הָאִישׁ הַהוּא וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃
17.14 כִּי־תָבֹא אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ וִירִשְׁתָּהּ וְיָשַׁבְתָּה בָּהּ וְאָמַרְתָּ אָשִׂימָה עָלַי מֶלֶךְ כְּכָל־הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹתָי׃ 17.15 שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃ 17.16 רַק לֹא־יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ סוּסִים וְלֹא־יָשִׁיב אֶת־הָעָם מִצְרַיְמָה לְמַעַן הַרְבּוֹת סוּס וַיהוָה אָמַר לָכֶם לֹא תֹסִפוּן לָשׁוּב בַּדֶּרֶךְ הַזֶּה עוֹד׃ 17.17 וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ מְאֹד׃ 17.18 וְהָיָה כְשִׁבְתּוֹ עַל כִּסֵּא מַמְלַכְתּוֹ וְכָתַב לוֹ אֶת־מִשְׁנֵה הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת עַל־סֵפֶר מִלִּפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם׃ 17.19 וְהָיְתָה עִמּוֹ וְקָרָא בוֹ כָּל־יְמֵי חַיָּיו לְמַעַן יִלְמַד לְיִרְאָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו לִשְׁמֹר אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת וְאֶת־הַחֻקִּים הָאֵלֶּה לַעֲשֹׂתָם׃
19.17 וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי־הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשֹּׁפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם׃
21.2 וְאָמְרוּ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ בְּנֵנוּ זֶה סוֹרֵר וּמֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ זוֹלֵל וְסֹבֵא׃
21.2 וְיָצְאוּ זְקֵנֶיךָ וְשֹׁפְטֶיךָ וּמָדְדוּ אֶל־הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר סְבִיבֹת הֶחָלָל׃
25.7 וְאִם־לֹא יַחְפֹּץ הָאִישׁ לָקַחַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּוֹ וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים וְאָמְרָה מֵאֵין יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי׃ 25.8 וְקָרְאוּ־לוֹ זִקְנֵי־עִירוֹ וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו וְעָמַד וְאָמַר לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ׃ 25.9 וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֵּית אָחִיו'' None
13.8 of the gods of the peoples that are round about you, nigh unto thee, or far off from thee, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth;
17.8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgment, between blood and blood, between plea and plea, and between stroke and stroke, even matters of controversy within thy gates; then shalt thou arise, and get thee up unto the place which the LORD thy God shall choose. 17.9 And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment. 17.10 And thou shalt do according to the tenor of the sentence, which they shall declare unto thee from that place which the LORD shall choose; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they shall teach thee.
17.12 And the man that doeth presumptuously, in not hearkening unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the LORD thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die; and thou shalt exterminate the evil from Israel.
17.14 When thou art come unto the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein; and shalt say: ‘I will set a king over me, like all the nations that are round about me’; 17.15 thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother. 17.16 Only he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt, to the end that he should multiply horses; forasmuch as the LORD hath said unto you: ‘Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.’ 17.17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away; neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold. 17.18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this law in a book, out of that which is before the priests the Levites. 17.19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life; that he may learn to fear the LORD his God, to keep all the words of this law and these statutes, to do them; 17.20 that his heart be not lifted up above his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the commandment, to the right hand, or to the left; to the end that he may prolong his days in his kingdom, he and his children, in the midst of Israel.
18.20 But the prophet, that shall speak a word presumptuously in My name, which I have not commanded him to speak, or that shall speak in the name of other gods, that same prophet shall die.’
19.17 then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days.
21.2 then thy elders and thy judges shall come forth, and they shall measure unto the cities which are round about him that is slain.
25.7 And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’ 25.8 Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand, and say: ‘I like not to take her’; 25.9 then shall his brother’s wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’ 25.10 And his name shall be called in Israel The house of him that had his shoe loosed.' ' None
|3. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.12 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • court tales • courts, exilarchic, royal
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 75, 379; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 115
1.12 וַתְּמָאֵן הַמַּלְכָּה וַשְׁתִּי לָבוֹא בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר בְּיַד הַסָּרִיסִים וַיִּקְצֹף הַמֶּלֶךְ מְאֹד וַחֲמָתוֹ בָּעֲרָה בוֹ׃'' None
1.12 But the queen Vashti refused to come at the king’s commandment by the chamberlains; therefore was the king very wroth, and his anger burned in him.'' None
|4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 18.21, 23.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, forms of • Judiciary deposing the ruler, leveling the court • Sanhedrin (Jewish court)
Found in books: Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 144, 173; Gera (2014), Judith, 425; Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 147
18.21 וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל־הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע וְשַׂמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת׃
23.2 הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי שֹׁלֵחַ מַלְאָךְ לְפָנֶיךָ לִשְׁמָרְךָ בַּדָּרֶךְ וְלַהֲבִיאֲךָ אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם אֲשֶׁר הֲכִנֹתִי׃
23.2 לֹא־תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי־רַבִּים לְרָעֹת וְלֹא־תַעֲנֶה עַל־רִב לִנְטֹת אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת׃'' None
18.21 Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.
23.2 Thou shalt not follow a multitude to do evil; neither shalt thou bear witness in a cause to turn aside after a multitude to pervert justice;'' None
|5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrian, court • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in Bible and Second Temple literature • Heavenly court advocates, in rabbinic literature • Joseph (Genesis patriarch), at Egyptian court • Joseph (Tobiad), at Ptolemaic court • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Nineveh, capital, court • court • court legend
Found in books: Edwards (2023), In the Court of the Gentiles: Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus, 72; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 242, 254; Toloni (2022), The Story of Tobit: A Comparative Literary Analysis, 153, 176; Werline et al. (2008), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity, 135
1.26 וַיֹּאמֶר אֱלֹהִים נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם בְּצַלְמֵנוּ כִּדְמוּתֵנוּ וְיִרְדּוּ בִדְגַת הַיָּם וּבְעוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּבַבְּהֵמָה וּבְכָל־הָאָרֶץ וּבְכָל־הָרֶמֶשׂ הָרֹמֵשׂ עַל־הָאָרֶץ׃' ' None
1.26 And God said: ‘Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.’' ' None
|6. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.13, 4.15-4.16, 4.21, 19.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • Court(s) • Court, of Seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin) • courts, royal
Found in books: Corley (2002), Ben Sira's Teaching on Friendship, 217; Feldman, Goldman and Dimant (2014), Scripture and Interpretation: Qumran Texts That Rework the Bible 276, 282, 286; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 37, 94, 105
4.13 וְאִם כָּל־עֲדַת יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁגּוּ וְנֶעְלַם דָּבָר מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּהָל וְעָשׂוּ אַחַת מִכָּל־מִצְוֺת יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תֵעָשֶׂינָה וְאָשֵׁמוּ׃
4.15 וְסָמְכוּ זִקְנֵי הָעֵדָה אֶת־יְדֵיהֶם עַל־רֹאשׁ הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְשָׁחַט אֶת־הַפָּר לִפְנֵי יְהוָה׃ 4.16 וְהֵבִיא הַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ מִדַּם הַפָּר אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃
4.21 וְהוֹצִיא אֶת־הַפָּר אֶל־מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה וְשָׂרַף אֹתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׂרַף אֵת הַפָּר הָרִאשׁוֹן חַטַּאת הַקָּהָל הוּא׃
19.17 לֹא־תִשְׂנָא אֶת־אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא׃'' None
4.13 And if the whole congregation of Israel shall err, the thing being hid from the eyes of the assembly, and do any of the things which the LORD hath commanded not to be done, and are guilty:
4.15 And the elders of the congregation shall lay their hands upon the head of the bullock before the LORD; and the bullock shall be killed before the LORD. 4.16 And the anointed priest shall bring of the blood of the bullock to the tent of meeting.
4.21 And he shall carry forth the bullock without the camp, and burn it as he burned the first bullock; it is the sin-offering for the assembly.
19.17 Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him.'' None
|7. Hebrew Bible, Micah, 6.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Law, court of • courts, sectarian
Found in books: Levison (2009), Filled with the Spirit, 45; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 61, 94, 105
6.8 הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה־טּוֹב וּמָה־יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם־עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם־אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃'' None
6.8 It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, And what the LORD doth require of thee: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.'' None
|8. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 11.16, 14.15-14.16, 14.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in Bible and Second Temple literature • Hoshiv ba-yeshiva (to seat in the rabbinic court or academy) • Sanhedrin (Jewish court)
Found in books: Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 185; Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 467; Gera (2014), Judith, 217, 222, 413; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 243; Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 164, 165
11.16 וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה אֶסְפָה־לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָדַעְתָּ כִּי־הֵם זִקְנֵי הָעָם וְשֹׁטְרָיו וְלָקַחְתָּ אֹתָם אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהִתְיַצְּבוּ שָׁם עִמָּךְ׃
14.15 וְהֵמַתָּה אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה כְּאִישׁ אֶחָד וְאָמְרוּ הַגּוֹיִם אֲשֶׁר־שָׁמְעוּ אֶת־שִׁמְעֲךָ לֵאמֹר׃ 14.16 מִבִּלְתִּי יְכֹלֶת יְהוָה לְהָבִיא אֶת־הָעָם הַזֶּה אֶל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּע לָהֶם וַיִּשְׁחָטֵם בַּמִּדְבָּר׃
14.27 עַד־מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים עָלָי אֶת־תְּלֻנּוֹת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר הֵמָּה מַלִּינִים עָלַי שָׁמָעְתִּי׃'' None
11.16 And the LORD said unto Moses: ‘Gather unto Me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tent of meeting, that they may stand there with thee.
14.15 now if Thou shalt kill this people as one man, then the nations which have heard the fame of Thee will speak, saying: 14.16 Because the LORD was not able to bring this people into the land which He swore unto them, therefore He hath slain them in the wilderness.
14.27 ’How long shall I bear with this evil congregation, that keep murmuring against Me? I have heard the murmurings of the children of Israel, which they keep murmuring against Me.'' None
|9. None, None, nan (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian • rabbis, Babylonian, attitude of, toward Jewish and Persian courts
Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 117, 118, 119; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81
|10. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 21.1, 21.3, 21.6-21.14 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • court prophets
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 411; Lester (2018), Prophetic Rivalry, Gender, and Economics: A Study in Revelation and Sibylline Oracles 4-5. 68
21.3 וַיֹּאמֶר נָבוֹת אֶל־אַחְאָב חָלִילָה לִּי מֵיהוָה מִתִּתִּי אֶת־נַחֲלַת אֲבֹתַי לָךְ׃
21.6 וַיְדַבֵּר אֵלֶיהָ כִּי־אֲדַבֵּר אֶל־נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי וָאֹמַר לוֹ תְּנָה־לִּי אֶת־כַּרְמְךָ בְּכֶסֶף אוֹ אִם־חָפֵץ אַתָּה אֶתְּנָה־לְךָ כֶרֶם תַּחְתָּיו וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא־אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת־כַּרְמִי׃ 21.7 וַתֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו אִיזֶבֶל אִשְׁתּוֹ אַתָּה עַתָּה תַּעֲשֶׂה מְלוּכָה עַל־יִשְׂרָאֵל קוּם אֱכָל־לֶחֶם וְיִטַב לִבֶּךָ אֲנִי אֶתֵּן לְךָ אֶת־כֶּרֶם נָבוֹת הַיִּזְרְעֵאלִי׃ 21.8 וַתִּכְתֹּב סְפָרִים בְּשֵׁם אַחְאָב וַתַּחְתֹּם בְּחֹתָמוֹ וַתִּשְׁלַח הספרים סְפָרִים אֶל־הַזְקֵנִים וְאֶל־הַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר בְּעִירוֹ הַיֹּשְׁבִים אֶת־נָבוֹת׃ 21.9 וַתִּכְתֹּב בַּסְּפָרִים לֵאמֹר קִרְאוּ־צוֹם וְהוֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת־נָבוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃' 21.11 וַיַּעֲשׂוּ אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ הַזְּקֵנִים וְהַחֹרִים אֲשֶׁר הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּעִירוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם אִיזָבֶל כַּאֲשֶׁר כָּתוּב בַּסְּפָרִים אֲשֶׁר שָׁלְחָה אֲלֵיהֶם׃
21.12 קָרְאוּ צוֹם וְהֹשִׁיבוּ אֶת־נָבוֹת בְּרֹאשׁ הָעָם׃
21.13 וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל וַיֵּשְׁבוּ נֶגְדּוֹ וַיְעִדֻהוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַבְּלִיַּעַל אֶת־נָבוֹת נֶגֶד הָעָם לֵאמֹר בֵּרַךְ נָבוֹת אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר וַיִּסְקְלֻהוּ בָאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת׃
21.14 וַיִּשְׁלְחוּ אֶל־אִיזֶבֶל לֵאמֹר סֻקַּל נָבוֹת וַיָּמֹת׃'' None
21.3 And Naboth said to Ahab: ‘The LORD forbid it me, that I should give the inheritance of my fathers unto thee.’
21.6 And he said unto her: ‘Because I spoke unto Naboth the Jezreelite, and said unto him: Give me thy vineyard for money; or else, if it please thee, I will give thee another vineyard for it; and he answered: I will not give thee my vineyard.’ 21.7 And Jezebel his wife said unto him: ‘Dost thou now govern the kingdom of Israel? arise, and eat bread, and let thy heart be merry; I will give thee the vineyard of Naboth the Jezreelite.’ 21.8 So she wrote letters in Ahab’s name, and sealed them with his seal, and sent the letters unto the elders and to the nobles that were in his city, and that dwelt with Naboth. 21.9 And she wrote in the letters, saying: ‘Proclaim a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people;
21.10 and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he die.’
21.11 And the men of his city, even the elders and the nobles who dwelt in his city, did as Jezebel had sent unto them, according as it was written in the letters which she had sent unto them.
21.12 They proclaimed a fast, and set Naboth at the head of the people.
21.13 And the two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him; and the base fellows bore witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying: ‘Naboth did curse God and the king.’ Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.
21.14 Then they sent to Jezebel, saying: ‘Naboth is stoned, and is dead.’' ' None
|11. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.25, 10.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Law, Jewish (courts, Jewish legal) • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian • rabbis, Babylonian, attitude of, toward Jewish and Persian courts
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 457; Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 117, 118, 119; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 634; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81
1.25 וְאָשִׁיבָה יָדִי עָלַיִךְ וְאֶצְרֹף כַּבֹּר סִיגָיִךְ וְאָסִירָה כָּל־בְּדִילָיִךְ׃
10.13 כִּי אָמַר בְּכֹחַ יָדִי עָשִׂיתִי וּבְחָכְמָתִי כִּי נְבֻנוֹתִי וְאָסִיר גְּבוּלֹת עַמִּים ועתידתיהם וַעֲתוּדוֹתֵיהֶם שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּאבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים׃'' None
1.25 And I will turn My hand upon thee, And purge away thy dross as with lye, And will take away all thine alloy;
10.13 For he hath said: By the strength of my hand I have done it, And by my wisdom, for I am prudent; In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, And have robbed their treasures, And have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants;'' None
|12. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 7.6 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in Bible and Second Temple literature
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 429; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 243
7.6 וַיִּקְרַע יְהוֹשֻׁעַ שִׂמְלֹתָיו וַיִּפֹּל עַל־פָּנָיו אַרְצָה לִפְנֵי אֲרוֹן יְהוָה עַד־הָעֶרֶב הוּא וְזִקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיַּעֲלוּ עָפָר עַל־רֹאשָׁם׃'' None
7.6 And Joshua rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his face before the ark of the LORD until the evening, he and the elders of Israel; and they put dust upon their heads.'' None
|13. Hebrew Bible, Judges, 5.20 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • court
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 456; Werline et al. (2008), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity, 27
5.20 They fought from heaven; the stars in their courses fought against Sisera.'' None
|14. Homer, Iliad, 2.284-2.288, 2.341 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • court tales • perjury, in law-court speeches
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 135; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 146
2.284 Ἀτρεΐδη νῦν δή σε ἄναξ ἐθέλουσιν Ἀχαιοὶ 2.285 πᾶσιν ἐλέγχιστον θέμεναι μερόπεσσι βροτοῖσιν, 2.286 οὐδέ τοι ἐκτελέουσιν ὑπόσχεσιν ἥν περ ὑπέσταν 2.287 ἐνθάδʼ ἔτι στείχοντες ἀπʼ Ἄργεος ἱπποβότοιο 2.288 Ἴλιον ἐκπέρσαντʼ εὐτείχεον ἀπονέεσθαι.
2.341 σπονδαί τʼ ἄκρητοι καὶ δεξιαί, ᾗς ἐπέπιθμεν·'' None
2.284 in the likeness of a herald, bade the host keep silence, that the sons of the Achaeans, both the nearest and the farthest, might hear his words, and lay to heart his counsel. He with good intent addressed their gathering and spake among them:Son of Atreus, now verily are the Achaeans minded to make thee, O king, 2.285 the most despised among all mortal men, nor will they fulfill the promise that they made to thee, while faring hitherward from Argos, the pasture-land of horses, that not until thou hadst sacked well-walled Ilios shouldest thou get thee home. For like little children or widow women
2.341 Nay, into the fire let us cast all counsels and plans of warriors, the drink-offerings of unmixed wine, and the hand-clasps wherein we put our trust. For vainly do we wrangle with words, nor can we find any device at all, for all our long-tarrying here. Son of Atreus, do thou as of old keep unbending purpose, '' None
|15. None, None, nan (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Areopagus, court of • Areopagus, homicide court • Heliaia court • homicide, court of the Areopagus in Athens • law-courts, dicasts oath
Found in books: Brule (2003), Women of Ancient Greece, 54; Fletcher (2012), Performing Oaths in Classical Greek Drama, 58; Petrovic and Petrovic (2016), Inner Purity and Pollution in Greek Religion, 161; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 14, 16, 286
|16. None, None, nan (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the, in central position in the Temple • Paulinus, court advisor • court
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 85; Klein and Wienand (2022), City of Caesar, City of God: Constantinople and Jerusalem in Late Antiquity, 145; Werline et al. (2008), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity, 128
|17. Herodotus, Histories, 3.17-3.25, 7.143-7.144 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Persian, system of court education • court tales • divination, not admitted in court role in public life • divination, not admitted in court through chresmologoi • divination, not admitted in court through oracles
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 64, 65; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 21; Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 109, 112
3.17 μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Καμβύσης ἐβουλεύσατο τριφασίας στρατηίας, ἐπί τε Καρχηδονίους καὶ ἐπὶ Ἀμμωνίους καὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς μακροβίους Αἰθίοπας, οἰκημένους δὲ Λιβύης ἐπὶ τῇ νοτίῃ θαλάσσῃ· βουλευομένῳ δέ οἱ ἔδοξε ἐπὶ μὲν Καρχηδονίους τὸν ναυτικὸν στρατὸν ἀποστέλλειν, ἐπὶ δὲ Ἀμμωνίους τοῦ πεζοῦ ἀποκρίναντα, ἐπὶ δὲ τοὺς Αἰθίοπας κατόπτας πρῶτον, ὀψομένους τε τὴν ἐν τούτοισι τοῖσι Αἰθίοψι λεγομένην εἶναι ἡλίου τράπεζαν εἰ ἔστι ἀληθέως, καὶ πρὸς ταύτῃ τὰ ἄλλα κατοψομένους, δῶρα δὲ τῷ λόγῳ φέροντας τῷ βασιλέι αὐτῶν. 3.18 ἡ δὲ τράπεζα τοῦ ἡλίου τοιήδε τις λέγεται εἶναι, λειμὼν ἐστὶ ἐν τῷ προαστείῳ ἐπίπλεος κρεῶν ἑφθῶν πάντων τῶν τετραπόδων, ἐς τὸν τὰς μὲν νύκτας ἐπιτηδεύοντας τιθέναι τὰ κρέα τοὺς ἐν τέλεϊ ἑκάστοτε ἐόντας τῶν ἀστῶν, τὰς δὲ ἡμέρας δαίνυσθαι προσιόντα τὸν βουλόμενον. φάναι δὲ τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους ταῦτα τὴν γῆν αὐτὴν ἀναδιδόναι ἑκάστοτε. 3.19 ἡ μὲν δὴ τράπεζα τοῦ ἡλίου καλεομένη λέγεται εἶναι τοιήδε. Καμβύσῃ δὲ ὡς ἔδοξε πέμπειν τοὺς κατασκόπους, αὐτίκα μετεπέμπετο ἐξ Ἐλεφαντίνης πόλιος τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων ἀνδρῶν τοὺς ἐπισταμένους τὴν Αἰθιοπίδα γλῶσσαν. ἐν ᾧ δὲ τούτους μετήισαν, ἐν τούτῳ ἐκέλευε ἐπὶ τὴν Καρχηδόνα πλέειν τὸν ναυτικὸν στρατόν. Φοίνικες δὲ οὐκ ἔφασαν ποιήσειν ταῦτα· ὁρκίοισι γὰρ μεγάλοισι ἐνδεδέσθαι, καὶ οὐκ ἂν ποιέειν ὅσια ἐπὶ τοὺς παῖδας τοὺς ἑωυτῶν στρατευόμενοι. Φοινίκων δὲ οὐ βουλομένων οἱ λοιποὶ οὐκ ἀξιόμαχοι ἐγίνοντο. Καρχηδόνιοι μέν νυν οὕτω δουλοσύνην διέφυγον πρὸς Περσέων· Καμβύσης γὰρ βίην οὐκ ἐδικαίου προσφέρειν Φοίνιξι, ὅτι σφέας τε αὐτοὺς ἐδεδώκεσαν Πέρσῃσι καὶ πᾶς ἐκ Φοινίκων ἤρτητο ὁ ναυτικὸς στρατός. δόντες δὲ καὶ Κύπριοι σφέας αὐτοὺς Πέρσῃσι ἐστρατεύοντο ἐπʼ Αἴγυπτον. 3.20 ἐπείτε δὲ τῷ Καμβύσῃ ἐκ τῆς Ἐλεφαντίνης ἀπίκοντο οἱ Ἰχθυοφάγοι, ἔπεμπε αὐτοὺς ἐς τοὺς Αἰθίοπας ἐντειλάμενος τὰ λέγειν χρῆν καὶ δῶρα φέροντας πορφύρεόν τε εἷμα καὶ χρύσεον στρεπτὸν περιαυχένιον καὶ ψέλια καὶ μύρου ἀλάβαστρον καὶ φοινικηίου οἴνου κάδον. οἱ δὲ Αἰθίοπες οὗτοι, ἐς τοὺς ἀπέπεμπε ὁ Καμβύσης, λέγονται εἶναι μέγιστοι καὶ κάλλιστοι ἀνθρώπων πάντων. νόμοισι δὲ καὶ ἄλλοισι χρᾶσθαι αὐτοὺς κεχωρισμένοισι τῶν ἄλλων ἀνθρώπων καὶ δὴ καὶ κατὰ τὴν βασιληίην τοιῷδε· τὸν ἂν τῶν ἀστῶν κρίνωσι μέγιστόν τε εἶναι καὶ κατὰ τὸ μέγαθος ἔχειν τὴν ἰσχύν, τοῦτον ἀξιοῦσι βασιλεύειν. 3.21 ἐς τούτους δὴ ὦν τοὺς ἄνδρας ὡς ἀπίκοντο οἱ Ἰχθυοφάγοι, διδόντες τὰ δῶρα τῷ, βασιλέι αὐτῶν ἔλεγον τάδε. “βασιλεὺς ὁ Περσέων Καμβύσης, βουλόμενος φίλος καὶ ξεῖνός τοι γενέσθαι, ἡμέας τε ἀπέπεμψε ἐς λόγους τοι ἐλθεῖν κελεύων, καὶ δῶρα ταῦτά τοι διδοῖ τοῖσι καὶ αὐτὸς μάλιστα ἥδεται χρεώμενος.” ὁ δὲ Αἰθίοψ μαθὼν ὅτι κατόπται ἥκοιεν, λέγει πρὸς αὐτοὺς τοιάδε. “οὔτε ὁ Περσέων βασιλεὺς δῶρα ὑμέας ἔπεμψε φέροντας προτιμῶν πολλοῦ ἐμοὶ ξεῖνος γενέσθαι, οὔτε ὑμεῖς λέγετε ἀληθέα ʽἥκετε γὰρ κατόπται τῆς ἐμῆς ἀρχῆσ̓, οὔτε ἐκεῖνος ἀνήρ δίκαιος. εἰ γὰρ ἦν δίκαιος, οὔτʼ ἂν ἐπεθύμησε χώρης ἄλλης ἢ τῆς ἑωυτοῦ, οὔτʼ ἂν ἐς δουλοσύνην ἀνθρώπους ἦγε ὑπʼ ὧν μηδὲν ἠδίκηται. νῦν δὲ αὐτῷ τόξον τόδε διδόντες τάδε ἔπεα λέγετε.” “βασιλεὺς ὁ Αἰθιόπων συμβουλεύει τῷ Περσέων βασιλέι, ἐπεὰν οὕτω εὐπετέως ἕλκωσι τὰ τόξα Πέρσαι ἐόντα μεγάθεϊ τοσαῦτα, τότε ἐπʼ Αἰθίοπας τοὺς μακροβίους πλήθεϊ ὑπερβαλλόμενον στρατεύεσθαι· μέχρι δὲ τούτου θεοῖσι εἰδέναι χάριν, οἳ οὐκ ἐπὶ νόον τρέπουσι Αἰθιόπων παισὶ γῆν ἄλλην προσκτᾶσθαι τῇ ἑωυτῶν.” 3.22 ταῦτα δὲ εἴπας καὶ ἀνεὶς τὸ τόξον παρέδωκε τοῖσι ἥκουσι. λαβὼν δὲ τὸ εἷμα τὸ πορφύρεον εἰρώτα ὅ τι εἴη καὶ ὅκως πεποιημένον· εἰπόντων δὲ τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων τὴν ἀληθείην περὶ τῆς πορφύρης καὶ τῆς βαφῆς, δολεροὺς μὲν τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἔφη εἶναι, δολερὰ δὲ αὐτῶν τὰ εἵματα. δεύτερα δὲ τὸν χρυσὸν εἰρώτα τὸν στρεπτὸν τὸν περιαυχένιον καὶ τὰ ψέλια· ἐξηγεομένων δὲ τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων τὸν κόσμον αὐτοῦ, γελάσας ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ νομίσας εἶναι σφέα πέδας εἶπε ὡς παρʼ ἑωυτοῖσι εἰσὶ ῥωμαλεώτεραι τουτέων πέδαι. τρίτον δὲ εἰρώτα τὸ μύρον· εἰπόντων δὲ τῆς ποιήσιος πέρι καὶ ἀλείψιος, τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον τὸν καὶ περὶ τοῦ εἵματος εἶπε. ὡς δὲ ἐς τὸν οἶνον ἀπίκετο καὶ ἐπύθετο αὐτοῦ τὴν ποίησιν, ὑπερησθεὶς τῷ πόματι ἐπείρετο ὅ τι τε σιτέεται ὁ βασιλεὺς καὶ χρόνον ὁκόσον μακρότατον ἀνὴρ Πέρσης ζώει. οἳ δὲ σιτέεσθαι μὲν τὸν ἄρτον εἶπον, ἐξηγησάμενοι τῶν πυρῶν τὴν φύσιν, ὀγδώκοντα δὲ ἔτεα ζόης πλήρωμα ἀνδρὶ μακρότατον προκεῖσθαι. πρὸς ταῦτα ὁ Αἰθίοψ ἔφη οὐδὲν θωμάζειν εἰ σιτεόμενοι κόπρον ἔτεα ὀλίγα ζώουσι· οὐδὲ γὰρ ἂν τοσαῦτα δύνασθαι ζώειν σφέας, εἰ μὴ τῷ πόματι ἀνέφερον, φράζων τοῖσι Ἰχθυοφάγοισι τὸν οἶνον· τούτῳ γὰρ ἑωυτοὺς ὑπὸ Περσέων ἑσσοῦσθαι. 3.23 ἀντειρομένων δὲ τὸν βασιλέα τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων τῆς ζόης καὶ διαίτης πέρι, ἔτεα μὲν ἐς εἴκοσι καὶ ἑκατὸν τοὺς πολλοὺς αὐτῶν ἀπικνέεσθαι, ὑπερβάλλειν δὲ τινὰς καὶ ταῦτα, σίτησιν δὲ εἶναι κρέα τε ἑφθὰ καὶ πόμα γάλα. θῶμα δὲ ποιευμένων τῶν κατασκόπων περὶ τῶν ἐτέων, ἐπὶ κρήνην σφι ἡγήσασθαι, ἀπʼ ἧς λουόμενοι λιπαρώτεροι ἐγίνοντο, κατά περ εἰ ἐλαίου εἴη· ὄζειν δὲ ἀπʼ αὐτῆς ὡς εἰ ἴων. ἀσθενὲς δὲ τὸ ὕδωρ τῆς κρήνης ταύτης οὕτω δή τι ἔλεγον εἶναι οἱ κατάσκοποι ὥστε μηδὲν οἷόν τʼ εἶναι ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ ἐπιπλέειν, μήτε ξύλον μήτε τῶν ὅσα ξύλου ἐστὶ ἐλαφρότερα, ἀλλὰ πάντα σφέα χωρέειν ἐς βυσσόν. τὸ δὲ ὕδωρ τοῦτο εἴ σφι ἐστὶ ἀληθέως οἷόν τι λέγεται, διὰ τοῦτο ἂν εἶεν, τούτῳ τὰ πάντα χρεώμενοι, μακρόβιοι. ἀπὸ τῆς κρήνης δὲ ἀπαλλασσομένων, ἀγαγεῖν σφεας ἐς δεσμωτήριον ἀνδρῶν, ἔνθα τοὺς πάντας ἐν πέδῃσι χρυσέῃσι δεδέσθαι. ἔστι δὲ ἐν τούτοισι τοῖσι Αἰθίοψι πάντων ὁ χαλκὸς σπανιώτατον καὶ τιμιώτατον. θεησάμενοι δὲ καὶ τὸ δεσμωτήριον, ἐθεήσαντο καὶ τὴν τοῦ ἡλίου λεγομένην τράπεζαν. 3.24 μετὰ δὲ ταύτην τελευταίας ἐθεήσαντο τὰς θήκας αὐτῶν, αἳ λέγονται σκευάζεσθαι ἐξ ὑέλου τρόπῳ τοιῷδε· ἐπεὰν τὸν νεκρὸν ἰσχνήνωσι, εἴτε δὴ κατά περ Αἰγύπτιοι εἴτε ἄλλως κως, γυψώσαντες ἅπαντα αὐτὸν γραφῇ κοσμέουσι, ἐξομοιεῦντες τὸ εἶδος ἐς τὸ δυνατόν, ἔπειτα δέ οἱ περιιστᾶσι στήλην ἐξ ὑέλου πεποιημένην κοίλην· ἣ δέ σφι πολλὴ καὶ εὐεργὸς ὀρύσσεται. ἐν μέσῃ δὲ τῇ στήλῃ ἐνεὼν διαφαίνεται ὁ νέκυς, οὔτε ὀδμὴν οὐδεμίαν ἄχαριν παρεχόμενος οὔτε ἄλλο ἀεικὲς οὐδέν, καὶ ἔχει πάντα φανερὰ ὁμοίως αὐτῷ τῷ νέκυϊ. ἐνιαυτὸν μὲν δὴ ἔχουσι τὴν στήλην ἐν τοῖσι οἰκίοισι οἱ μάλιστα προσήκοντες, πάντων ἀπαρχόμενοι καὶ θυσίας οἱ προσάγοντες· μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ἐκκομίσαντες ἱστᾶσι περὶ τὴν πόλιν. 3.25 θεησάμενοι δὲ τὰ πάντα οἱ κατάσκοποι ἀπαλλάσσοντο ὀπίσω. ἀπαγγειλάντων δὲ ταῦτα τούτων, αὐτίκα ὁ Καμβύσης ὀργὴν ποιησάμενος ἐστρατεύετο ἐπὶ τοὺς Αἰθίοπας, οὔτε παρασκευὴν σίτου οὐδεμίαν παραγγείλας, οὔτε λόγον ἑωυτῷ δοὺς ὅτι ἐς τὰ ἔσχατα γῆς ἔμελλε στρατεύεσθαι· οἷα δὲ ἐμμανής τε ἐὼν καὶ οὐ φρενήρης, ὡς ἤκουε τῶν Ἰχθυοφάγων, ἐστρατεύετο, Ἑλλήνων μὲν τοὺς παρεόντας αὐτοῦ τάξας ὑπομένειν, τὸν δὲ πεζὸν πάντα ἅμα ἀγόμενος. ἐπείτε δὲ στρατευόμενος ἐγένετο ἐν Θήβῃσι, ἀπέκρινε τοῦ στρατοῦ ὡς πέντε μυριάδας, καὶ τούτοισι μὲν ἐνετέλλετο Ἀμμωνίους ἐξανδραποδισαμένους τὸ χρηστήριον τὸ τοῦ Διὸς ἐμπρῆσαι, αὐτὸς δὲ τὸν λοιπὸν ἄγων στρατὸν ἤιε ἐπὶ τοὺς Αἰθίοπας. πρὶν δὲ τῆς ὁδοῦ τὸ πέμπτον μέρος διεληλυθέναι τὴν στρατιήν, αὐτίκα πάντα αὐτοὺς τὰ εἶχον σιτίων ἐχόμενα ἐπελελοίπεε, μετὰ δὲ τὰ σιτία καὶ τὰ ὑποζύγια ἐπέλιπε κατεσθιόμενα. εἰ μέν νυν μαθὼν ταῦτα ὁ Καμβύσης ἐγνωσιμάχεε καὶ ἀπῆγε ὀπίσω τὸν στρατόν, ἐπὶ τῇ ἀρχῆθεν γενομένῃ ἁμαρτάδι ἦν ἂν ἀνὴρ σοφός· νῦν δὲ οὐδένα λόγον ποιεύμενος ἤιε αἰεὶ ἐς τὸ πρόσω. οἱ δὲ στρατιῶται ἕως μέν τι εἶχον ἐκ τῆς γῆς λαμβάνειν, ποιηφαγέοντες διέζωον, ἐπεὶ δὲ ἐς τὴν ψάμμον ἀπίκοντο, δεινὸν ἔργον αὐτῶν τινες ἐργάσαντο· ἐκ δεκάδος γὰρ ἕνα σφέων αὐτῶν ἀποκληρώσαντες κατέφαγον. πυθόμενος δὲ ταῦτα ὁ Καμβύσης, δείσας τὴν ἀλληλοφαγίην, ἀπεὶς τὸν ἐπʼ Αἰθίοπας στόλον ὀπίσω ἐπορεύετο καὶ ἀπικνέεται ἐς Θήβας πολλοὺς ἀπολέσας τοῦ στρατοῦ· ἐκ Θηβέων δὲ καταβὰς ἐς Μέμφιν τοὺς Ἕλληνας ἀπῆκε ἀποπλέειν.
7.143 ἦν δὲ τῶν τις Ἀθηναίων ἀνὴρ ἐς πρώτους νεωστὶ παριών, τῷ οὔνομα μὲν ἦν Θεμιστοκλέης, παῖς δὲ Νεοκλέος ἐκαλέετο. οὗτος ὡνὴρ οὐκ ἔφη πᾶν ὀρθῶς τοὺς χρησμολόγους συμβάλλεσθαι, λέγων τοιάδε· εἰ ἐς Ἀθηναίους εἶχε τὸ ἔπος εἰρημένον ἐόντως, οὐκ ἂν οὕτω μιν δοκέειν ἠπίως χρησθῆναι, ἀλλὰ ὧδε “ὦ σχετλίη Σαλαμίσ” ἀντὶ τοῦ “ὦ θείη Σαλαμίς,” εἴ πέρ γε ἔμελλον οἱ οἰκήτορες ἀμφʼ αὐτῇ τελευτήσειν· ἀλλὰ γὰρ ἐς τοὺς πολεμίους τῷ θεῷ εἰρῆσθαι τὸ χρηστήριον συλλαμβάνοντι κατὰ τὸ ὀρθόν, ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐς Ἀθηναίους· παρασκευάζεσθαι ὦν αὐτοὺς ὡς ναυμαχήσοντας συνεβούλευε, ὡς τούτου ἐόντος τοῦ ξυλίνου τείχεος. ταύτῃ Θεμιστοκλέος ἀποφαινομένου Ἀθηναῖοι ταῦτα σφίσι ἔγνωσαν αἱρετώτερα εἶναι μᾶλλον ἢ τὰ τῶν χρησμολόγων, οἳ οὐκ ἔων ναυμαχίην ἀρτέεσθαι, τὸ δὲ σύμπαν εἰπεῖν οὐδὲ χεῖρας ἀνταείρεσθαι, ἀλλὰ ἐκλιπόντας χώρην τὴν Ἀττικὴν ἄλλην τινὰ οἰκίζειν. 7.144 ἑτέρη τε Θεμιστοκλέι γνώμη ἔμπροσθε ταύτης ἐς καιρὸν ἠρίστευσε, ὅτε Ἀθηναίοισι γενομένων χρημάτων μεγάλων ἐν τῷ κοινῷ, τὰ ἐκ τῶν μετάλλων σφι προσῆλθε τῶν ἀπὸ Λαυρείου, ἔμελλον λάξεσθαι ὀρχηδὸν ἕκαστος δέκα δραχμάς· τότε Θεμιστοκλέης ἀνέγνωσε Ἀθηναίους τῆς διαιρέσιος ταύτης παυσαμένους νέας τούτων τῶν χρημάτων ποιήσασθαι διηκοσίας ἐς τὸν πόλεμον, τὸν πρὸς Αἰγινήτας λέγων. οὗτος γὰρ ὁ πόλεμος συστὰς ἔσωσε ἐς τὸ τότε τὴν Ἑλλάδα, ἀναγκάσας θαλασσίους γενέσθαι Ἀθηναίους. αἳ δὲ ἐς τὸ μὲν ἐποιήθησαν οὐκ ἐχρήσθησαν, ἐς δέον δὲ οὕτω τῇ Ἑλλάδι ἐγένοντο. αὗταί τε δὴ αἱ νέες τοῖσι Ἀθηναίοισι προποιηθεῖσαι ὑπῆρχον, ἑτέρας τε ἔδεε προσναυπηγέεσθαι. ἔδοξέ τέ σφι μετὰ τὸ χρηστήριον βουλευομένοισι ἐπιόντα ἐπὶ τὴν Ἑλλάδα τὸν βάρβαρον δέκεσθαι τῇσι νηυσὶ πανδημεί, τῷ θεῷ πειθομένους, ἅμα Ἑλλήνων τοῖσι βουλομένοισι.'' None
3.17 After this Cambyses planned three expeditions, against the Carchedonians, against the Ammonians, and against the “long-lived” Ethiopians, who inhabit that part of Libya that is on the southern sea. ,He decided after consideration to send his fleet against the Carthaginians and a part of his land army against the Ammonians; to Ethiopia he would first send spies, to see what truth there was in the story of a Table of the Sun in that country, and to spy out all else besides, under the pretext of bringing gifts for the Ethiopian king. ' "3.18 Now the Table of the Sun is said to be something of this kind: there is a meadow outside the city, filled with the boiled flesh of all four-footed things; here during the night the men of authority among the townsmen are careful to set out the meat, and all day whoever wishes comes and feasts on it. These meats, say the people of the country, are ever produced by the earth of itself. Such is the story of the Sun's Table. " '3.19 When Cambyses determined to send the spies, he sent for those Fish-eaters from the city of Elephantine who understood the Ethiopian language. ,While they were fetching them, he ordered his fleet to sail against Carthage . But the Phoenicians said they would not do it; for they were bound, they said, by strong oaths, and if they sailed against their own progeny they would be doing an impious thing; and the Phoenicians being unwilling, the rest were inadequate fighters. ,Thus the Carthaginians escaped being enslaved by the Persians; for Cambyses would not use force with the Phoenicians, seeing that they had willingly surrendered to the Persians, and the whole fleet drew its strength from them. The Cyprians too had come of their own accord to aid the Persians against Egypt . ' "3.20 When the Fish-eaters arrived from Elephantine at Cambyses' summons, he sent them to Ethiopia, with orders what to say, and bearing as gifts a red cloak and a twisted gold necklace and bracelets and an alabaster box of incense and an earthenware jar of palm wine. These Ethiopians, to whom Cambyses sent them, are said to be the tallest and most handsome of all men. ,Their way of choosing kings is different from that of all others, as (it is said) are all their laws; they consider that man worthy to be their king whom they judge to be tallest and to have strength proportional to his stature. " '3.21 When the Fish-eaters arrived among these men, they gave the gifts to their king and said: “Cambyses, the king of the Persians, wishing to become your friend and ally, sent us with orders to address ourselves to you; and he offers you as gifts these things which he enjoys using himself.” ,But the Ethiopian, perceiving that they had come as spies, spoke thus to them: “It is not because he values my friendship that the Persian King sends you with gifts, nor do you speak the truth (for you have come to spy on my realm), nor is that man just; for were he just, he would not have coveted a land other than his own, nor would he try to lead into slavery men by whom he has not been injured. Now, give him this bow, and this message: ,‘The King of the Ethiopians advises the King of the Persians to bring overwhelming odds to attack the long-lived Ethiopians when the Persians can draw a bow of this length as easily as I do; but until then, to thank the gods who do not incite the sons of the Ethiopians to add other land to their own.’” 3.22 So speaking he unstrung the bow and gave it to the men who had come. Then, taking the red cloak, he asked what it was and how it was made; and when the Fish-eaters told him the truth about the color and the process of dyeing, he said that both the men and their garments were full of deceit. ,Next he inquired about the twisted gold necklace and the bracelets; and when the Fish-eaters told him how they were made, the king smiled, and, thinking them to be fetters, said: “We have stronger chains than these.” ,Thirdly he inquired about the incense; and when they described making and applying it, he made the same reply as about the cloak. But when he came to the wine and asked about its making, he was vastly pleased with the drink, and asked further what food their king ate, and what was the greatest age to which a Persian lived. ,They told him their king ate bread, showing him how wheat grew; and said that the full age to which a man might hope to live was eighty years. Then, said the Ethiopian, it was no wonder that they lived so few years, if they ate dung; they would not even have been able to live that many unless they were refreshed by the drink—signifying to the Fish-eaters the wine—for in this, he said, the Persians excelled the Ethiopians. 3.23 The Fish-eaters then in turn asking of the Ethiopian length of life and diet, he said that most of them attained to a hundred and twenty years, and some even to more; their food was boiled meat and their drink milk. ,The spies showed wonder at the tale of years; whereupon he led them, it is said, to a spring, by washing in which they grew sleeker, as though it were of oil; and it smelled of violets. ,So light, the spies said, was this water, that nothing would float on it, neither wood nor anything lighter than wood, but all sank to the bottom. If this water is truly such as they say, it is likely that their constant use of it makes the people long-lived. ,When they left the spring, the king led them to a prison where all the men were bound with fetters of gold. Among these Ethiopians there is nothing so scarce and so precious as bronze. Then, having seen the prison, they saw what is called the Table of the Sun. 3.24 Last after this they viewed the Ethiopian coffins; these are said to be made of alabaster, as I shall describe: ,they cause the dead body to shrink, either as the Egyptians do or in some other way, then cover it with gypsum and paint it all as far as possible in the likeness of the living man; ,then they set it within a hollow pillar of alabaster, which they dig in abundance from the ground, and it is easily worked; the body can be seen in the pillar through the alabaster, no evil stench nor anything unpleasant proceeding from it, and showing clearly all its parts, as if it were the man himself. ,The nearest of kin keep the pillar in their house for a year, giving it of the first-fruits and offering it sacrifices; after which they bring the pillars out and set them round about the city. 3.25 Having seen everything, the spies departed again. When they reported all this, Cambyses was angry, and marched at once against the Ethiopians, neither giving directions for any provision of food nor considering that he was about to lead his army to the ends of the earth; ,being not in his right mind but mad, however, he marched at once on hearing from the Fish-eaters, ordering the Greeks who were with him to await him where they were, and taking with him all his land army. ,When he came in his march to Thebes , he detached about fifty thousand men from his army, and directed them to enslave the Ammonians and burn the oracle of Zeus; and he himself went on towards Ethiopia with the rest of his host. ,But before his army had accomplished the fifth part of their journey they had come to an end of all there was in the way of provision, and after the food was gone, they ate the beasts of burden until there was none of these left either. ,Now had Cambyses, when he perceived this, changed his mind and led his army back again, he would have been a wise man at last after his first fault; but as it was, he went ever forward, taking account of nothing. ,While his soldiers could get anything from the earth, they kept themselves alive by eating grass; but when they came to the sandy desert, some did a terrible thing, taking by lot one man out of ten and eating him. ,Hearing this, Cambyses feared their becoming cannibals, and so gave up his expedition against the Ethiopians and marched back to Thebes , with the loss of many of his army; from Thebes he came down to Memphis, and sent the Greeks to sail away. ' "
7.143 Now there was a certain Athenian, by name and title Themistocles son of Neocles, who had lately risen to be among their chief men. He claimed that the readers of oracles had incorrectly interpreted the whole of the oracle and reasoned that if the verse really pertained to the Athenians, it would have been formulated in less mild language, calling Salamis “cruel” rather than “divine ” seeing that its inhabitants were to perish. ,Correctly understood, the gods' oracle was spoken not of the Athenians but of their enemies, and his advice was that they should believe their ships to be the wooden wall and so make ready to fight by sea. ,When Themistocles put forward this interpretation, the Athenians judged him to be a better counsellor than the readers of oracles, who would have had them prepare for no sea fight, and, in short, offer no resistance at all, but leave Attica and settle in some other country. " "7.144 The advice of Themistocles had prevailed on a previous occasion. The revenues from the mines at Laurium had brought great wealth into the Athenians' treasury, and when each man was to receive ten drachmae for his share, Themistocles persuaded the Athenians to make no such division but to use the money to build two hundred ships for the war, that is, for the war with Aegina. ,This was in fact the war the outbreak of which saved Hellas by compelling the Athenians to become seamen. The ships were not used for the purpose for which they were built, but later came to serve Hellas in her need. These ships, then, had been made and were already there for the Athenians' service, and now they had to build yet others. ,In their debate after the giving of the oracle they accordingly resolved that they would put their trust in the god and meet the foreign invader of Hellas with the whole power of their fleet, ships and men, and with all other Greeks who were so minded. "' None
|18. Plato, Republic, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • (law)court system • divination, not admitted in court by entrails • divination, not admitted in court individuals
Found in books: Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 120; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 232
|364b καὶ πένητες ὦσιν, ὁμολογοῦντες αὐτοὺς ἀμείνους εἶναι τῶν ἑτέρων. τούτων δὲ πάντων οἱ περὶ θεῶν τε λόγοι καὶ ἀρετῆς θαυμασιώτατοι λέγονται, ὡς ἄρα καὶ θεοὶ πολλοῖς μὲν ἀγαθοῖς δυστυχίας τε καὶ βίον κακὸν ἔνειμαν, τοῖς δʼ ἐναντίοις ἐναντίαν μοῖραν. ἀγύρται δὲ καὶ μάντεις ἐπὶ πλουσίων θύρας ἰόντες πείθουσιν ὡς ἔστι παρὰ σφίσι δύναμις ἐκ θεῶν ποριζομένη θυσίαις τε καὶ ἐπῳδαῖς, εἴτε τι'' None||364b and disregard those who are in any way weak or poor, even while admitting that they are better men than the others. But the strangest of all these speeches are the things they say about the gods and virtue, how so it is that the gods themselves assign to many good men misfortunes and an evil life but to their opposites a contrary lot; and begging priests and soothsayers go to rich men’s doors and make them believe that they by means of sacrifices and incantations have accumulated a treasure of power from the gods that can expiate and cure with pleasurable festival'' None|
|19. Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, 6.4.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Persian court • court tales
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 70, 71; Stephens and Winkler (1995), Ancient Greek Novels: The Fragments: Introduction, Text, Translation, and Commentary, 227
6.4.2 καὶ τῷ Ἀβραδάτᾳ δὲ τὸ τετράρρυμον ἅρμα καὶ ἵππων ὀκτὼ παγκάλως ἐκεκόσμητο. ἐπεὶ δʼ ἔμελλε τὸν λινοῦν θώρακα, ὃς ἐπιχώριος ἦν αὐτοῖς, ἐνδύεσθαι, προσφέρει αὐτῷ ἡ Πάνθεια χρυσοῦν καὶ χρυσοῦν κράνος καὶ περιβραχιόνια καὶ ψέλια πλατέα περὶ τοὺς καρποὺς τῶν χειρῶν καὶ χιτῶνα πορφυροῦν ποδήρη στολιδωτὸν τὰ κάτω καὶ λόφον ὑακινθινοβαφῆ. ταῦτα δʼ ἐποιήσατο λάθρᾳ τοῦ ἀνδρὸς ἐκμετρησαμένη τὰ ἐκείνου ὅπλα.'' None
6.4.2 '' None
|20. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • lawcourt, Heliastic Oath • lawcourt, character evidence • lawcourt, discursive parameters • slaves, and law/court cases
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 67; Humphreys (2018), Kinship in Ancient Athens: An Anthropological Analysis, 198, 469
|21. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • divination, not admitted in court role in public life • divination, not admitted in court through chresmologoi • law-courts, witnesses oaths
Found in books: Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 113; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 137
|22. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • divination, not admitted in court by entrails • lawcourt, discursive parameters
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 69; Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 100
|23. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • (law)court system • law courts • law courts, • lawcourt, eligibility • lawcourt, meeting places • lawcourt, origins
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 42; Braund and Most (2004), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, 83, 84; Edmonds (2019), Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World, 71; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 287
|24. None, None, nan (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • high court decisions, status of
Found in books: Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 224, 560; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47
|25. Aeschines, Letters, 2.87, 3.99, 3.181-3.182 (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Orchomenos, Boiotian city, Palladion, court at • law-courts, witnesses oaths • lawcourt oratory • lawcourt, character evidence • lawcourt, discursive parameters • lawcourt, historical allusions • lawcourts, Athenian, • perjury, in law-court speeches • self-curses, in law-court speeches
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 68; Lalone (2019), Athena Itonia: Geography and Meaning of an Ancient Greek War Goddess, 258; Liddel (2020), Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2-322/1 BC): Volume 2, Political and Cultural Perspectives, 98; Marincola et al. (2021), Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and Calum Maciver, Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians, 218, 220; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 21, 40
2.87 Is it not, therefore, an outrage, gentlemen, if one dares utter such lies about a man who is his own—no, I hasten to correct myself, not his own, but your—fellow citizen, when he is in peril of his life? Wisely, indeed, did our fathers prescribe that, in the trials for bloodshed which are held at the Palladion, the one who wins his case must cut in pieces the sacrificial flesh, and take a solemn oath (and the custom of your fathers is in force to this day), affirming that those jurors who have voted on his side have voted what is true and right, and that he himself has spoken no falsehood; and he calls down destruction upon himself and his household, if this be not true, and prays for many blessings for the jurors. A right provision, fellow citizens, and worthy of a democracy.
3.99 other deceivers, when they are lying, try to speak in vague and ambiguous terms, afraid of being convicted; but Demosthenes, when he is cheating you, first adds an oath to his lie, calling down destruction on himself; and secondly, predicting an event that he knows will never happen, he dares to tell the date of it; and he tells the names of men, when he has never so much as seen their faces, deceiving your ears and imitating men who tell the truth. And this is, indeed, another reason why he richly deserves your hatred, that he is not only a scoundrel himself, but destroys your faith even in the signs and symbols of honesty.
3.181 How true this is, I wish to teach you a little more explicitly. Does it seem to you that Themistocles, who was general when you conquered the Persian in the battle of Salamis , was the better man, or Demosthenes, who the other day deserted his post? Miltiades, who won the battle of Marathon, or yonder man? Further—the men who brought back the exiled democracy from Phyle ? And Aristeides “the Just,” a title most unlike the name men give Demosthenes? 3.182 But, by the Olympian gods, I think one ought not to name those men on the same day with this monster! Now let Demosthenes show if anywhere stands written an order to crown any one of those men. Was the democracy, then, ungrateful? No, but noble-minded, and those men were worthy of their city. For they thought that their honor should be conferred, not in written words, but in the memory of those whom they had served; and from that time until this day it abides, immortal. But what rewards they did receive, it is well to recall.'' None
|26. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • (law)court system • courts • courts,, justice, administration of craftsmen • demos (damos),, as court of appeals • homicide courts • law-courts, witnesses oaths • lawcourt, Heliastic Oath • lawcourt, allocation to panels • lawcourt, eligibility • lawcourt, meeting places • lawcourt, origins • lawcourt, pay • lawcourt, size of panels • lawcourts (dikasteria) • popular courts, Athenian
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 42, 43; Gygax and Zuiderhoek (2021), Benefactors and the Polis: The Public Gift in the Greek Cities from the Homeric World to Late Antiquity, 74; Liddel (2020), Decrees of Fourth-Century Athens (403/2-322/1 BC): Volume 2, Political and Cultural Perspectives, 33; Raaflaub Ober and Wallace (2007), Origins of Democracy in Ancient Greece, 4, 55, 60, 143; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 146; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 137
|27. None, None, nan (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Eubulus, in court • law-courts, witnesses oaths • lawcourts, Athenian, • politics, promoted in courts • self-curses, in law-court speeches
Found in books: Marincola et al. (2021), Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and Calum Maciver, Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians, 211, 213; Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 81, 160; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 21
|28. Septuagint, 3 Maccabees, 1.2-1.3, 5.28 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • Ptolemaic court • court • court, gossip • court, intrigues • court, life at • court, protocol
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 411; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 254, 313; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 170
1.2 But a certain Theodotus, determined to carry out the plot he had devised, took with him the best of the Ptolemaic arms that had been previously issued to him, and crossed over by night to the tent of Ptolemy, intending single-handed to kill him and thereby end the war.
1.2 Mothers and nurses abandoned even newborn children here and there, some in houses and some in the streets, and without a backward look they crowded together at the most high temple. 1.3 But Dositheus, known as the son of Drimylus, a Jew by birth who later changed his religion and apostatized from the ancestral traditions, had led the king away and arranged that a certain insignificant man should sleep in the tent; and so it turned out that this man incurred the vengeance meant for the king.' "
5.28 This was the act of God who rules over all things, for he had implanted in the king's mind a forgetfulness of the things he had previously devised."' None
|29. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.23, 4.38-4.40, 4.45 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrians, court talesnan • court
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 316, 317, 429; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 201, 345
1.23 He took the silver and the gold, and the costly vessels; he took also the hidden treasures which he found.
4.38 And they saw the sanctuary desolate, the altar profaned, and the gates burned. In the courts they saw bushes sprung up as in a thicket, or as on one of the mountains. They saw also the chambers of the priests in ruins. 4.39 Then they rent their clothes, and mourned with great lamentation, and sprinkled themselves with ashes. 4.40 They fell face down on the ground, and sounded the signal on the trumpets, and cried out to Heaven.
4.45 And they thought it best to tear it down, lest it bring reproach upon them, for the Gentiles had defiled it. So they tore down the altar,'' None
|30. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 6.8, 19.13-19.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Court, of Seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin) • Court, of Ten • Court, of Three • Court, of Twenty-three (Small Sanhedrin) • courts, ad hoc • courts, royal
Found in books: Corley (2002), Ben Sira's Teaching on Friendship, 57, 111, 217; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28, 29, 94
19.13 Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it;but if he did anything, so that he may do it no more. 19.14 Question a neighbor, perhaps he did not say it;but if he said it, so that he may not say it again. 19.15 Question a friend, for often it is slander;so do not believe everything you hear. 19.16 A person may make a slip without intending it. Who has never sinned with his tongue? 19.17 Question your neighbor before you threaten him;and let the law of the Most High take its course.' ' None
|31. Septuagint, Judith, 2.4, 14.6-14.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 0th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Assyrian, court • Assyrians, court tales • Assyrians, court talesnan • Courts, non-Roman • court tales
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 94; Gera (2014), Judith, 58, 59, 429, 430, 462; Toloni (2022), The Story of Tobit: A Comparative Literary Analysis, 123
2.4 When he had finished setting forth his plan, Nebuchadnezzar king of the Assyrians called Holofernes, the chief general of his army, second only to himself, and said to him,
14.6 So they summoned Achior from the house of Uzziah. And when he came and saw the head of Holofernes in the hand of one of the men at the gathering of the people, he fell down on his face and his spirit failed him. 14.7 And when they raised him up he fell at Judith\'s feet, and knelt before her, and said, "Blessed are you in every tent of Judah! In every nation those who hear your name will be alarmed. 14.8 Now tell me what you have done during these days." Then Judith described to him in the presence of the people all that she had done, from the day she left until the moment of her speaking to them. '' None
|32. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • court • kangaroo court
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 223, 230; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 59
|33. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Court, of Ten • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Judges, number constituting a court • courts, sectarian
Found in books: Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 224; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 23, 65, 196
|34. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • high court decisions, status of
Found in books: Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 224; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 48
|35. None, None, nan (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
Tagged with subjects: • court • court legend • court tales • court, gossip
Found in books: Gera (2014), Judith, 95, 96; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 214, 312; Toloni (2022), The Story of Tobit: A Comparative Literary Analysis, 176; Werline et al. (2008), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity, 135
|36. None, None, nan (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Calpumius Piso, Cn. (cos., choice of court • court
Found in books: Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 461; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 1, 75, 76
|37. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 12.158-12.167, 12.171-12.173, 12.177-12.178, 12.190, 12.195, 12.198, 12.203-12.208, 12.212-12.218, 12.224, 18.2, 20.216-20.217 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Court, the, as rabbinic invention • Courts, non-Roman • Governor, court of • Hyrcanus (Tobiad), at Ptolemaic court • Joseph (Genesis patriarch), at Egyptian court • Joseph (Tobiad), at Ptolemaic court • court
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 52; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 91, 94; Edwards (2023), In the Court of the Gentiles: Narrative, Exemplarity, and Scriptural Adaptation in the Court-Tales of Flavius Josephus, 67, 68, 69, 71, 72, 73, 74, 103, 104, 105; Piotrkowski (2019), Priests in Exile: The History of the Temple of Onias and Its Community in the Hellenistic Period, 312, 345
12.158 οὗτος ὁ ̓Ονίας βραχὺς ἦν τὴν διάνοιαν καὶ χρημάτων ἥττων καὶ διὰ τοῦτο τὸν ὑπὲρ τοῦ λαοῦ φόρον, ὃν τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν οἱ πατέρες αὐτοῦ ἐτέλουν ἐκ τῶν ἰδίων, τάλαντα εἴκοσιν ἀργυρίου μὴ δούς, εἰς ὀργὴν ἐκίνησεν τὸν βασιλέα Πτολεμαῖον τὸν Εὐεργέτην, ὃς ἦν πατὴρ τοῦ Φιλοπάτορος. 12.159 καὶ πέμψας εἰς ̔Ιεροσόλυμα πρεσβευτὴν ᾐτιᾶτο τὸν ̓Ονίαν ὡς οὐκ ἀποδιδόντα τοὺς φόρους καὶ ἠπείλει κληρουχήσειν αὐτῶν τὴν γῆν οὐκ ἀπολαβὼν καὶ πέμψειν τοὺς ἐνοικήσοντας στρατιώτας. ἀκούσαντες δὲ τὰ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως οἱ ̓Ιουδαῖοι συνεχύθησαν, τὸν δὲ ̓Ονίαν τούτων ἐδυσώπει διὰ τὴν φιλοχρηματίαν οὐδέν.' "12.161 ἐλθὼν εἰς τὴν πόλιν ἐπέπληττε τῷ ̓Ονίᾳ μὴ προνοουμένῳ τῆς ἀσφαλείας τῶν πολιτῶν, ἀλλ' εἰς κινδύνους τὸ ἔθνος βουλομένῳ περιστῆσαι διὰ τὴν τῶν χρημάτων ἀποστέρησιν, δι' ἃ καὶ τοῦ λαοῦ τὴν προστασίαν λαβεῖν αὐτὸν ἔλεγεν καὶ τῆς ἀρχιερατικῆς τιμῆς ἐπιτυχεῖν." "12.162 εἰ δ' ἐρωτικῶς οὕτως ἔχοι τῶν χρημάτων, ὡς δι' αὐτὰ καὶ τὴν πατρίδα κινδυνεύουσαν ἰδεῖν ὑπομεῖναι καὶ πᾶν ὁτιοῦν παθόντας αὐτοῦ τοὺς πολίτας, συνεβούλευσεν ἀπελθόντα πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα δεηθῆναι αὐτοῦ ἢ πάντων αὐτῷ παραχωρῆσαι τῶν χρημάτων ἢ μέρους." "12.163 τοῦ δὲ ̓Ονίου μήτε ἄρχειν θέλειν ἀποκριναμένου καὶ τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην δ' εἰ δυνατόν ἐστιν ἑτοίμως ἔχειν ἀποθέσθαι λέγοντος μήτε ἀναβήσεσθαι πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, μέλειν γὰρ αὐτῷ περὶ τούτων οὐδέν, εἰ πρεσβεύειν αὐτῷ συγχωρεῖ πρὸς τὸν Πτολεμαῖον ὑπὲρ τοῦ ἔθνους ἐπηρώτησεν." "12.164 φήσαντος δὲ ἐπιτρέπειν ἀναβὰς εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ὁ ̓Ιώσηπος καὶ συγκαλέσας τὸ πλῆθος εἰς ἐκκλησίαν μηδὲν ταράσσεσθαι μηδὲ φοβεῖσθαι παρῄνει διὰ τὴν ̓Ονίου τοῦ θείου περὶ αὐτῶν ἀμέλειαν, ἀλλ' ἐν ἀδείᾳ τῶν ἀπὸ τῆς σκυθρωποτέρας ἐλπίδος τὴν διάνοιαν αὐτοὺς ἔχειν ἠξίου: πρεσβεύσειν γὰρ αὐτὸς ἐπηγγέλλετο πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα καὶ πείσειν αὐτόν, ὅτι μηδὲν ἀδικοῦσιν." "12.165 καὶ τὸ μὲν πλῆθος τούτων ἀκοῦσαν εὐχαριστεῖ τῷ ̓Ιωσήπῳ, καταβὰς δ' αὐτὸς ἐκ τοῦ ἱεροῦ ξενίᾳ τε ὑποδέχεται τὸν παρὰ τοῦ Πτολεμαίου πεπρεσβευκότα καὶ δωρησάμενος αὐτὸν πολυτελέσι δωρεαῖς καὶ ἐπὶ πολλὰς ἑστιάσας φιλοτίμως ἡμέρας προέπεμψε πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα, φράσας αὐτῷ καὶ αὐτὸς ἀκολουθήσειν:" '12.166 καὶ γὰρ ἔτι μᾶλλον γεγόνει πρόθυμος πρὸς τὴν ἄφιξιν τὴν παρὰ τὸν βασιλέα τοῦ πρεσβευτοῦ προτρεψαμένου καὶ παρορμήσαντος εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἐλθεῖν καὶ πάντων ὧν ἂν δέηται παρὰ Πτολεμαίου τυχεῖν αὐτὸν ποιήσειν ὑποσχομένου: τὸ γὰρ ἐλευθέριον αὐτοῦ καὶ τὸ σεμνὸν τοῦ ἤθους λίαν ἠγάπησεν. 12.167 Καὶ ὁ μὲν πρεσβευτὴς ἐλθὼν εἰς Αἴγυπτον ἀπήγγειλεν τῷ βασιλεῖ τὴν τοῦ ̓Ονίου ἀγνωμοσύνην καὶ περὶ τῆς τοῦ ̓Ιωσήπου χρηστότητος ἐδήλου, καὶ ὅτι μέλλοι πρὸς αὐτὸν ἥξειν παραιτησόμενος τῶν ἁμαρτημάτων τὸ πλῆθος: εἶναι γὰρ αὐτοῦ προστάτην: ἀμέλει τοσαύτῃ περὶ τῶν ἐγκωμίων τῶν περὶ τοῦ νεανίσκου διετέλεσε χρώμενος περιουσίᾳ, ὥστε καὶ τὸν βασιλέα καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ Κλεοπάτραν προδιέθηκεν οἰκείως ἔχειν πρὸς τὸν ̓Ιώσηπον οὔπω παρόντα.' "
12.171 καθεζομένου δὲ τοῦ βασιλέως ἐπ' ὀχήματος μετὰ τῆς γυναικὸς καὶ μετὰ ̓Αθηνίωνος φίλου, οὗτος δ' ἦν ὁ πρεσβεύσας εἰς ̔Ιεροσόλυμα καὶ παρὰ ̓Ιωσήπῳ ξενισθείς, θεασάμενος αὐτὸν ὁ ̓Αθηνίων εὐθὺς ἐποίει τῷ βασιλεῖ γνώριμον, τοῦτον εἶναι λέγων, περὶ οὗ παραγενόμενος ἐξ ̔Ιεροσολύμων ἀπήγγειλεν, ὡς ἀγαθός τε εἴη καὶ φιλότιμος νεανίσκος." "12.172 ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πρῶτός τε αὐτὸν ἠσπάσατο καὶ δὴ ἀναβῆναι ἐπὶ τὸ ὄχημα παρεκάλεσεν καὶ καθεσθέντος ἤρξατο περὶ τῶν ̓Ονίᾳ πραττομένων ἐγκαλεῖν. ὁ δέ “συγγίνωσκε, φησίν, αὐτῷ διὰ τὸ γῆρας: οὐ γὰρ λανθάνει σε πάντως, ὅτι καὶ τοὺς πρεσβύτας καὶ τὰ νήπια τὴν αὐτὴν διάνοιαν ἔχειν συμβέβηκεν. παρὰ δ' ἡμῶν ἔσται σοι τῶν νέων ἅπαντα, ὥστε μηδὲν αἰτιᾶσθαι.”" "12.173 ἡσθεὶς δ' ἐπὶ τῇ χάριτι καὶ τῇ εὐτραπελίᾳ τοῦ νεανίσκου μᾶλλον αὐτὸν ὡς ἤδη καὶ πεπειραμένος ἀγαπᾶν ἤρξατο, ὡς ἔν τε τοῖς βασιλείοις αὐτὸν κελεῦσαι διαιτᾶσθαι καὶ καθ' ἡμέραν ἐπὶ τῆς ἑστιάσεως τῆς ἰδίας ἔχειν." "
12.177 τοῦ δὲ βασιλέως ἡδέως ἀκούσαντος καὶ ὡς αὔξοντι τὴν πρόσοδον αὐτοῦ κατακυροῦν τὴν ὠνὴν τῶν τελῶν ἐκείνῳ φήσαντος, ἐρομένου δὲ εἰ καὶ τοὺς ἐγγυησομένους αὐτὸν ἔχει, σφόδρ' ἀστείως ἀπεκρίνατο: “δώσω γὰρ εἶπεν ἀνθρώπους ἀγαθοὺς καὶ καλούς, οἷς οὐκ ἀπιστήσετε.”" "12.178 λέγειν δὲ τούτους οἵτινες εἶεν εἰπόντος, “αὐτόν, εἶπεν, ὦ βασιλεῦ, σέ τε καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα τὴν σὴν ὑπὲρ ἑκατέρου μέρους ἐγγυησομένους δίδωμί σοι.” γελάσας δ' ὁ Πτολεμαῖος συνεχώρησεν αὐτῷ δίχα τῶν ὁμολογούντων ἔχειν τὰ τέλη." "
12.195 ἐλθόντα δ' ὁ πατὴρ ὑπερηγάπησεν τοῦ φρονήματος, καὶ τὴν ὀξύτητα τῆς διανοίας καὶ τὸ ἐπ' αὐτῇ τολμηρὸν ἐπαινέσας ὡς μόνον ὄντα γνήσιον ἔτι μᾶλλον ἔστεργεν ἀχθομένων ἐπὶ τούτῳ τῶν ἀδελφῶν." 12.198 ἐπαγγειλαμένου δὲ πορεύσεσθαι καὶ δεῖσθαι χρημάτων οὐ πολλῶν φήσαντος εἰς τὴν ὁδόν, ζήσεσθαι γὰρ ἐπιεικῶς ὥστε ἀρκέσειν αὐτῷ δραχμὰς μυρίας, ἥσθη τοῦ παιδὸς τῇ σωφροσύνῃ.' "
12.203 ̔Ως δὲ παραγενόμενος εἰς τὴν ̓Αλεξάνδρειαν ἀπέδωκε τῷ ̓Αρίονι τὴν ἐπιστολήν, ἐπερωτήσαντος αὐτοῦ, πόσα βούλεται τάλαντα λαβεῖν, ἤλπισε δ' αὐτὸν αἰτήσειν δέκα ἢ βραχεῖ τούτων πλέον, εἰπόντος χιλίων χρῄζειν ὀργισθεὶς ἐπέπληττεν αὐτῷ ὡς ἀσώτως ζῆν διεγνωκότι, καὶ πῶς ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ συναγάγοι τὴν οὐσίαν ὡς πονῶν καὶ ταῖς ἐπιθυμίαις ἀντέχων ἐδήλου καὶ μιμητὴν αὐτὸν ἠξίου γενέσθαι τοῦ γεγεννηκότος: δώσειν δ' οὐδὲν πλέον ταλάντων δέκα καὶ ταῦτα εἰς δωρεὰς τῷ βασιλεῖ." "12.204 παροξυνθεὶς δ' ὁ παῖς εἰς δεσμὰ τὸν ̓Αρίονα ἐνέβαλεν. τῆς δὲ τοῦ ̓Αρίονος γυναικὸς τοῦτο δηλωσάσης τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ καὶ δεηθείσης, ὅπως ἐπιπλήξῃ τῷ παιδί, σφόδρα γὰρ ἦν ὁ ̓Αρίων ἐν τιμῇ παρ' αὐτῇ, φανερὸν τῷ βασιλεῖ τοῦτο ἐποίησεν ἡ Κλεοπάτρα." '12.205 ὁ δὲ Πτολεμαῖος πέμψας πρὸς τὸν ̔Υρκανὸν θαυμάζειν ἔλεγεν, πῶς ἀποσταλεὶς πρὸς αὐτὸν ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς οὔτε ὀφθείη αὐτῷ καὶ προσέτι δήσειεν τὸν οἰκονόμον:' "12.206 ἐλθόντα οὖν τὴν αἰτίαν αὐτῷ μηνύειν ἐκέλευσεν. τὸν δέ φασιν ἀποκρίνασθαι τῷ παρὰ τοῦ βασιλέως λέγειν αὐτῷ, ὅτι “νόμος ἐστὶ παρ' αὐτῷ κωλύων τὸν γεννηθέντα γεύσασθαι θυσιῶν, πρὶν εἰς τὸ ἱερὸν ἔλθῃ καὶ θύσῃ τῷ θεῷ: κατὰ δὴ τοῦτον τὸν λογισμὸν οὐδ' αὐτὸς ἐλθεῖν πρὸς αὐτὸν περιμένων τὰ δῶρα κομίσαι τοῦ πατρὸς εὐεργέτῃ γεγενημένῳ." "12.207 τὸν δὲ δοῦλον κολάσαι παρακούσαντα ὧν προσέταξεν: διαφέρειν γὰρ οὐδὲν ἢ μικρὸν εἶναί τινα δεσπότην ἢ μέγαν: ἂν οὖν μὴ κολάζωμεν τοὺς τοιούτους, καὶ σὺ προσδόκα ὑπὸ τῶν ἀρχομένων καταφρονηθήσεσθαι.” ταῦτ' ἀκούσας ὁ Πτολεμαῖος εἰς γέλωτα ἐτράπη καὶ τὴν μεγαλοφροσύνην τοῦ παιδὸς ἐθαύμασεν." '12.208 Μαθὼν δὲ ὁ ̓Αρίων, ὅτι τοῦτον ὁ βασιλεὺς διετέθη τὸν τρόπον καὶ μηδεμία βοήθειά ἐστιν αὐτῷ, δοὺς τὰ χίλια τάλαντα τῷ παιδὶ τῶν δεσμῶν ἀπελύθη. καὶ τρεῖς διαλιπὼν ἡμέρας ὁ ̔Υρκανὸς ἠσπάσατο τοὺς βασιλέας.
12.212 Τρύφων ὃς ἦν τοῦ βασιλέως ἄθυρμα καὶ πρὸς τὰ σκώμματα καὶ τοὺς ἐν τοῖς πότοις γέλωτας ἀπεδέδεικτο, παρακαλεσάντων αὐτὸν τῶν κατακειμένων τῇ τραπέζῃ παρεστὼς τῷ βασιλεῖ, “ὁρᾷς, εἶπεν, ὦ δέσποτα, τὰ παρακείμενα ̔Υρκανῷ ὀστᾶ; ἐκ τούτου στόχασαι, ὅτι καὶ ὁ πατὴρ αὐτοῦ τὴν Συρίαν ἅπασαν περιέδυσεν ὡς οὗτος ταῦτα τῶν σαρκῶν ἐγύμνωσεν.”' "12.213 γελάσαντος δὲ πρὸς τὸν τοῦ Τρύφωνος λόγον τοῦ βασιλέως καὶ ἐρομένου τὸν ̔Υρκανόν, ὅτι τοσαῦτ' αὐτῷ παράκειται ὀστᾶ, “εἰκότως, εἶπεν, ὦ δέσποτα: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ κύνας τὰ ὀστᾶ σὺν τοῖς κρέασιν κατεσθίειν, ὥσπερ οὗτοι” πρὸς τοὺς κατακειμένους ἐπιβλέπων, ὅτι μηθὲν ἔμπροσθεν αὐτῶν ἔκειτο, “οἱ δὲ ἄνθρωποι τὸ κρέας ἐσθίουσιν, τὰ δ' ὀστᾶ ῥίπτουσιν, ὅπερ ἄνθρωπος ὢν κἀγὼ νῦν πεποίηκα.”" '12.214 ὁ δὲ βασιλεὺς θαυμάζει τὴν ἀπόκρισιν αὐτοῦ σοφὴν οὕτως γενομένην καὶ πάντας ἐκέλευσεν ἀνακροτῆσαι τῆς εὐτραπελίας ἀποδεχόμενος αὐτόν.' "12.215 τῇ δ' ἐπιούσῃ πρὸς ἕκαστον τῶν τοῦ βασιλέως φίλων πορευόμενος καὶ τῶν περὶ τὴν αὐλὴν δυνατῶν τοὺς μὲν ἠσπάζετο, παρὰ δὲ τῶν οἰκετῶν ἀπεπυνθάνετο, τί μέλλουσιν διδόναι τῷ βασιλεῖ δῶρον ἐν τῇ τοῦ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ γενεσίῳ." "12.216 τῶν δὲ ἀνὰ δέκα τάλαντα μέλλειν διδόναι φησάντων τοὺς μέν, τοὺς δὲ ἐν ἀξίᾳ κατὰ τὸ μέγεθος τῆς οὐσίας ἕκαστον αὐτῶν, ὑπεκρίνετο λυπεῖσθαι διὰ τὸ μὴ δύνασθαι τοιαύτην προσενεγκεῖν δωρεάν: πλέον γὰρ πέντε ταλάντων οὐκ ἔχειν. οἱ δὲ θεράποντες ταῦτ' ἀκούσαντες ἀπήγγελλον τοῖς δεσπόταις." "12.217 χαιρόντων δ' αὐτῶν ὡς καταγνωσθησομένου τοῦ ̓Ιωσήπου καὶ προσκρούσοντος τῷ βασιλεῖ διὰ τὴν βραχύτητα τῆς δωρεᾶς, ἐνστάσης τῆς ἡμέρας οἱ μὲν ἄλλοι προσέφερον τῷ βασιλεῖ ταλάντων οἱ λίαν μεγαλοδωρεῖσθαι νομίζοντες οὐ πλεῖον εἴκοσι, ὁ δ' ̔Υρκανὸς οὓς ὠνήσατο παῖδας ἑκατὸν καὶ παρθένους τοσαύτας ἀνὰ τάλαντον ἑκάστῳ φέρειν δοὺς προσήγαγεν τοὺς μὲν τῷ βασιλεῖ, τὰς δὲ τῇ Κλεοπάτρᾳ." "12.218 πάντων δὲ θαυμασάντων τὴν παρ' ἐλπίδα τῶν δώρων πολυτέλειαν καὶ τῶν βασιλέων αὐτῶν, καὶ τοῖς φίλοις ἔτι καὶ τοῖς περὶ τὴν θεραπείαν τοῦ βασιλέως οὖσιν πολλῶν ἄξια ταλάντων δῶρα ἔδωκεν, ὡς διαφυγεῖν τὸν ἐξ αὐτῶν κίνδυνον: τούτοις γὰρ ἐγεγράφεισαν αὐτοῦ οἱ ἀδελφοὶ διαχρήσασθαι τὸν ̔Υρκανόν." 12.224 τελευτᾷ δὲ καὶ ὁ τοῦ ̔Υρκανοῦ πατὴρ ̓Ιώσηπος ἀνὴρ ἀγαθὸς γενόμενος καὶ μεγαλόφρων, καὶ τὸν τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων λαὸν ἐκ πτωχείας καὶ πραγμάτων ἀσθενῶν εἰς λαμπροτέρας ἀφορμὰς τοῦ βίου καταστήσας, εἴκοσι ἔτη καὶ δύο τὰ τέλη τῆς Συρίας καὶ τῆς Φοινίκης καὶ Σαμαρείας κατασχών. ἀπέθανεν δὲ καὶ ὁ θεῖος αὐτοῦ ̓Ονίας τὴν ἀρχιερωσύνην Σίμωνι τῷ παιδὶ καταλιπών.
18.2 Κωπώνιός τε αὐτῷ συγκαταπέμπεται τάγματος τῶν ἱππέων, ἡγησόμενος ̓Ιουδαίων τῇ ἐπὶ πᾶσιν ἐξουσίᾳ. παρῆν δὲ καὶ Κυρίνιος εἰς τὴν ̓Ιουδαίαν προσθήκην τῆς Συρίας γενομένην ἀποτιμησόμενός τε αὐτῶν τὰς οὐσίας καὶ ἀποδωσόμενος τὰ ̓Αρχελάου χρήματα.' "
18.2 ἄξιον δ' αὐτῶν θαυμάσαι παρὰ πάντας τοὺς ἀρετῆς μεταποιουμένους τόδε διὰ τὸ μηδαμῶς ὑπάρξαν ̔Ελλήνων ἢ βαρβάρων τισίν, ἀλλὰ μηδ' εἰς ὀλίγον, ἐκείνοις ἐκ παλαιοῦ συνελθὸν ἐν τῷ ἐπιτηδεύεσθαι μὴ κεκωλῦσθαι: τὰ χρήματά τε κοινά ἐστιν αὐτοῖς, ἀπολαύει δὲ οὐδὲν ὁ πλούσιος τῶν οἰκείων μειζόνως ἢ ὁ μηδ' ὁτιοῦν κεκτημένος: καὶ τάδε πράσσουσιν ἄνδρες ὑπὲρ τετρακισχίλιοι τὸν ἀριθμὸν ὄντες." "
18.2 οὐκ ἔσθ' ὅπως οὐκ εὐθέως ἀπαλλαγή τέ σοι τῶνδε τῶν δεσμῶν παρέσται καὶ πρόοδος ἐπὶ μήκιστον ἀξιώματός τε καὶ δυνάμεως, ζηλωτός τε ἂν γένοιο πᾶσιν, οἳ νῦν δι' οἴκτου τὰς τύχας σου λαμβάνουσιν, εὐδαίμονά τε ἂν ποιοῖο τὴν τελευτὴν παισίν, οἷς ἔσῃ τὸν βίον καταλειπόμενος. μνημονεύειν δέ, ὁπότε εἰσαῦθις τὸν ὄρνιν θεάσαιο τοῦτον, πέντε ἡμέραις σοι τὴν τελευτὴν ἐσομένην." "
20.216 Τῶν δὲ Λευιτῶν, φυλὴ δ' ἐστὶν αὕτη, ὅσοιπερ ἦσαν ὑμνῳδοὶ πείθουσι τὸν βασιλέα καθίσαντα συνέδριον φορεῖν αὐτοῖς ἐπίσης τοῖς ἱερεῦσιν ἐπιτρέψαι λινῆν στολήν: πρέπειν γὰρ αὐτοῦ τοῖς τῆς ἀρχῆς χρόνοις ἔφασκον ἀφ' ὧν μνημονευθήσεται καινοποιεῖν." '20.217 καὶ τῆς ἀξιώσεως οὐ διήμαρτον: ὁ γὰρ βασιλεὺς μετὰ γνώμης τῶν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον ἐποιχομένων συνεχώρησεν τοῖς ὑμνῳδοῖς ἀποθεμένους τὴν προτέραν ἐσθῆτα φορεῖν λινῆν οἵαν ἠθέλησαν.' ' None
12.158 which Simon was the brother of Eleazar, as I said before. This Onias was one of a little soul, and a great lover of money; and for that reason, because he did not pay that tax of twenty talents of silver, which his forefathers paid to these things out of their own estates, he provoked king Ptolemy Euergetes to anger, who was the father of Philopater. 12.159 Euergetes sent an ambassador to Jerusalem, and complained that Onias did not pay his taxes, and threatened, that if he did not receive them, he would seize upon their land, and send soldiers to live upon it. When the Jews heard this message of the king, they were confounded; but so sordidly covetous was Onias, that nothing of things nature made him ashamed. 12.161 Hereupon he came to the city Jerusalem, and reproved Onias for not taking care of the preservation of his countrymen, but bringing the nation into dangers, by not paying this money. For which preservation of them, he told him he had received the authority over them, and had been made high priest; 12.162 but that, in case he was so great a lover of money, as to endure to see his country in danger on that account, and his countrymen suffer the greatest damages, he advised him to go to the king, and petition him to remit either the whole or a part of the sum demanded. 12.163 Onias’s answer was this: That he did not care for his authority, and that he was ready, if the thing were practicable, to lay down his high priesthood; and that he would not go to the king, because he troubled not himself at all about such matters. Joseph then asked him if he would not give him leave to go ambassador on behalf of the nation. 12.164 He replied, that he would give him leave. Upon which Joseph went up into the temple, and called the multitude together to a congregation, and exhorted them not to be disturbed nor affrighted, because of his uncle Onias’s carelessness, but desired them to be at rest, and not terrify themselves with fear about it; for he promised them that he would be their ambassador to the king, and persuade him that they had done him no wrong. 12.165 And when the multitude heard this, they returned thanks to Joseph. So he went down from the temple, and treated Ptolemy’s ambassador in a hospitable manner. He also presented him with rich gifts, and feasted him magnificently for many days, and then sent him to the king before him, and told him that he would soon follow him; 12.166 for he was now more willing to go to the king, by the encouragement of the ambassador, who earnestly persuaded him to come into Egypt, and promised him that he would take care that he should obtain every thing that he desired of Ptolemy; for he was highly pleased with his frank and liberal temper, and with the gravity of his deportment. 12.167 3. When Ptolemy’s ambassador was come into Egypt, he told the king of the thoughtless temper of Onias; and informed him of the goodness of the disposition of Joseph; and that he was coming to him to excuse the multitude, as not having done him any harm, for that he was their patron. In short, he was so very large in his encomiums upon the young man, that he disposed both the king and his wife Cleopatra to have a kindness for him before he came.
12.171 which happened as the king was sitting in his chariot, with his wife, and with his friend Athenion, who was the very person who had been ambassador at Jerusalem, and had been entertained by Joseph. As soon therefore as Athenion saw him, he presently made him known to the king, how good and generous a young man he was. 12.172 So Ptolemy saluted him first, and desired him to come up into his chariot; and as Joseph sat there, he began to complain of the management of Onias: to which he answered, “Forgive him, on account of his age; for thou canst not certainly be unacquainted with this, that old men and infants have their minds exactly alike; but thou shalt have from us, who are young men, every thing thou desirest, and shalt have no cause to complain.” 12.173 With this good humor and pleasantry of the young man, the king was so delighted, that he began already, as though he had had long experience of him, to have a still greater affection for him, insomuch that he bade him take his diet in the king’s palace, and be a guest at his own table every day.
12.177 The king was pleased to hear that offer; and because it augmented his revenues, he said he would confirm the sale of the taxes to him. But when he asked him this question, Whether he had any sureties that would be bound for the payment of the money? he answered very pleasantly, “I will give such security, and those of persons good and responsible, and which you shall have no reason to distrust.” 12.178 And when he bid him name them who they were, he replied, “I give thee no other persons, O king, for my sureties, than thyself, and this thy wife; and you shall be security for both parties.” So Ptolemy laughed at the proposal, and granted him the farming of the taxes without any sureties.
12.195 And when he was come back, his father was mightily pleased with his sagacity, and commended the sharpness of his understanding, and his boldness in what he did. And he still loved him the more, as if he were his only genuine son, while his brethren were much troubled at it.
12.198 And upon his promise that he would go, and his saying that he should not want much money for his journey, because he would live moderately, and that ten thousand drachmas would be sufficient, he was pleased with his son’s prudence.
12.203 8. But when he was come to Alexandria, he delivered his letter to Arion, who asked him how many talents he would have (hoping he would ask for no more than ten, or a little more); he said he wanted a thousand talents. At which the steward was angry, and rebuked him, as one that intended to live extravagantly; and he let him know how his father had gathered together his estate by painstaking, and resisting his inclinations, and wished him to imitate the example of his father: he assured him withal, that he would give him but ten talents, and that for a present to the king also. 12.204 The son was irritated at this, and threw Arion into prison. But when Arion’s wife had informed Cleopatra of this, with her entreaty, that she would rebuke the child for what he had done, (for Arion was in great esteem with her,) Cleopatra informed the king of it. 12.205 And Ptolemy sent for Hyrcanus, and told him that he wondered, when he was sent to him by his father, that he had not yet come into his presence, but had laid the steward in prison. And he gave order, therefore, that he should come to him, and give an account of the reason of what he had done. 12.206 And they report that the answer he made to the king’s messenger was this: That “there was a law of his that forbade a child that was born to taste of the sacrifice, before he had been at the temple and sacrificed to God. According to which way of reasoning he did not himself come to him in expectation of the present he was to make to him, as to one who had been his father’s benefactor; 12.207 and that he had punished the slave for disobeying his commands, for that it mattered not Whether a master was little or great: so that unless we punish such as these, thou thyself mayst also expect to be despised by thy subjects.” Upon hearing this his answer he fell alaughing, and wondered at the great soul of the child. 12.208 9. When Arion was apprised that this was the king’s disposition, and that he had no way to help himself, he gave the child a thousand talents, and was let out of prison. So after three days were over, Hyrcanus came and saluted the king and queen.
12.212 Trypho, who was the king’s jester, and was appointed for jokes and laughter at festivals, was now asked by the guests that sat at the table to expose him to laughter. So he stood by the king, and said, “Dost thou not see, my lord, the bones that lie by Hyrcanus? by this similitude thou mayst conjecture that his father made all Syria as bare as he hath made these bones.” 12.213 And the king laughing at what Trypho said, and asking of Hyrcanus, How he came to have so many bones before him? he replied, “Very rightfully, my lord; for they are dogs that eat the flesh and the bones together, as these thy guests have done, (looking in the mean time at those guests,) for there is nothing before them; but they are men that eat the flesh, and cast away the bones, as I, who am also a man, have now done.” 12.214 Upon which the king admired at his answer, which was so wisely made; and bid them all make an acclamation, as a mark of their approbation of his jest, which was truly a facetious one. 12.215 On the next day Hyrcanus went to every one of the king’s friends, and of the men powerful at court, and saluted them; but still inquired of the servants what present they would make the king on his son’s birthday; 12.216 and when some said that they would give twelve talents, and that others of greater dignity would every one give according to the quantity of their riches, he pretended to every one of them to be grieved that he was not able to bring so large a present; for that he had no more than five talents. And when the servants heard what he said, they told their masters; 12.217 and they rejoiced in the prospect that Joseph would be disapproved, and would make the king angry, by the smallness of his present. When the day came, the others, even those that brought the most, offered the king not above twenty talents; but Hyrcanus gave to every one of the hundred boys and hundred maidens that he had bought a talent apiece, for them to carry, and introduced them, the boys to the king, and the maidens to Cleopatra; 12.218 every body wondering at the unexpected richness of the presents, even the king and queen themselves. He also presented those that attended about the king with gifts to the value of a great number of talents, that he might escape the danger he was in from them; for to these it was that Hyrcanus’s brethren had written to destroy him.
12.224 And now Hyrcanus’s father, Joseph, died. He was a good man, and of great magimity; and brought the Jews out of a state of poverty and meanness, to one that was more splendid. He retained the farm of the taxes of Syria, and Phoenicia, and Samaria twenty-two years. His uncle also, Onias, died about this time, and left the high priesthood to his son Simeon.
18.2 Coponius also, a man of the equestrian order, was sent together with him, to have the supreme power over the Jews. Moreover, Cyrenius came himself into Judea, which was now added to the province of Syria, to take an account of their substance, and to dispose of Archelaus’s money;
18.2 It also deserves our admiration, how much they exceed all other men that addict themselves to virtue, and this in righteousness; and indeed to such a degree, that as it hath never appeared among any other men, neither Greeks nor barbarians, no, not for a little time, so hath it endured a long while among them. This is demonstrated by that institution of theirs, which will not suffer any thing to hinder them from having all things in common; so that a rich man enjoys no more of his own wealth than he who hath nothing at all. There are about four thousand men that live in this way,
18.2 It cannot be that thou shouldst long continue in these bonds; but thou wilt soon be delivered from them, and wilt be promoted to the highest dignity and power, and thou wilt be envied by all those who now pity thy hard fortune; and thou wilt be happy till thy death, and wilt leave thine happiness to the children whom thou shalt have. But do thou remember, when thou seest this bird again, that thou wilt then live but five days longer.
20.216 6. Now as many of the Levites, which is a tribe of ours, as were singers of hymns, persuaded the king to assemble a sanhedrim, and to give them leave to wear linen garments, as well as the priests for they said that this would be a work worthy the times of his government, that he might have a memorial of such a novelty, as being his doing. 20.217 Nor did they fail of obtaining their desire; for the king, with the suffrages of those that came into the sanhedrim, granted the singers of hymns this privilege, that they might lay aside their former garments, and wear such a linen one as they desired;' ' None
|38. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • Courts • court of Tiberias • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 287; Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 75; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 119, 123, 256
2.6 אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁל גּוֹיִם אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה. חָלָב שֶׁחֲלָבוֹ גוֹי וְאֵין יִשְׂרָאֵל רוֹאֵהוּ, וְהַפַּת, וְהַשֶּׁמֶן שֶׁלָּהֶן. רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ הִתִּירוּ בַשֶּׁמֶן. וּשְׁלָקוֹת, וּכְבָשִׁין שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לָתֵת לְתוֹכָן יַיִן וָחֹמֶץ, וְטָרִית טְרוּפָה, וְצִיר שֶׁאֵין בָּהּ דָּגָה כִלְבִּית שׁוֹטֶטֶת בּוֹ, וְהַחִלָּק, וְקֹרֶט שֶׁל חִלְתִּית, וּמֶלַח סַלְקוֹנְטִית, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ אֲסוּרִין וְאֵין אִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר הֲנָאָה:'' None
2.6 The following articles of non-Jews are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them: 1. milk which a non-Jew milked without an israelite watching him, 2. their bread and oil (Rabbi and his court permitted the oil) 3. stewed and pickled things into which they are accustomed to put wine or vinegar, 4. pickled herring which had been minced, 5. brine in which there is no kalbith-fish floating, 6. helek, 7. pieces of asa foetida 8. and sal-conditum. Behold these are prohibited but the prohibition does not extend to deriving benefit from them.'' None
|39. Mishnah, Avot, 1.8, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in rabbinic literature • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Lawyers and legal system, rabbinic court system
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 53; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 223, 225, 227, 258
1.8 יְהוּדָה בֶן טַבַּאי וְשִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוּדָה בֶן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר, אַל תַּעַשׂ עַצְמְךָ כְעוֹרְכֵי הַדַּיָּנִין. וּכְשֶׁיִּהְיוּ בַעֲלֵי דִינִין עוֹמְדִים לְפָנֶיךָ, יִהְיוּ בְעֵינֶיךָ כִרְשָׁעִים. וּכְשֶׁנִּפְטָרִים מִלְּפָנֶיךָ, יִהְיוּ בְעֵינֶיךָ כְזַכָּאִין, כְּשֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֲלֵיהֶם אֶת הַדִּין:
1.15 שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה תוֹרָתְךָ קֶבַע. אֱמֹר מְעַט וַעֲשֵׂה הַרְבֵּה, וֶהֱוֵי מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת:'' None
1.8 Judah ben Tabbai and Shimon ben Shetach received the oral tradition from them. Judah ben Tabbai said: do not as a judge play the part of an advocate; and when the litigants are standing before you, look upon them as if they were both guilty; and when they leave your presence, look upon them as if they were both innocent, when they have accepted the judgement.
1.15 Shammai used to say: make your study of the Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countece.'' None
|40. Mishnah, Gittin, 1.5, 9.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • gentile courts • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 288; Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 210; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 57, 226, 286
1.5 כָּל גֵּט שֶׁיֵּשׁ עָלָיו עֵד כּוּתִי, פָּסוּל, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהֵבִיאוּ לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לִכְפַר עוֹתְנַאי גֵּט אִשָּׁה וְהָיוּ עֵדָיו עֵדֵי כוּתִים, וְהִכְשִׁיר. כָּל הַשְּׁטָרוֹת הָעוֹלִים בְּעַרְכָּאוֹת שֶׁל גּוֹיִם, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁחוֹתְמֵיהֶם גּוֹיִם, כְּשֵׁרִים, חוּץ מִגִּטֵּי נָשִׁים וְשִׁחְרוּרֵי עֲבָדִים. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף אֵלּוּ כְשֵׁרִין, לֹא הֻזְכְּרוּ אֶלָּא בִזְמַן שֶׁנַּעֲשׂוּ בְהֶדְיוֹט:
9.8 גֵּט שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעֵדָיו יְוָנִית, יְוָנִית וְעֵדָיו עִבְרִית, עֵד אֶחָד עִבְרִי וְעֵד אֶחָד יְוָנִי, כָּתַב סוֹפֵר וְעֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי בֶּן אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי, וְלֹא כָתַב עֵד, כָּשֵׁר. וְכָךְ הָיוּ נְקִיֵּי הַדַּעַת שֶׁבִּירוּשָׁלַיִם עוֹשִׂין. כָּתַב חֲנִיכָתוֹ וַחֲנִיכָתָהּ, כָּשֵׁר. גֵּט מְעֻשֶּׂה, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, כָּשֵׁר. וּבְגוֹיִם, פָּסוּל. וּבְגוֹיִם, חוֹבְטִין אוֹתוֹ וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ עֲשֵׂה מַה שֶּׁיִּשְׂרָאֵל אוֹמְרִים לְךָ, וְכָשֵׁר:'' None
1.5 Any document which has upon it the signature of a Samaritan is invalid, except for bills of divorce or a writ of emancipation. It happened that a bill of divorce was once brought before Rabban Gamaliel at Kefar Otnai and its witnesses were Samaritan, and he declared it valid. All documents which are accepted in the courts of non-Jew, even if those who signed on the documents are non-Jews, are valid except bills of divorce and of writs of emancipation. Rabbi Shimon says: these also are valid; they were only pronounced to be invalid when done by ordinary persons.
9.8 A get which was written in Hebrew and whose signatures are in Greek, or was written in Greek and whose signatures are in Hebrew, or which has one Hebrew signature and one Greek signature, or which was written by a scribe and signed by one witness, is valid. If a man signs, “So-and-so, witness,” it is valid. If he signs, “Son of so-and-so, witness, it is valid. If he signs, “So-and-so son of so-and-so” and he didn’t write “witness”, it is valid. If he wrote his own family name and hers, the get is valid. And this is how the scrupulous in Jerusalem would do. A get given imposed by court: in the case of a Jewish court is valid, and in the case of a Gentile court is invalid. And with regard to Gentiles, if they beat him and say to him, “Do what the Israelites say to you,” (and it is valid).'' None
|41. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Nasi, entering the court
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 53; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 178
2.2 יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין:'' None
2.2 Yose ben Yoezer says that on a festival the laying of the hands on the head of a sacrifice may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former of each pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.'' None
|42. Mishnah, Middot, 2.5, 5.1-5.2, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court of the Israelites • Court, the • Court, the, in central position in the Temple • Day of Atonement narrative, and Court authority • Womens Court
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 45, 85, 87, 88, 161; Ganzel and Holtz (2020), Contextualizing Jewish Temples, 152, 153, 154; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 504
2.5 עֶזְרַת הַנָּשִׁים הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁלשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. וְאַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בְאַרְבַּע מִקְצוֹעוֹתֶיהָ, שֶׁל אַרְבָּעִים אַרְבָּעִים אַמָּה. וְלֹא הָיוּ מְקוֹרוֹת. וְכָךְ הֵם עֲתִידִים לִהְיוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל מו), וַיּוֹצִיאֵנִי אֶל הֶחָצֵר הַחִיצוֹנָה וַיַּעֲבִירֵנִי אֶל אַרְבַּעַת מִקְצוֹעֵי הֶחָצֵר וְהִנֵּה חָצֵר בְּמִקְצֹעַ הֶחָצֵר, חָצֵר בְּמִקְצֹעַ הֶחָצֵר, בְּאַרְבַּעַת מִקְצֹעוֹת הֶחָצֵר חֲצֵרוֹת קְטֻרוֹת. וְאֵין קְטֻרוֹת אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵינָן מְקוֹרוֹת. וּמֶה הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת. דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת הַנְּזִירִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַנְּזִירִים מְבַשְּׁלִין אֶת שַׁלְמֵיהֶן, וּמְגַלְּחִין אֶת שְׂעָרָן, וּמְשַׁלְּחִים תַּחַת הַדּוּד. מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת הָעֵצִים, שֶׁשָּׁם הַכֹּהֲנִים בַּעֲלֵי מוּמִין מַתְלִיעִין הָעֵצִים. וְכָל עֵץ שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ תוֹלַעַת, פָּסוּל מֵעַל גַּבֵּי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ. צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת מְצֹרָעִים. מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, שָׁם הָיוּ נוֹתְנִין יַיִן וָשֶׁמֶן, הִיא הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת לִשְׁכַּת בֵּית שְׁמַנְיָה. וַחֲלָקָה הָיְתָה בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה, וְהִקִּיפוּהָ כְצוֹצְרָה, שֶׁהַנָּשִׁים רוֹאוֹת מִלְמַעְלָן, וְהָאֲנָשִׁים מִלְּמַטָּן, כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מְעֹרָבִין. וַחֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת עוֹלוֹת מִתּוֹכָהּ לְעֶזְרַת יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּנֶגֶד חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה מַעֲלוֹת שֶׁבַּתְּהִלִּים, שֶׁעֲלֵיהֶן הַלְוִיִּם אוֹמְרִים בַּשִּׁיר. לֹא הָיוּ טְרוּטוֹת, אֶלָּא מֻקָּפוֹת כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה:
5.1 כָּל הָעֲזָרָה הָיְתָה אֹרֶךְ מֵאָה וּשְׁמוֹנִים וָשֶׁבַע עַל רֹחַב מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ. מִן הַמִּזְרָח לַמַּעֲרָב מֵאָה וּשְׁמוֹנִים וָשֶׁבַע, מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת יִשְׂרָאֵל אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, מְקוֹם דְּרִיסַת הַכֹּהֲנִים אַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה, הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שְׁלֹשִׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם, בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁתַּיִם אַמָּה, הַהֵיכָל מֵאָה אַמָּה, וְאַחַת עֶשְׂרֵה אַמָּה לַאֲחוֹרֵי בֵית הַכַּפֹּרֶת: 5.2 מִן הַצָּפוֹן לַדָּרוֹם מֵאָה וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְחָמֵשׁ, הַכֶּבֶשׁ וְהַמִּזְבֵּחַ שִׁשִּׁים וּשְׁתַּיִם. מִן הַמִּזְבֵּחַ לַטַּבָּעוֹת שְׁמֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, מְקוֹם הַטַּבָּעוֹת עֶשְׂרִים וְאַרְבַּע, מִן הַטַּבָּעוֹת לַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת אַרְבַּע, מִן הַשֻּׁלְחָנוֹת וְלַנַּנָּסִין אַרְבַּע. מִן הַנַּנָּסִין לְכֹתֶל הָעֲזָרָה שְׁמֹנֶה אַמּוֹת, וְהַמּוֹתָר בֵּין הַכֶּבֶשׁ לַכֹּתֶל וּמְקוֹם הַנַּנָּסִין:' "
5.4 שֶׁבַּדָּרוֹם, לִשְׁכַּת הָעֵץ, לִשְׁכַּת הַגּוֹלָה, לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. לִשְׁכַּת הָעֵץ, אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר בֶּן יַעֲקֹב, שָׁכַחְתִּי מֶה הָיְתָה מְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, לִשְׁכַּת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְהִיא הָיְתָה אֲחוֹרֵי שְׁתֵּיהֶן, וְגַג שְׁלָשְׁתָּן שָׁוֶה. לִשְׁכַּת הַגּוֹלָה, שָׁם הָיָה בוֹר קָבוּעַ, וְהַגַּלְגַּל נָתוּן עָלָיו, וּמִשָּׁם מַסְפִּיקִים מַיִם לְכָל הָעֲזָרָה. לִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שָׁם הָיְתָה סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה שֶׁל יִשְׂרָאֵל יוֹשֶׁבֶת וְדָנָה אֶת הַכְּהֻנָּה, וְכֹהֵן שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ פְסוּל, לוֹבֵשׁ שְׁחוֹרִים וּמִתְעַטֵּף שְׁחוֹרִים, וְיוֹצֵא וְהוֹלֵךְ לוֹ. וְשֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא בוֹ פְסוּל, לוֹבֵשׁ לְבָנִים וּמִתְעַטֵּף לְבָנִים, נִכְנָס וּמְשַׁמֵּשׁ עִם אֶחָיו הַכֹּהֲנִים. וְיוֹם טוֹב הָיוּ עוֹשִׂים, שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא פְסוּל בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן, וְכָךְ הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים, בָּרוּךְ הַמָּקוֹם בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁלֹּא נִמְצָא פְסוּל בְּזַרְעוֹ שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן. וּבָרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁבָּחַר בְּאַהֲרֹן וּבְבָנָיו לַעֲמֹד לְשָׁרֵת לִפְנֵי ה' בְּבֵית קָדְשֵׁי הַקֳּדָשִׁים:"' None
2.5 The courtyard of the women was a hundred and thirty-five cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five wide. It had four chambers in its four corners, each of which was forty cubits. They were not roofed, and so they will be in the time to come, as it says, “Then he brought me forth into the outer court, and caused me to pass by the four corners of the court, and behold in every corner of the court there was a court. In the four corners of the court there were keturot courts” (Ezekiel 46:21-22) and keturot means that they were not roofed. For what were they used? The southeastern one was the chamber of the Nazirites where the Nazirites used to boil their shelamim and shave their hair and throw it under the pot. The northeastern one was the wood chamber where priests with physical defects used to pick out the wood which had worms, every piece with a worm in it being unfit for use on the altar. The northwestern one was the chamber of those with skin disease. The southwestern one: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: they used to store there wine and oil, and it was called the chamber of oil. It the courtyard of the women had originally been smooth without protrusions in the walls but subsequently they surrounded it with a balcony so that the women could look on from above while the men were below, and they should not mix together. Fifteen steps led up from it to the courtyard of Israel, corresponding to the fifteen songs of ascents mentioned in the Book of Psalms, and upon which the Levites used to sing. They were not rectangular but circular like the half of a threshing floor.
5.1 The whole of the courtyard was a hundred and eighty-seven cubits long by a hundred and thirty-five broad. From east to west it was a hundred and eighty-seven. The space in which the Israelites could go was eleven cubits. The space in which the priests could go was eleven cubits. The altar took up thirty-two. Between the Porch and the altar was twenty-two cubits. The Hekhal took up a hundred cubits, and there were eleven cubits behind the kapporet. 5.2 From north to south was a hundred and thirty-five cubits.The ascent and the altar took up sixty-two; From the altar to the rings was eight cubits. The rings took up twenty-four cubits. From the rings to the tables was four cubits, From the tables to the dwarf pillars four, And from the dwarf pillars to the wall of the courtyard eight cubits, And the remainder was between the ascent and the wall and the space occupied by the dwarf pillars.
5.4 On the south were the wood chamber, the chamber of the exile and the chamber of hewn stones. The wood chamber: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says: I forget what it was used for. Abba Shaul says: It was the chamber of the high priest, and it was behind the two of them, and one roof covered all three. In the chamber of the exile there was a fixed cistern, with a wheel over it, and from there water was provided for all of the courtyard. In the chamber of hewn stone the great Sanhedrin of Israel used to sit and judge the priesthood. A priest in whom was found a disqualification used to put on black garments and wrap himself in black and go away. One in whom no disqualification was found used to put on white garments and wrap himself in white and go in and serve along with his brother priests. They used to make a feast because no blemish had been found in the seed of Aaron the priest, and they used to say: Blessed is the Omnipresent, blessed is He, for no blemish has been found in the seed of Aaron. Blessed is He who chose Aaron and his sons to stand to minister before the Lord in the Holy of Holies.'' None
|43. Mishnah, Nedarim, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Courts • Nasi, entering the court
Found in books: Eliav (2023), A Jew in the Roman Bathhouse: Cultural Interaction in the Ancient Mediterranean, 57; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 181
5.5 וְאֵיזֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁל עוֹלֵי בָבֶל, כְּגוֹן הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת וְהַבּוֹר שֶׁבְּאֶמְצַע הַדֶּרֶךְ. וְאֵיזֶהוּ דָבָר שֶׁל אוֹתָהּ הָעִיר, כְּגוֹן הָרְחָבָה וְהַמֶּרְחָץ, וּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְהַתֵּבָה וְהַסְּפָרִים. וְהַכּוֹתֵב חֶלְקוֹ לַנָּשִׂיא. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב לְהֶדְיוֹט. מַה בֵּין כּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא לְכוֹתֵב לְהֶדְיוֹט, שֶׁהַכּוֹתֵב לַנָּשִׂיא אֵינוֹ צָרִיךְ לְזַכּוֹת. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֶחָד זֶה וְאֶחָד זֶה צְרִיכִין לְזַכּוֹת. לֹא דִבְּרוּ בַנָּשִׂיא אֶלָּא בַהֹוֶה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵין אַנְשֵׁי גָלִיל צְרִיכִין לִכְתֹּב, שֶׁכְּבָר כָּתְבוּ אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם עַל יְדֵיהֶם:'' None
5.5 What are the things that belong to those that came up from Babylonia to Jerusalem? For example the Temple Mount and the Temple courtyards and the well in the middle of the road. What are the things that belong to that town? For example the public square, the bath-house, the synagogue, the ark, and the sacred scrolls. And he should assign his portion to the Patriarch. Rabbi Judah says: it is the same whether he assigns it to the Patriarch or to a private individual. But what is the difference between one who assigns it to the Patriarch and one who assigns it to a private individual? If he assigns it to the Patriarch, he need not formally confer title. But the Sages say: both this and this require formal conferring of title, they mentioned the Patriarch in particular as this is usual. Rabbi Judah said: The Galileans need not assign their portion, because their ancestors have already done so for them.'' None
|44. Mishnah, Oholot, 18.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • court of Tiberias • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 287; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 15
18.9 הָאִצְטְוָנִיּוֹת, אֵין בָּהֶן מִשּׁוּם מְדוֹר הַגּוֹיִם. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, עִיר גּוֹיִם שֶׁחָרְבָה, אֵין בָּהּ מִשּׁוּם מְדוֹר גּוֹיִם. מִזְרַח קִסְרִין וּמַעֲרַב קִסְרִין, קְבָרוֹת. וּמִזְרַח עַכּוֹ הָיָה סָפֵק, וְטִהֲרוּהוּ חֲכָמִים. רַבִּי וּבֵית דִּינוֹ נִמְנוּ עַל קֵינִי וְטִהֲרוּהוּ:'' None
18.9 Colonnades are not subject to the laws of non-Jewish dwelling places. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: a non-Jewish city that has been destroyed is not subject to the laws of non-Jewish dwelling-places. The east side of Caesaron and the west side of Caesaron are graveyards. The east side of Acre was doubtful, but the sages declared it clean. Rabbi and his law court voted to decide about Keni and declared it clean.'' None
|45. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 1.6-1.7, 2.2-2.6, 2.8-2.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, evidentiary rules • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, forms of • Court, the • Day of Atonement narrative, and Court authority • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Gamliel, R., calendar court (Yavne) • Judiciary deposing the ruler, leveling the court • Yavneh, court of • authority, rabbinic, calendar court (Yavne) • calendar court (Jerusalem) • calendar court (Yavne) • calendar court (Yavne), R. Joshua vs. R. Gamliel • calendar court (Yavne), Yom Kippur date • calendar court (Yavne), divine mandate • calendar court (Yavne), procedures • calendar court (Yavne), witnesses
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 34, 45, 54, 163; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 149, 173, 175; Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 276, 560; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 244; Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 177, 181, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192
1.6 מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁעָבְרוּ יוֹתֵר מֵאַרְבָּעִים זוּג, וְעִכְּבָן רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא בְלוּד. שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אִם מְעַכֵּב אַתָּה אֶת הָרַבִּים, נִמְצֵאתָ מַכְשִׁילָן לֶעָתִיד לָבֹא: 1.7 אָב וּבְנוֹ שֶׁרָאוּ אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ, יֵלְכוּ. לֹא שֶׁמִּצְטָרְפִין זֶה עִם זֶה, אֶלָּא שֶׁאִם יִפָּסֵל אֶחָד מֵהֶן, יִצְטָרֵף הַשֵּׁנִי עִם אַחֵר. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, אָב וּבְנוֹ וְכָל הַקְּרוֹבִין, כְּשֵׁרִין לְעֵדוּת הַחֹדֶשׁ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, מַעֲשֶׂה בְטוֹבִיָּה הָרוֹפֵא, שֶׁרָאָה אֶת הַחֹדֶשׁ בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם, הוּא וּבְנוֹ וְעַבְדּוֹ מְשֻׁחְרָר, וְקִבְּלוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת בְּנוֹ, וּפָסְלוּ אֶת עַבְדּוֹ. וּכְשֶׁבָּאוּ לִפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, קִבְּלוּ אוֹתוֹ וְאֶת עַבְדּוֹ, וּפָסְלוּ אֶת בְּנוֹ:
2.2 בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת. מִשֶּׁקִּלְקְלוּ הַכּוּתִים, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁלוּחִין יוֹצְאִין: 2.3 כֵּיצַד הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת, מְבִיאִין כְּלֻנְסָאוֹת שֶׁל אֶרֶז אֲרֻכִּין וְקָנִים וַעֲצֵי שֶׁמֶן וּנְעֹרֶת שֶׁל פִּשְׁתָּן וְכוֹרֵךְ בִּמְשִׁיחָה, וְעוֹלֶה לְרֹאשׁ הָהָר וּמַצִּית בָּהֶן אֶת הָאוּר, וּמוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא וּמַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד, עַד שֶׁהוּא רוֹאֶה אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שֶׁהוּא עוֹשֶׂה כֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר הַשֵּׁנִי, וְכֵן בְּרֹאשׁ הָהָר הַשְּׁלִישִׁי: 2.4 וּמֵאַיִן הָיוּ מַשִּׂיאִין מַשּׂוּאוֹת, מֵהַר הַמִּשְׁחָה לְסַרְטְבָא, וּמִסַּרְטְבָא לִגְרוֹפִינָא, וּמִגְּרוֹפִינָא לְחַוְרָן, וּמֵחַוְרָן לְבֵית בִּלְתִּין, וּמִבֵּית בִּלְתִּין לֹא זָזוּ מִשָּׁם, אֶלָּא מוֹלִיךְ וּמֵבִיא וּמַעֲלֶה וּמוֹרִיד עַד שֶׁהָיָה רוֹאֶה כָל הַגּוֹלָה לְפָנָיו כִּמְדוּרַת הָאֵשׁ:" 2.5 חָצֵר גְּדוֹלָה הָיְתָה בִירוּשָׁלַיִם, וּבֵית יַעְזֵק הָיְתָה נִקְרֵאת, וּלְשָׁם כָּל הָעֵדִים מִתְכַּנְּסִים, וּבֵית דִּין בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתָם שָׁם. וּסְעוּדוֹת גְּדוֹלוֹת עוֹשִׂין לָהֶם בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיְּהוּ רְגִילִין לָבֹא. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה לֹא הָיוּ זָזִין מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁיְּהוּ מְהַלְּכִין אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ. וְלֹא אֵלּוּ בִלְבַד, אֶלָּא אַף הַחֲכָמָה הַבָּאָה לְיַלֵּד, וְהַבָּא לְהַצִּיל מִן הַדְּלֵקָה וּמִן הַגַּיִס וּמִן הַנָּהָר וּמִן הַמַּפֹּלֶת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ כְאַנְשֵׁי הָעִיר, וְיֵשׁ לָהֶם אַלְפַּיִם אַמָּה לְכָל רוּחַ: 2.6 כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִין אֶת הָעֵדִים. זוּג שֶׁבָּא רִאשׁוֹן, בּוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ רִאשׁוֹן. וּמַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אֱמֹר, כֵּיצַד רָאִיתָ אֶת הַלְּבָנָה, לִפְנֵי הַחַמָּה אוֹ לְאַחַר הַחַמָּה, לִצְפוֹנָהּ אוֹ לִדְרוֹמָהּ, כַּמָּה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ וּלְאַיִן הָיָה נוֹטֶה, וְכַמָּה הָיָה רָחָב. אִם אָמַר לִפְנֵי הַחַמָּה, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם. וְאַחַר כָּךְ הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִים אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, עֵדוּתָן קַיָּמֶת. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַזּוּגוֹת שׁוֹאֲלִין אוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי דְבָרִים, לֹא שֶׁהָיוּ צְרִיכִין לָהֶן, אֶלָּא כְּדֵי שֶׁלֹּא יֵצְאוּ בְּפַחֵי נֶפֶשׁ, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁיְּהוּ רְגִילִים לָבֹא:
2.8 דְּמוּת צוּרוֹת לְבָנוֹת הָיוּ לוֹ לְרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בַּטַּבְלָא וּבַכֹּתֶל בַּעֲלִיָּתוֹ, שֶׁבָּהֶן מַרְאֶה אֶת הַהֶדְיוֹטוֹת וְאוֹמֵר, הֲכָזֶה רָאִיתָ אוֹ כָזֶה. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁבָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ שַׁחֲרִית בַּמִּזְרָח וְעַרְבִית בַּמַּעֲרָב. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן נוּרִי, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵם. כְּשֶׁבָּאוּ לְיַבְנֶה קִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. וְעוֹד בָּאוּ שְׁנַיִם וְאָמְרוּ, רְאִינוּהוּ בִזְמַנּוֹ, וּבְלֵיל עִבּוּרוֹ לֹא נִרְאָה, וְקִבְּלָן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, עֵדֵי שֶׁקֶר הֵן, הֵיאָךְ מְעִידִין עַל הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה, וּלְמָחָר כְּרֵסָהּ בֵּין שִׁנֶּיהָ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, רוֹאֶה אֲנִי אֶת דְּבָרֶיךָ: 2.9 שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:'' None
1.6 It happened that more than forty pairs of witnesses were on their way to Jerusalem and Rabbi Akiva detained them in Lod. Rabban Gamaliel sent to him saying: if you prevent the multitude from coming to provide testimony it will turn out that you cause them to stumble in the future. 1.7 If a father and a son have seen the new moon, they should both go to Jerusalem, not that they can join together as witnesses but so that if one of them is disqualified the other may join with another witness. Rabbi Shimon says that a father and son and all relatives are eligible to testify to the appearance of the new moon. Rabbi Yose said: it happened once that Tobias the doctor saw the new moon in Jerusalem along with his son and his freed slave. The priests accepted his evidence and that of his son and disqualified his slave. But when they appeared before the court they accepted his evidence and that of his slave and disqualified his son.
2.2 Originally they used to light torches to signal that the new month had been decreed. When the Samaritans disrupted this, they decreed that messengers should go out. 2.3 How did they light the torches? They used to bring long poles of cedar and reeds and olive wood and flax fluff and they tied them all together with a string. And someone used to go up to the top of a mountain and light them with fire and wave them back and forth and up and down until he saw the next one doing the same thing on the top of the second mountain; and so on the top of the third mountain. 2.4 At what places did they light the torches? From the Mount of Olives in Jerusalem to Sartaba, and from Sartaba to Gripina, and from Gripina to Havran, and from Havran to Bet Biltin. From Bet Biltin they did not move, but rather waved the torch back and forth and up and down until he saw the whole of the diaspora before him lit up like one bonfire." 2.5 There was a large courtyard in Jerusalem, and it was called Bet Yazek. There all the witnesses used to assemble and the court would examine them there. They would make large feasts for them there so that they would have an incentive to come. Originally they used not to leave the place the whole day, but Rabban Gamaliel decreed that they could go two thousand cubits from it in any direction. And these were not the only ones who could go two thousand cubits in any direction, but also a midwife who has come to deliver a child, or one who comes to rescue from a fire or from bandits or from a river in flood or from a building that has fallen in all these are like residents of the town, and may go two thousand cubits on Shabbat in any direction. 2.6 How do they test the witnesses?The pair which arrives first, they test them first. They bring in the older of them and they say to him, “Tell us, how did you see the moon in front of the sun or behind the sun? To the north of it or to the south? How high was it, and in which direction was it inclined? And how broad was it?” If he says he saw it in front of the sun, his evidence is rejected. After that they would bring in the second and test him. If their accounts were the same, their evidence was accepted. And the other pairs were only questioned briefly, not because they were required at all, but so that they should not go out disappointed, so that they would be regular in coming to testify.
2.8 Rabban Gamaliel had diagrams of the moon on a tablet hung on the wall of his upper chamber, and he used to show them to the unlearned and say, “Did it look like this or this?” It happened that two witnesses came and said, “We saw it in the morning in the east and in the evening in the west.” Rabbi Yoha ben Nuri said: they are lying witnesses. When they came to Yavneh Rabban Gamaliel accepted them. On another occasion two witnesses came and said, “We saw it at its proper time, but on the night which should have been the new moon it was not seen,” and Rabban Gamaliel accepted their evidence. Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas said: they are lying witnesses. How can they testify that a woman has given birth when on the next day her belly is between her teeth (swollen)? Rabbi Joshua to him: I see your argument. 2.9 Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are proclaimed at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He Rabbi Joshua then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He Rabbi Joshua took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.'' None
|46. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.1-1.6, 2.1-2.2, 3.1, 3.6, 4.1-4.3, 6.4, 7.5, 11.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Abaye, as court advocate • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, evidentiary rules • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, forms of • Court(s) • Court, heavenly • Court, of Seven • Court, of Ten • Court, of Three • Court, the • Courts, non-Roman • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Governor, court of • Great Court • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Lawyers and legal system, rabbinic court system • Nasi, entering the court • Sanhedrin (Jewish court) • conversion court, conversion at night and • court • court, Rabbinic • courts, tannaitic
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 53, 161; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 93; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 144, 149, 157, 160, 175, 179, 180; Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 276, 300, 324, 334; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 223, 224, 225, 228, 230, 238; Kanarek (2014), Biblical narrative and formation rabbinic law, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 164, 165; Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 282, 283; Rubenstein (2018), The Land of Truth: Talmud Tales, Timeless Teachings, 207, 208, 218; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40, 42, 43, 48, 59, 139
1.1 דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. גְּזֵלוֹת וַחֲבָלוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶזֶק וַחֲצִי נֶזֶק, תַּשְׁלוּמֵי כֶפֶל וְתַשְׁלוּמֵי אַרְבָּעָה וַחֲמִשָּׁה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָאוֹנֵס וְהַמְפַתֶּה וְהַמּוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, מוֹצִיא שֵׁם רַע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ דִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת: 1.2 מַכּוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. מִשּׁוּם רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אָמְרוּ, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַחֹדֶשׁ, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. עִבּוּר הַשָּׁנָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אוֹמֵר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה מַתְחִילִין, וּבַחֲמִשָּׁה נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין, וְגוֹמְרִין בְּשִׁבְעָה. וְאִם גָּמְרוּ בִשְׁלֹשָׁה, מְעֻבֶּרֶת: 1.3 סְמִיכַת זְקֵנִים וַעֲרִיפַת עֶגְלָה, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בַּחֲמִשָּׁה. הַחֲלִיצָה וְהַמֵּאוּנִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁאֵין דָּמָיו יְדוּעִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הַהֶקְדֵּשׁוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָעֲרָכִין הַמִּטַּלְטְלִין, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֶחָד מֵהֶן כֹּהֵן. וְהַקַּרְקָעוֹת, תִּשְׁעָה וְכֹהֵן. וְאָדָם, כַּיּוֹצֵא בָהֶן: 1.4 דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. הָרוֹבֵעַ וְהַנִּרְבָּע, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶאֱמַר (ויקרא כ) וְהָרַגְתָּ אֶת הָאִשָּׁה וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְאוֹמֵר (שם) וְאֶת הַבְּהֵמָה תַּהֲרֹגוּ. שׁוֹר הַנִּסְקָל, בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כא) הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת, כְּמִיתַת בְּעָלִים כָּךְ מִיתַת הַשּׁוֹר. הַזְּאֵב וְהָאֲרִי, הַדֹּב וְהַנָּמֵר וְהַבַּרְדְּלָס וְהַנָּחָשׁ, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַקּוֹדֵם לְהָרְגָן, זָכָה. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִיתָתָן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה: 1.5 אֵין דָּנִין לֹא אֶת הַשֵּׁבֶט וְלֹא אֶת נְבִיא הַשֶּׁקֶר וְלֹא אֶת כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין לְמִלְחֶמֶת הָרְשׁוּת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין מוֹסִיפִין עַל הָעִיר וְעַל הָעֲזָרוֹת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין סַנְהֶדְרִיּוֹת לַשְּׁבָטִים, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. אֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת, אֶלָּא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין עִיר הַנִּדַּחַת בַּסְּפָר, וְלֹא שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֲבָל עוֹשִׂין אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתָּיִם:' "1.6 סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן לַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעִים. וּמִנַּיִן לַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם לה) וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה וְגוֹ' וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה, עֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִנַּיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יד) עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. וּמִנַּיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם לְטוֹבָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שם) אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, לֹא כְהַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה. הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת:" 2.1 כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל דָּן וְדָנִין אוֹתוֹ, מֵעִיד וּמְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, חוֹלֵץ וְחוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ, וּמְיַבְּמִין אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ, אֲבָל הוּא אֵינוֹ מְיַבֵּם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא אָסוּר בָּאַלְמָנָה. מֵת לוֹ מֵת, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא אַחַר הַמִּטָּה, אֶלָּא הֵן נִכְסִין וְהוּא נִגְלֶה, הֵן נִגְלִין וְהוּא נִכְסֶה, וְיוֹצֵא עִמָּהֶן עַד פֶּתַח הָעִיר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ יוֹצֵא מִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כא) וּמִן הַמִּקְדָּשׁ לֹא יֵצֵא. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מְנַחֵם אֲחֵרִים, דֶּרֶךְ כָּל הָעָם עוֹבְרִין בָּזֶה אַחַר זֶה וְהַמְמֻנֶּה מְמַצְּעוֹ בֵּינוֹ לְבֵין הָעָם. וּכְשֶׁהוּא מִתְנַחֵם מֵאֲחֵרִים, כָּל הָעָם אוֹמְרִים לוֹ אָנוּ כַפָּרָתְךָ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר לָהֶן תִּתְבָּרְכוּ מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם. וּכְשֶׁמַּבְרִין אוֹתוֹ, כָּל הָעָם מְסֻבִּין עַל הָאָרֶץ וְהוּא מֵסֵב עַל הַסַּפְסָל: 2.2 הַמֶּלֶךְ לֹא דָן וְלֹא דָנִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא מֵעִיד וְלֹא מְעִידִין אוֹתוֹ, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא חוֹלְצִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. לֹא מְיַבֵּם וְלֹא מְיַבְּמִין לְאִשְׁתּוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם רָצָה לַחֲלֹץ אוֹ לְיַבֵּם, זָכוּר לָטוֹב. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וְאֵין נוֹשְׂאִין אַלְמָנָתוֹ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נוֹשֵׂא הַמֶּלֶךְ אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל מֶלֶךְ, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְדָוִד שֶׁנָּשָׂא אַלְמָנָתוֹ שֶׁל שָׁאוּל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמואל ב יב) וָאֶתְּנָה לְךָ אֶת בֵּית אֲדֹנֶיךָ וְאֶת נְשֵׁי אֲדֹנֶיךָ בְּחֵיקֶךָ:
3.1 דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן:
3.6 כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, וּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לָזֶה. אִם אָמַר, הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, זַכַּאי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, חַיָּב. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין:
4.1 אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: 4.2 דִּינֵי הַטֻּמְאוֹת וְהַטָּהֳרוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַגָּדוֹל, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַתְחִילִין מִן הַצָּד. הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֵין הַכֹּל כְּשֵׁרִין לָדוּן דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, אֶלָּא כֹהֲנִים, לְוִיִּם, וְיִשְׂרְאֵלִים הַמַּשִּׂיאִין לַכְּהֻנָּה: 4.3 סַנְהֶדְרִין הָיְתָה כַּחֲצִי גֹרֶן עֲגֻלָּה, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהוּ רוֹאִין זֶה אֶת זֶה. וּשְׁנֵי סוֹפְרֵי הַדַּיָּנִין עוֹמְדִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, אֶחָד מִיָּמִין וְאֶחָד מִשְּׂמֹאל, וְכוֹתְבִין דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שְׁלֹשָׁה, אֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין, וְאֶחָד כּוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי כוֹתֵב דִּבְרֵי הַמְזַכִּין וְדִבְרֵי הַמְחַיְּבִין:' "
6.4 בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל:" 7.5 הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ:' "
11.2 זָקֵן מַמְרֵא עַל פִּי בֵית דִּין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יז) כִּי יִפָּלֵא מִמְּךָ דָבָר לַמִּשְׁפָּט וְגוֹ'. שְׁלֹשָׁה בָתֵּי דִינִין הָיוּ שָׁם, אֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב עַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאֶחָד יוֹשֵׁב בְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית. בָּאִים לָזֶה שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הַר הַבַּיִת, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, בָּאִין לָהֶם לְאוֹתָן שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח הָעֲזָרָה, וְאוֹמֵר, כָּךְ דָּרַשְׁתִּי וְכָךְ דָּרְשׁוּ חֲבֵרָי, כָּךְ לִמַּדְתִּי וְכָךְ לִמְּדוּ חֲבֵרָי. אִם שָׁמְעוּ, אוֹמְרִים לָהֶם. וְאִם לָאו, אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ בָּאִים לְבֵית דִּין הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבְּלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית, שֶׁמִּמֶּנּוּ יוֹצֵאת תּוֹרָה לְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) מִן הַמָּקוֹם הַהוּא אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר ה'. חָזַר לְעִירוֹ וְשָׁנָה וְלִמֵּד כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהָיָה לָמֵד, פָּטוּר. וְאִם הוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, חַיָּב, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וְהָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה בְזָדוֹן, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיּוֹרֶה לַעֲשׂוֹת. תַּלְמִיד שֶׁהוֹרָה לַעֲשׂוֹת, פָּטוּר, נִמְצָא חֻמְרוֹ קֻלּוֹ:"' None
1.1 Cases concerning property are decided by three. Cases concerning robbery or personal injury, by three. Claims for full damages or half-damages, twofold restitution, or fourfold or fivefold restitution, by three. Claims against a rapist, a seducer and one who defames a virgin are decided by three, according to Rabbi Meir. The Sages say: “One who defames a virgin is decided by twenty-three, for there may arise from it a capital case. 1.2 Cases concerning offenses punishable by beating are decided by three. In the name of Rabbi Yishmael they said twenty-three. The intercalation of the month and intercalation of the year are decided by three, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel says: “The matter is begun by three, discussed by five, and decided upon by seven. But if they decided upon it with three, the intercalation is valid.” 1.3 The laying on of the elders’ hands and the breaking of the heifer’s neck are decided upon by three, according to Rabbi Shimon. But Rabbi Judah says: “By five.” The rites of halitzah and “refusal” are performed before three. The fruit of fourth year plantings and Second Tithes whose value is not known are redeemed before three. Things dedicated to the Temple are redeemed before three. Vows of evaluation to be redeemed with movable property, are evaluated before three. Rabbi Judah says: “One must be a priest.” Vows of evaluation, to be redeemed with land are evaluated before nine and a priest. And similarly for the evaluation of a man. 1.4 Cases concerning offenses punishable by death are decided by twenty three. A beast that has sexual relations with a woman or with a man is judged by twenty three, as it says, “You shall execute the woman and the beast” (Lev. 20:16) and it says, “You shall execute the beast”. The ox that is stoned is judged by twenty three., as it says, “The ox shall be stoned and also its owner shall be put to death” (Exodus 21:29), as is the death of the owner, so too is the death of the ox. The wolf, the lion, the bear, the leopard, the panther, or serpent that have killed a human being their death is adjudicated by twenty three. Rabbi Eliezer says: “Anyone who kills them before they come to court merits.” But Rabbi Akiva says: “Their death must be adjudicated by twenty three. 1.5 A tribe, a false prophet, or the high priest may not be tried save by the court of seventy-one; They may not send forth the people to wage a battle of free choice save by the decision of the court of one and seventy; They may not add to the City of Jerusalem, or the Courts of the Temple save by the decision of the court of seventy-one; They may not set up sanhedrins for the several tribes save by the decision of the court of one and seventy. And they may not proclaim any city to be an Apostate City (ir ha-niddahat) (Deut. 13:13–19 save by the decision of one and seventy. No city on the frontier may be proclaimed an Apostate City, nor three together, but only one or two. 1.6 The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) which refers to the twelve spies but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others to the twenty? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “To follow after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). It means that your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that the Sanhedrin of twenty three should correspond with them that are chiefs of at least groups of ten.
2.1 The High Priest can judge and be judged; he can testify and others can testify against him. He can perform halitzah for another’s wife and others can perform halitzah for his wife or contract levirate marriage with his widow, but he cannot contract levirate marriage since he is forbidden to marry a widow. If any of his near kin die he may not follow after the bier, rather when the bearers are not visible, he is visible, when they are visible he is not visible, and he may go out with them as far as the city gate, according to Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Judah says, “He may not leave the Temple, as it says, “Nor shall he go out of the Sanctuary”. And when he comforts other mourners the custom is for all of the people to pass by, the one after the other, while the appointed priest stands between him and the people. And when he receives comfort from others, all the people say to him, “Let us be your atonement”, and he says to them, “May you be blessed by Heaven.” When they feed him the funeral meal all the people sit around on the ground and he sits on a stool. 2.2 The king can neither judge nor be judged, he cannot testify and others cannot testify against him. He may not perform halitzah, nor may others perform halitzah for his wife. He may not contract levirate marriage nor may his brothers contract levirate marriage with his wife. Rabbi Judah says: “If he wished to perform halitzah or to contract levirate marriage his memory is a blessing.” They said to him: “They should not listen to him.” None may marry his widow. Rabbi Judah says: “The king may marry the widow of a king, for so have we found it with David, who married the widow of Saul, as it says, “And I gave you my master’s house and my master’s wives into your embrace” (II Samuel 12:8).
3.1 Cases concerning property are decided by three judges.This litigant chooses one and this litigant chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This litigant can invalidate this one’s judge, and this litigant can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This litigant may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this litigant may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.
3.6 How do they check the witnesses? They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of the witnesses. And they would say to him: “State for us, how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.” Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him. If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter. If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.
4.1 Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry of the witnesses, as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases are decided by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either from conviction to acquittal or from acquittal to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict from conviction to acquittal but not from acquittal to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival. 4.2 In non-capital cases and those concerning uncleanness and cleanness the judges declare their opinion beginning from the eldest, but in capital cases they begin from them that sit at the side. All are qualified to try non-capital cases, but not all are qualified to try capital cases, only priests, levites and Israelites that may give their daughters in marriage to priests. 4.3 The Sanhedrin was arranged like the half of a round threshing-floor so that they all might see one another. Before them stood the two scribes of the judges, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal and the words of them that favored conviction. Rabbi Judah says: “There were three: one wrote down the words of them that favored acquittal, and one wrote down the words of them that favored conviction, and the third wrote down the words of both them that favored acquittal and them that favored conviction.' "
6.4 The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, so that he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled his duty; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done his duty; but if not, he the criminal was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are afterwards hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “On that occasion he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a cross- piece branching off at the top and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up thereby. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left hanging over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name of god; and so the name of Heaven God is profaned." 7.5 The blasphemer is punished only if he utters the divine name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day of the trial the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed from court, and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, using the divine name. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” but not uttering the divine name, and the third says: “I too heard thus.”
11.2 An elder rebelling against the ruling of the court is strangled, for it says, “If there arise a matter too hard for you for judgement …you shall promptly repair to the place that the Lord your God will have chosen, and appear before the levitical priests, or the magistrate in charge at the time, and present your problem. When they have announced to you the verdict in the case, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose, observing scrupulously all their instructions to you. You shall act in accordance with the instructions given you and the ruling handed down to you; you must not deviate from the verdict that they announce to you either to the right or to the left. Should a man act presumptuously and disregard the priest charged with serving there the Lord your God, or the magistrate, that man shall die” (Deut. 17:8-13, JPS translation). Three courts of law were there, one situated at the entrance to the Temple mount, another at the door of the Temple court, and the third in the Chamber of Hewn Stone. They first went to the court which is at the entrance to the Temple mount, and he the rebellious elder stated, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If this first court had heard a ruling on the matter, they state it. If not, they go to the second court which is at the entrance of the Temple court, and he declares, “Thus have I expounded and thus have my colleagues expounded; thus have I taught, and thus have my colleagues taught.” If this second court had heard a ruling on the matter they state it; if not, they all proceed to the great court of the Chamber of Hewn Stone from whence instruction issued to all Israel, for it says, you shall carry out the verdict that is announced to you from that place that the Lord chose (Deut. 17:10). If he returned to his town and taught again as he did before, he is not liable. But if he gave a practical decision, he is guilty, for it says, “Should a man act presumptuously” (Deut. 17:12) he is liable only for a practical ruling. But if a disciple gave a practical decision opposed to the court, he is exempt: thus his stringency is his leniency.'' None
|47. Mishnah, Sotah, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Priests Court • Womens Court
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 82; Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 43
7.8 פָּרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ כֵּיצַד. מוֹצָאֵי יוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג, בַּשְּׁמִינִי בְּמוֹצָאֵי שְׁבִיעִית, עוֹשִׂין לוֹ בִימָה שֶׁל עֵץ בָּעֲזָרָה, וְהוּא יוֹשֵׁב עָלֶיהָ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים לא) מִקֵּץ שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים בְּמֹעֵד וְגוֹ'. חַזַּן הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹטֵל סֵפֶר תּוֹרָה וְנוֹתְנָהּ לְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת, וְרֹאשׁ הַכְּנֶסֶת נוֹתְנָהּ לַסְּגָן, וְהַסְּגָן נוֹתְנָהּ לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, וְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל נוֹתְנָהּ לַמֶּלֶךְ, וְהַמֶּלֶךְ עוֹמֵד וּמְקַבֵּל וְקוֹרֵא יוֹשֵׁב. אַגְרִיפָּס הַמֶּלֶךְ עָמַד וְקִבֵּל וְקָרָא עוֹמֵד, וְשִׁבְּחוּהוּ חֲכָמִים. וּכְשֶׁהִגִּיעַ (שם יז) לְלֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי, זָלְגוּ עֵינָיו דְּמָעוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אַל תִּתְיָרֵא אַגְרִיפָּס, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה, אָחִינוּ אָתָּה. וְקוֹרֵא מִתְּחִלַּת אֵלֶּה הַדְּבָרִים (דברים א׳:א׳) עַד שְׁמַע, וּשְׁמַע (שם ו), וְהָיָה אִם שָׁמֹעַ (שם יא), עַשֵּׂר תְּעַשֵּׂר (שם יד), כִּי תְכַלֶּה לַעְשֵׂר (שם כו), וּפָרָשַׁת הַמֶּלֶךְ (שם יז), וּבְרָכוֹת וּקְלָלוֹת (שם כח), עַד שֶׁגּוֹמֵר כָּל הַפָּרָשָׁה. בְּרָכוֹת שֶׁכֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל מְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָן, הַמֶּלֶךְ מְבָרֵךְ אוֹתָן, אֶלָּא שֶׁנּוֹתֵן שֶׁל רְגָלִים תַּחַת מְחִילַת הֶעָוֹן:"" None
7.8 How was the procedure in connection with the portion read by the king?At the conclusion of the first day of the festival (Sukkot) in the eighth year, at the end of the seventh year, they erect a wooden platform in the Temple court, and he sits upon it, as it is said, “At the end of seven years, in the set time” etc (Deuteronomy 31:10). The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and hands it to the head of the synagogue, the head of the synagogue hands it to the deputy and he hands it to the high priest, and the high priest hands it to the king and the king stands and receives it, but reads it while sitting. King Agrippa stood and received it and read standing, and the sages praised him. When he reached, “You shall not place a foreigner over you” (ibid 17:15) his eyes ran with tears. They said to him, “Fear not, Agrippas, you are our brother, you are our brother!” The king reads from the beginning of “These are the words” (ibid 1:1) until the Shema ((ibid 6:4-9), and the Shema, and “It will come to pass if you hear” (ibid 11:13-21 the second part of the Shema), and “You shall surely tithe” (ibid 14:22-29), and “When you have finished tithing” (ibid 26:12-15) and the portion of the king (ibid 17:14-20) and the blessings and curses (ibid, until he finishes all the section. The blessings that the high priest recites, the king recites, except that he substitutes one for the festivals instead of one for the pardon of sin.'' None
|48. Mishnah, Taanit, 2.1, 2.5, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Day of Atonement narrative, and Court authority • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in Bible and Second Temple literature • Heavenly court advocates, in rabbinic literature • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Nasi, entering the court • Yavneh, court of • law, in heavenly court vs. study-house
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 45, 53, 163; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 177, 178, 180, 181; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 247, 257; Rosen-Zvi (2012), The Mishnaic Sotah Ritual: Temple, Gender and Midrash, 245; Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 28
2.1 אֵין גּוֹזְרִין תַּעֲנִית עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּרֹאשׁ חֹדֶשׁ, בַּחֲנֻכָּה וּבְפוּרִים, וְאִם הִתְחִילוּ, אֵין מַפְסִיקִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי מֵאִיר, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל אֵין מַפְסִיקִין, מוֹדֶה הָיָה שֶׁאֵין מַשְׁלִימִין. וְכֵן תִּשְׁעָה בְאָב שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת:
2.1 סֵדֶר תַּעֲנִיּוֹת כֵּיצַד, מוֹצִיאִין אֶת הַתֵּבָה לִרְחוֹבָהּ שֶׁל עִיר, וְנוֹתְנִין אֵפֶר מִקְלֶה עַל גַּבֵּי הַתֵּבָה, וּבְרֹאשׁ הַנָּשִׂיא וּבְרֹאשׁ אַב בֵּית דִּין, וְכָל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד נוֹתֵן בְּרֹאשׁוֹ. הַזָּקֵן שֶׁבָּהֶן אוֹמֵר לִפְנֵיהֶן דִּבְרֵי כִבּוּשִׁין, אַחֵינוּ, לֹא נֶאֱמַר בְּאַנְשֵׁי נִינְוֵה, וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת שַׂקָּם וְאֶת תַּעֲנִיתָם, אֶלָּא (יונה ג) וַיַּרְא הָאֱלֹהִים אֶת מַעֲשֵׂיהֶם, כִּי שָׁבוּ מִדַּרְכָּם הָרָעָה. וּבַקַּבָּלָה הוּא אוֹמֵר (יואל ב) וְקִרְעוּ לְבַבְכֶם וְאַל בִּגְדֵיכֶם:
2.5 מַעֲשֶׂה בִימֵי רַבִּי חֲלַפְתָּא וְרַבִּי חֲנַנְיָה בֶן תְּרַדְיוֹן, שֶׁעָבַר אֶחָד לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה וְגָמַר אֶת הַבְּרָכָה כֻלָּהּ, וְלֹא עָנוּ אַחֲרָיו אָמֵן. תִּקְעוּ הַכֹּהֲנִים תְּקָעוּ. מִי שֶׁעָנָה אֶת אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ בְּהַר הַמּוֹרִיָּה הוּא יַעֲנֶה אֶתְכֶם וְיִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל צַעֲקַתְכֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. הָרִיעוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן הָרִיעוּ. מִי שֶׁעָנָה אֶת אֲבוֹתֵינוּ עַל יַם סוּף, הוּא יַעֲנֶה אֶתְכֶם וְיִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל צַעֲקַתְכֶם הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה. וּכְשֶׁבָּא דָבָר אֵצֶל חֲכָמִים, אָמְרוּ, לֹא הָיִינוּ נוֹהֲגִין כֵּן אֶלָּא בְשַׁעַר מִזְרָח וּבְהַר הַבָּיִת:
3.8 עַל כָּל צָרָה שֶׁלֹּא תָבֹא עַל הַצִּבּוּר, מַתְרִיעִין עֲלֵיהֶן, חוּץ מֵרוֹב גְּשָׁמִים. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ לְחוֹנִי הַמְעַגֵּל, הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. אָמַר לָהֶם, צְאוּ וְהַכְנִיסוּ תַנּוּרֵי פְסָחִים, בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁלֹּא יִמּוֹקוּ. הִתְפַּלֵּל, וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים. מֶה עָשָׂה, עָג עוּגָה וְעָמַד בְּתוֹכָהּ, וְאָמַר לְפָנָיו, רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם, בָּנֶיךָ שָׂמוּ פְנֵיהֶם עָלַי, שֶׁאֲנִי כְבֶן בַּיִת לְפָנֶיךָ. נִשְׁבָּע אֲנִי בְשִׁמְךָ הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁאֵינִי זָז מִכָּאן, עַד שֶׁתְּרַחֵם עַל בָּנֶיךָ. הִתְחִילוּ גְּשָׁמִים מְנַטְּפִין. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי בוֹרוֹת שִׁיחִין וּמְעָרוֹת. הִתְחִילוּ לֵירֵד בְּזָעַף. אָמַר, לֹא כָךְ שָׁאַלְתִּי, אֶלָּא גִּשְׁמֵי רָצוֹן, בְּרָכָה וּנְדָבָה. יָרְדוּ כְתִקְנָן, עַד שֶׁיָּצְאוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל מִירוּשָׁלַיִם לְהַר הַבַּיִת מִפְּנֵי הַגְּשָׁמִים. בָּאוּ וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהִתְפַּלַלְתָּ עֲלֵיהֶם שֶׁיֵּרְדוּ כָּךְ הִתְפַּלֵּל שֶׁיֵּלְכוּ לָהֶן. אָמַר לָהֶן, צְאוּ וּרְאוּ אִם נִמְחֵת אֶבֶן הַטּוֹעִים. שָׁלַח לוֹ שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח, אִלְמָלֵא חוֹנִי אַתָּה, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ נִדּוּי. אֲבָל מָה אֶעֱשֶׂה לְּךָ, שֶׁאַתָּה מִתְחַטֵּא לִפְנֵי הַמָּקוֹם וְעוֹשֶׂה לְךָ רְצוֹנְךָ כְּבֵן שֶׁהוּא מִתְחַטֵּא עַל אָבִיו וְעוֹשֶׂה לוֹ רְצוֹנוֹ. וְעָלֶיךָ הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (משלי כג), יִשְׂמַח אָבִיךָ וְאִמֶּךָ וְתָגֵל יוֹלַדְתֶּךָ:'' None
2.1 What is the order of service for fast days?They take the ark out to the open space of the city. And they put ashes on the ark and on the head of the Nasi and on the head of the head of the court (av bet. And everyone else puts ashes on his own head. The elder among them says in front of them words of admonition, “Brothers, it does not say of the people of Nineveh, ‘And God saw their sackcloth and their fasting,’ but, ‘And God saw their deeds, for they turned from their evil way. (Jonah 3:10)’ And in the prophets it says, ‘And rend your heart and not your garments” (Joel 2:13).' "
2.5 It happened in the days of Rabbi Halafta and Rabbi Hanina ben Tradyon that a man passed before the ark as shaliah tzibbur and completed the entire benediction and they did not respond, “amen.” The hazzan called out: Sound a tekiah, priests, sound a tekiah. The shaliah tzibbur continued: He who answered Abraham on Mt. Moriah, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. Then the hazzan called out: Sound a teru'ah, sons of Aaron, sound a teru'ah. The shaliah tzibbur continued: He who answered our fathers at the Sea of Reeds, He shall answer you and hear the voice of your cry on this day. And when the matter came up before the sages, they said: they only practiced in this way at the eastern gates on the Temple Mount." 3.8 For every trouble that should not come upon the community they sound a blast except on account of too much rain. It happened that they said to Honi the circle drawer: “Pray for rain to fall.” He replied: “Go and bring in the pesah ovens so that they do not dissolve.” He prayed and no rain fell. What did he do? He drew a circle and stood within it and exclaimed before Him: “Master of the universe, Your children have turned their faces to me because I am like one who was born in Your house. I swear by Your great name that I will not move from here until You have mercy upon Your children.” Rain then began to drip, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but rain which can fill cisterns, ditches and caves. The rain then began to come down with great force, and he exclaimed: “I did not request this but pleasing rain of blessing and abudance.” Rain then fell in the normal way until the Jews in Jerusalem had to go up Temple Mount because of the rain. They came and said to him: “In the same way that you prayed for the rain to fall pray now for the rain to stop.” He replied: “Go and see if the stone of people claiming lost objects has washed away.” Rabbi Shimon ben Shetah sent to him: “Were you not Honi I would have excommunicated you, but what can I do to you, for you are spoiled before God and he does your will like a son that is spoiled before his father and his father does his request. Concerning you it is written, “Let your father and your mother rejoice, and let she that bore you rejoice” (Proverbs 23:25).'' None
|49. Mishnah, Yevamot, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • Law, Jewish (courts, Jewish legal)
Found in books: Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 286; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 634
8.3 עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, אֲסוּרִים, וְאִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹתֵיהֶם מֻתָּרוֹת מִיָּד. מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי אֵינָם אֲסוּרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמָה אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, הִתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד, מְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם הֲלָכָה נְקַבֵּל, וְאִם לַדִּין, יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לָהֶם, לֹא כִי, הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מַמְזֵרִין וּנְתִינִין, אֲסוּרִין, וְאִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֶחָד זְכָרִים, וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת:'' None
8.3 An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden to enter into the congregation of the Lord and their prohibition is for ever. However, their women are permitted at once. An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden only until the third generation, whether they are males or females. Rabbi Shimon permits their women immediately. Said Rabbi Shimon: This is a kal vehomer: if where the males are forbidden for all time the females are permitted immediately, where the males are forbidden only until the third generation how much more should the females be permitted immediately. They said to him: If this is a halakhah, we shall accept it; but if it is only a logical reference, there is a refutation. He replied: This is not so, I am in fact saying a halakhah. Mamzerim and nethinim are forbidden, and their prohibition is forever, whether they be males or females.'' None
|50. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.3, 1.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Day of Atonement narrative, and Court authority • courts, tannaitic
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 42, 43, 44, 45, 163; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48
1.3 מָסְרוּ לוֹ זְקֵנִים מִזִּקְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, קְרָא אַתָּה בְּפִיךָ, שֶׁמָּא שָׁכַחְתָּ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמָדְתָּ. עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שַׁחֲרִית, מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁעַר מִזְרָח, וּמַעֲבִירִין לְפָנָיו פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר וְרָגִיל בָּעֲבוֹדָה:
1.5 מְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהֻנָּה, וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, וְהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין, וְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, מַשְׁבִּיעִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ בְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ בַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ. הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין:'' None
1.3 They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him throughout the seven days from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service.
1.5 The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him when leaving: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept.'' None
|51. New Testament, John, 2.17-2.21, 15.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Heavenly court advocates • Heavenly court advocates, in Bible and Second Temple literature • Heavenly court advocates, in rabbinic literature • Law, court of • Temple, destruction of, Great Court of • court
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 268; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 247; Levison (2009), Filled with the Spirit, 385; Werline et al. (2008), Experientia, Volume 1: Inquiry Into Religious Experience in Early Judaism and Christianity, 106
2.17 Ἐμνήσθησαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ ὅτι γεγραμμένον ἐστίν Ὁ ζῆλος τοῦ οἴκου σου καταφάγεταί με. 2.18 Ἀπεκρίθησαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι καὶ εἶπαν αὐτῷ Τί σημεῖον δεικνύεις ἡμῖν, ὅτι ταῦτα ποιεῖς; 2.19 ἀπεκρίθη Ἰησοῦς καὶ εἶπεν αὐτοῖς Λύσατε τὸν ναὸν τοῦτον καὶ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερῶ αὐτόν. 2.20 εἶπαν οὖν οἱ Ἰουδαῖοι Τεσσεράκοντα καὶ ἓξ ἔτεσιν οἰκοδομήθη ὁ ναὸς οὗτος, καὶ σὺ ἐν τρισὶν ἡμέραις ἐγερεῖς αὐτόν; 2.21 ἐκεῖνος δὲ ἔλεγεν περὶ τοῦ ναοῦ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ.
15.26 Ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ παράκλητος ὃν ἐγὼ πέμψω ὑμῖν παρὰ τοῦ πατρός, τὸ πνεῦμα τῆς ἀληθείας ὃ παρὰ τοῦ πατρὸς ἐκπορεύεται, ἐκεῖνος μαρτυρήσει περὶ ἐμοῦ· καὶ ὑμεῖς δὲ μαρτυρεῖτε,'' None
2.17 His disciples remembered that it was written, "Zeal for your house will eat me up." 2.18 The Jews therefore answered him, "What sign do you show us, seeing that you do these things?" 2.19 Jesus answered them, "Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up." 2.20 The Jews therefore said, "Forty-six years was this temple in building, and will you raise it up in three days?" 2.21 But he spoke of the temple of his body.
15.26 "When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me. '' None
|52. New Testament, Luke, 21.6, 22.66 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Antioch, site of imperial court under Julian • Court, the • Courts, non-Roman • Temple, destruction of, Great Court of
Found in books: Avery-Peck, Chilton, and Scott Green (2014), A Legacy of Learning: Essays in Honor of Jacob Neusner , 268; Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 161; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 94; Esler (2000), The Early Christian World, 1255
21.6 εἶπεν Ταῦτα ἃ θεωρεῖτε, ἐλεύσονται ἡμέραι ἐν αἷς οὐκ ἀφεθήσεται λίθος ἐπὶ λίθῳ ὧδε ὃς οὐ καταλυθήσεται.
22.66 Καὶ ὡς ἐγένετο ἡμέρα, συνήχθη τὸ πρεσβυτέριον τοῦ λαοῦ, ἀρχιερεῖς τε καὶ γραμματεῖς, καὶ ἀπήγαγον αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ συνέδριον αὐτῶν,'' None
21.6 "As for these things which you see, the days will come, in which there will not be left here one stone on another that will not be thrown down."
22.66 As soon as it was day, the assembly of the elders of the people was gathered together, both chief priests and scribes, and they led him away into their council, saying, '' None
|53. New Testament, Mark, 14.55 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, the • Courts, non-Roman
Found in books: Cohn (2013), The Memory of the Temple and the Making of the Rabbis, 161; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 94
14.55 οἱ δὲ ἀρχιερεῖς καὶ ὅλον τὸ συνέδριον ἐζήτουν κατὰ τοῦ Ἰησοῦ μαρτυρίαν εἰς τὸ θανατῶσαι αὐτόν, καὶ οὐχ ηὕρισκον·'' None
14.55 Now the chief priests and the whole council sought witnesses against Jesus to put him to death, and found none. '' None
|54. New Testament, Matthew, 5.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Courts, non-Roman
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 94; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 108
5.22 Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός.'' None
5.22 But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna. "" None
|55. Tacitus, Annals, 1.72, 4.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Calpumius Piso, Cn. (cos., choice of court • Governor, court of
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 248; Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 461
1.72 Decreta eo anno triumphalia insignia A. Caecinae, L. Apronio, C. Silio ob res cum Germanico gestas. nomen patris patriae Tiberius, a populo saepius ingestum, repudiavit; neque in acta sua iurari quamquam censente senatu permisit, cuncta mortalium incerta, quantoque plus adeptus foret, tanto se magis in lubrico dictitans. non tamen ideo faciebat fidem civilis animi; nam legem maiestatis reduxerat, cui nomen apud veteres idem, sed alia in iudicium veniebant, si quis proditione exercitum aut plebem seditionibus, denique male gesta re publica maiestatem populi Romani minuisset: facta arguebantur, dicta inpune erant. primus Augustus cognitionem de famosis libellis specie legis eius tractavit, commotus Cassii Severi libidine, qua viros feminasque inlustris procacibus scriptis diffamaverat; mox Tiberius, consultante Pompeio Macro praetore an iudicia maiestatis redderentur, exercendas leges esse respondit. hunc quoque asperavere carmina incertis auctoribus vulgata in saevitiam superbiamque eius et discordem cum matre animum.
4.21 Actum dehinc de Calpurnio Pisone, nobili ac feroci viro. is namque, ut rettuli, cessurum se urbe ob factiones accusatorum in senatu clamitaverat et spreta potentia Augustae trahere in ius Vrgulaniam domoque principis excire ausus erat. quae in praesens Tiberius civiliter habuit: sed in animo revolvente iras, etiam si impetus offensionis languerat, memoria valebat. Pisonem Q. Granius secreti sermonis incusavit adversum maiestatem habiti, adiecitque in domo eius venenum esse eumque gladio accinctum introire curiam. quod ut atrocius vero tramissum; ceterorum, quae multa cumulabantur, receptus est reus neque peractus ob mortem opportunam. relatum et de Cassio Severo exule, qui sordidae originis, maleficae vitae, sed orandi validus, per immodicas inimicitias ut iudicio iurati senatus Cretam amoveretur effecerat; atque illic eadem actitando recentia veteraque odia advertit, bonisque exutus, interdicto igni atque aqua, saxo Seripho consenuit.'' None
1.72 \xa0In this year triumphal distinctions were voted to Aulus Caecina, Lucius Apronius, and Caius Silius, in return for their services with Germanicus. Tiberius rejected the title Father of his Country, though it had been repeatedly pressed upon him by the people: and, disregarding a vote of the senate, refused to allow the taking of an oath to obey his enactments. "All human affairs," so ran his comment, "were uncertain, and the higher he climbed the more slippery his position." Yet even so he failed to inspire the belief that his sentiments were not monarchical. For he had resuscitated the Lex Majestatis, a statute which in the old jurisprudence had carried the same name but covered a different type of offence â\x80\x94 betrayal of an army; seditious incitement of the populace; any act, in short, of official maladministration diminishing the "majesty of the Roman nation." Deeds were challenged, words went immune. The first to take cognizance of written libel under the statute was Augustus; who was provoked to the step by the effrontery with which Cassius Severus had blackened the characters of men and women of repute in his scandalous effusions: then Tiberius, to an inquiry put by the praetor, Pompeius Macer, whether process should still be granted on this statute, replied that "the law ought to take its course." He, too, had been ruffled by verses of unknown authorship satirizing his cruelty, his arrogance, and his estrangement from his mother. <
4.21 \xa0Next there was treated the case of Calpurnius Piso, a man of birth and courage: it was he who, as I\xa0have stated already, had exclaimed to the senate that he would retire from the capital as a protest against the cabals of the informers, and, contemptuous of the influence of Augusta, had dared to bring Urgulania before a court and to summon her from under the imperial roof. For the moment, Tiberius took the incidents in good part; but in his heart, brooding over its grounds for wrath, though the first transport of resentment might have died down, memory lived. It was Quintus Granius, who charged Piso with holding private conversations derogatory to majesty; and added that he kept poison at his house and wore a sword when entering the curia. The last count was allowed to drop as too atrocious to be true; on the others, which were freely accumulated, he was entered for trial, and was only saved from undergoing it by a well-timed death. The case, also, of the exiled Cassius Severus was brought up in the senate. of sordid origin and mischievous life, but a powerful orator, he had made enemies on such a scale that by a verdict of the senate under oath he was relegated to Crete. There, by continuing his methods, he drew upon himself so many animosities, new or old, that he was now stripped of his estate, interdicted from fire and water, and sent to linger out his days on the rock of Seriphos. <'' None
|56. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • court of Tiberias • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 287; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 123, 256
|57. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, liability for errors • animals, tried in court
Found in books: Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 147; Neis (2012), When a Human Gives Birth to a Raven: Rabbis and the Reproduction of Species. 112
|58. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, of Three • Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, conversion court in second-century Palestine • conversion court, Rabbi Yehudah and the • conversion court, invention of
Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 52; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68
|59. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court • gentile courts
Found in books: Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 71; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 226
|60. None, None, nan (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) • Court • Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, conversion court in second-century Palestine • conversion court, Bavli roots of • conversion court, Rabbi Yehudah and the • conversion court, authority over the procedure shifts • conversion court, conversion at night and • conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) • conversion court, invention of
Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 47, 52, 53, 263, 281, 282; Porton (1988), Gentiles and Israelites in Mishnah-Tosefta, 286
|61. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 69.18.3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • court • law courts
Found in books: Edmondson (2008), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 23; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 210
69.18.3 \xa0In this connexion the following anecdote is related of Cornelius Fronto, who was the foremost Roman of the time in pleading before the courts. One night he was returning home from dinner very late, and ascertained from a man whose counsel he had promised to be that Turbo was already holding court. Accordingly, just as he was, in his dinner dress, he went into Turbo's court-room and greeted him, not with the morning salutation, Salve, but with the one appropriate to the evening, Vale."" None
|62. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.28.8 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Orchomenos, Boiotian city, Palladion, court at • lawcourt, eligibility • lawcourt, meeting places • lawcourt, origins
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 42; Lalone (2019), Athena Itonia: Geography and Meaning of an Ancient Greek War Goddess, 257
1.28.8 ἔστι δὲ Ἀθηναίοις καὶ ἄλλα δικαστήρια οὐκ ἐς τοσοῦτο δόξης ἥκοντα. τὸ μὲν οὖν καλούμενον παράβυστον καὶ τρίγωνον, τὸ μὲν ἐν ἀφανεῖ τῆς πόλεως ὂν καὶ ἐπʼ ἐλαχίστοις συνιόντων ἐς αὐτό, τὸ δὲ ἀπὸ τοῦ σχήματος ἔχει τὰ ὀνόματα· βατραχιοῦν δὲ καὶ φοινικιοῦν ἀπὸ χρωμάτων τὸ δὲ καὶ ἐς τόδε διαμεμένηκεν ὀνομάζεσθαι. τὸ δὲ μέγιστον καὶ ἐς ὃ πλεῖστοι συνίασιν, ἡλιαίαν καλοῦσιν. ὁπόσα δὲ ἐπὶ τοῖς φονεῦσιν, ἔστιν ἄλλα· καὶ ἐπὶ Παλλαδίῳ καλοῦσι καὶ τοῖς ἀποκτείνασιν ἀκουσίως κρίσις καθέστηκε. καὶ ὅτι μὲν Δημοφῶν πρῶτος ἐνταῦθα ὑπέσχε δίκας, ἀμφισβητοῦσιν οὐδένες·'' None
1.28.8 The Athenians have other law courts as well, which are not so famous. We have the Parabystum (Thrust aside) and the Triangle; the former is in an obscure part of the city, and in it the most trivial cases are tried; the latter is named from its shape. The names of Green Court and Red Court, due to their colors, have lasted down to the present day. The largest court, to which the greatest numbers come, is called Heliaea. One of the other courts that deal with bloodshed is called “At Palladium,” into which are brought cases of involuntary homicide. All are agreed that Demophon was the first to be tried there, but as to the nature of the charge accounts differ.'' None
|63. Tertullian, On The Pallium, 5 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Imperial court • law courts
Found in books: Edmondson (2008), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 46; Lampe (2003), Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, 316
5 Still, say you, must we thus change from gown to Mantle? Why, what if from diadem and sceptre? Did Anacharsis change otherwise, when to the royalty of Scythia he preferred philosophy? Grant that there be no (miraculous) signs in proof of your transformation for the better: there is somewhat which this your garb can do. For, to begin with the simplicity of its uptaking: it needs no tedious arrangement. Accordingly, there is no necessity for any artist formally to dispose its wrinkled folds from the beginning a day beforehand, and then to reduce them to a more finished elegance, and to assign to the guardianship of the stretchers the whole figment of the massed boss; subsequently, at daybreak, first gathering up by the aid of a girdle the tunic which it were better to have woven of more moderate length (in the first instance), and, again scrutinizing the boss, and rearranging any disarrangement, to make one part prominent on the left, but (making now an end of the folds) to draw backwards from the shoulders the circuit of it whence the hollow is formed, and, leaving the right shoulder free, heap it still upon the left, with another similar set of folds reserved for the back, and thus clothe the man with a burden! In short, I will persistently ask your own conscience, What is your first sensation in wearing your gown? Do you feel yourself clad, or laded? Wearing a garment, or carrying it? If you shall answer negatively, I will follow you home; I win see what you hasten to do immediately after crossing your threshold. There is really no garment the doffing whereof congratulates a man more than the gown's does. of shoes we say nothing - implements as they are of torture proper to the gown, most uncleanly protection to the feet, yes, and false too. For who would not find it expedient, in cold and heat, to stiffen with feet bare rather than in a shoe with feet bound? A mighty munition for the tread have the Venetian shoe-factories provided in the shape of effeminate boots! Well, but, than the Mantle nothing is more expedite, even if it be double, like that of Crates. Nowhere is there a compulsory waste of time in dressing yourself (in it), seeing that its whole art consists in loosely covering. That can be effected by a single circumjection, and one in no case inelegant: thus it wholly covers every part of the man at once. The shoulder it either exposes or encloses: in other respects it adheres to the shoulder; it has no surrounding support; it has no surrounding tie; it has no anxiety as to the fidelity with which its folds keep their place; easily it manages, easily readjusts itself: even in the doffing it is consigned to no cross until the morrow. If any shirt is worn beneath it, the torment of a girdle is superfluous: if anything in the way of shoeing is worn, it is a most cleanly work; or else the feet are rather bare - more manly, at all events, (if bare,) than in shoes. These (pleas I advance) for the Mantle in the meantime, in so far as you have defamed it by name. Now, however, it challenges you on the score of its function withal. I, it says, owe no duty to the forum, the election-ground, or the senate-house; I keep no obsequious vigil, preoccupy no platforms, hover about no pr torian residences; I am not odorant of the canals, am not odorant of the lattices, am no constant wearer out of benches, no wholesale router of laws, no barking pleader, no judge, no soldier, no king: I have withdrawn from the populace. My only business is with myself: except that other care I have none, save not to care. The better life you would more enjoy in seclusion than in publicity. But you will decry me as indolent. Forsooth, 'we are to live for our country, and empire, and estate.' Such used, of old, to be the sentiment. None is born for another, being destined to die for himself. At all events, when we come to the Epicuri and Zenones, you give the epithet of 'sages' to the whole teacherhood of Quietude, who have consecrated that Quietude with the name of 'supreme' and 'unique' pleasure. Still, to some extent it will be allowed, even to me, to confer benefit on the public. From any and every boundary-stone or altar it is my wont to prescribe medicines to morals - medicines which will be more felicitous in conferring good health upon public affairs, and states, and empires, than your works are. Indeed, if I proceed to encounter you with naked foils, gowns have done the commonwealth more hurt than cuirasses. Moreover, I flatter no vices; I give quarter to no lethargy, no slothful encrustation. I apply the cauterizing iron to the ambition which led M. Tullius to buy a circular table of citron-wood for more than £4000, and Asinius Gallus to pay twice as much for an ordinary table of the same Moorish wood (Hem! At what fortunes did they value woody dapplings!), or, again, Sulla to frame dishes of an hundred pounds' weight. I fear lest that balance be small, when a Drusillanus (and he withal a slave of Claudius!) constructs a tray of the weight of
500 lbs.!- a tray indispensable, perchance, to the aforesaid tables, for which, if a workshop was erected, there ought to have been erected a dining-room too. Equally do I plunge the scalpel into the inhumanity which led Vedius Pollio to expose slaves to fill the bellies of sea-eels. Delighted, forsooth, with his novel savagery, he kept land-monsters, toothless, clawless, hornless: it was his pleasure to turn perforce into wild beasts his fish, which (of course) were to be immediately cooked, that in their entrails he himself withal might taste some savour of the bodies of his own slaves. I will forelop the gluttony which led Hortensius the orator to be the first to have the heart to slay a peacock for the sake of food; which led Aufidius Lurco to be the first to vitiate meat with stuffing, and by the aid of forcemeats to raise them to an adulterous flavour; which led Asinius Celer to purchase the viand of a single mullet at nearly £
50; which led Æsopus the actor to preserve in his pantry a dish of the value of nearly £800, made up of birds of the selfsame costliness (as the mullet aforesaid), consisting of all the songsters and talkers; which led his son, after such a titbit, to have the hardihood to hunger after somewhat yet more sumptuous: for he swallowed down pearls - costly even on the ground of their name - I suppose for fear he should have supped more beggarly than his father. I am silent as to the Neros and Apicii and Rufi. I will give a cathartic to the impurity of a Scaurus, and the gambling of a Curius, and the intemperance of an Antony. And remember that these, out of the many (whom I have named), were men of the toga - such as among the men of the pallium you would not easily find. These purulencies of a state who will eliminate and exsuppurate, save a bemantled speech? "" None
|64. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • law courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 375; Edmondson (2008), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 244
|65. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Courts, Roman • Courts, episcopal • Fame, and favour, in courts • Governor, court of • Imperial court • centumviral court • courts • law courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 378; Edmondson (2008), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 240, 241, 242, 252, 253; Griffiths (1975), The Isis-Book (Metamorphoses, Book XI), 342; Lampe (2003), Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, 247; Talbert (1984), The Senate of Imperial Rome, 17; Thonemann (2020), An Ancient Dream Manual: Artemidorus' the Interpretation of Dreams, 206, 209
|66. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • court
Found in books: Chaniotis (2012), Unveiling Emotions: Sources and Methods for the Study of Emotions in the Greek World vol, 305; Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 196
|67. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Court, of Seven • Court, of Seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin) • Court, of Ten • Decalogue, Court, Rabbinic • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Lawyers and legal system, rabbinic court system • courts, non-Jewish • high court decisions, status of
Found in books: Fraade (2011), Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages, 224, 314, 560; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 238; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 42, 45; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47
|68. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Court, of Ten • Court, of Three • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 288; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40
|69. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Donatists, bishops, acting in court • Governor, court of
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 377; Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 187, 188
|70. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, liability for errors • court of Tiberias • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 287; Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 147
|71. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) • conversion court, Bavli roots of • conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) • court of Tiberias • rabbinic courts, enforcement of decisions
Found in books: Cohen (2010), The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism, 287; Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 263
|72. None, None, nan (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • Imperial court • court
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 187; Lampe (2003), Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries: From Paul to Valentinus, 89, 117; Maier and Waldner (2022), Desiring Martyrs: Locating Martyrs in Space and Time, 46
|73. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court, of Three • Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, conversion court in second-century Palestine • conversion court, Rabbi Yehudah and the • conversion court, invention of
Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 52; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 68
|30b חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר\' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר\' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי\' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר\' יוסי בר\' יהודה אומר אפי\' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו\' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג\' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור\' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר\' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר\' יהודה ור\' יוסי אמר להו ר\' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר\' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו:'' None||30b is suspect with regard to tithe. And who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Yehuda, as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. And the other one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to produce of the Sabbatical Year. And who are the Sages referred to here as the Rabbis? It is Rabbi Meir.,As it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 2:4): With regard to an am ha’aretz, i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, who accepts upon himself the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status, i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by ḥaverim, including teruma, tithes, and ḥalla, and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy but subsequently he was suspected with regard to one matter in which others saw him act improperly, he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. This is the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter.,It is also taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Demai 2:4): With regard to a convert who accepted upon himself upon his conversion matters of Torah, i.e., all of the mitzvot, even if he is suspect with regard to one matter alone, he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is considered like a Jewish transgressor meshummad, who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical difference resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is that if he betroths a woman, his betrothal is a valid betrothal, and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status.,The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who comes to accept upon himself the commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status except for one matter, which he does not wish to observe, he is not accepted, and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of a gentile who comes to convert and takes upon himself to accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted as a convert. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even if he refuses to accept one detail of rabbinic law, he is not accepted.,The baraita continues: And similarly, in the case of a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: “He among the sons of Aaron, that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to the Temple service, which is handed over to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it in its entirety has no share in the priesthood.,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of one who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status, if we have seen that he practices such matters in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught the precise details of being a ḥaver. But if we have not seen him act as a ḥaver in his home, he is taught first and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether in this case or that case, he is first accepted, and he then continues to learn in the usual manner, i.e., as a ḥaver he learns from others how to behave.,The Sages taught in a baraita: An am ha’aretz who wishes to become a ḥaver is accepted first with regard to hands, i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, and afterward he is accepted as trustworthy for purity in general. And if he says: I wish to accept purity only with regard to hands, he is accepted for this. If he wishes to accept upon himself the stringencies of a ḥaver with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept upon himself the stringencies with regard to hands, i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, he is not accepted even for purity in general.,The Sages taught in a baraita: Until when is he accepted, i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a ḥaver? Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to impurity of clothing, about which ḥaverim would be careful as well, twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both with regard to this, liquids, and that, clothing, he must maintain the practice for twelve months before he is fully accepted as a ḥaver.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: If so, this is one of the rare cases of the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, and yet it is not included in tractate Eduyyot, which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. Rather, the text of the baraita must be emended so that it reads: Beit Hillel say: Both with regard to this, liquids and that, clothing, he must maintain the practice for thirty days before he is fully accepted as a ḥaver.,§ The Gemara provides a mnemonic to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: Ḥaver; student; sky-blue dye tekhelet; tax; return; tax collector; by himself.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status must accept it in the presence of three ḥaverim. But his children and the members of his household are not required to accept the status of ḥaver separately in the presence of three ḥaverim. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and the members of his household must accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, because a ḥaver, who accepted it himself in the presence of three others, is not comparable to the son of a ḥaver, who accepted that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient.,The Sages taught in a baraita: One who comes to accept upon himself a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status must accept it in the presence of three ḥaverim, and even a Torah scholar who wishes to become a ḥaver must accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim. But an elder who sits and studies Torah in a yeshiva is not required to accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept the status of ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim; and not only does he have the status of ḥaver without an explicit declaration in the presence of three ḥaverim, but others can accept that they wish to become a ḥaver in his presence.,Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a ḥaver in the presence of three ḥaverim, was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. At that time, Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about a certain matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent a delegation of their students to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus and told them to go and tell him to examine this matter. The students found him while he was carrying items that were ritually pure. The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus seated Sages from his own yeshiva next to the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. And he stood and examined the matter.,The students returned and came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of amei ha’aretz. Rabbi Yehuda said to them in anger: This one’s father, i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, degraded Torah scholars by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And he too, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, degrades Torah scholars.,Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, i.e., both the father and son, be left in its place. He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, and they decided that they will not pass ritually pure items to any other person. Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately.,The Sages taught in a baraita: In the case of a ḥaver that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive status until they are suspected of engaging in inappropriate deeds. And similarly, in the case of a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold until it is disqualified due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior.,The Sages taught in a baraita: The former wife an am ha’aretz who later marries a ḥaver, and likewise the daughter of an am ha’aretz who marries a ḥaver, and likewise the slave of an am ha’aretz who is sold to a ḥaver, must all accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status. But with regard to the former wife of a ḥaver who later marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the daughter of a ḥaver who marries an am ha’aretz, and likewise the slave of a ḥaver who was sold to an am ha’aretz, these people need not accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio, as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a ḥaver.,The baraita continues: Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept upon themselves a commitment to observe the matters associated with ḥaver status ab initio. And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would illustrate this point and say in the name of Rabbi Meir: There was an incident involving a certain woman who married a ḥaver and would tie koma’at for him phylacteries on his hand, and she later married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety.'' None|
|74. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 95; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 95
|10b דאי לאו דכותי חבר הוה לא מחתים ליה מקמיה אי הכי אפילו שאר שטרות נמי,אלא אמרינן רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה הכא נמי רווחא שבק למאן דקשיש מיניה,א"ר פפא זאת אומרת עדי הגט אין חותמין זה בלא זה,מאי טעמא אמר רב אשי גזירה משום כולכם,גופא אמר רבי אלעזר לא הכשירו בו אלא עד אחד כותי בלבד מאי קמ"ל תנינא כל גט שיש עליו עד כותי פסול כו\',אי ממתניתין הוה אמינא אפי\' תרי נמי והאי דקתני חד משום דבשטרות אפי\' חד נמי לא קמ"ל,ותרי לא והא קתני מעשה והביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר אמר אביי תני עדו,רבא אמר לעולם תרי ורבן גמליאל מיפלג פליג וחסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ורבן גמליאל מכשיר בשנים ומעשה נמי שהביאו לפני רבן גמליאל לכפר עותנאי גט אשה והיו עדיו עדי כותים והכשיר:,||10b as, if not for the fact that the Samaritan was one devoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot ḥaver, the Jew would not have allowed him to sign the document before him. Therefore, one may rely on this Samaritan in this particular case. The Gemara asks: If so, that the mishna is referring to that case, then even other documents should be valid as well, if a Jew signed after the Samaritan.,Rather, this is not the case with regard to other documents, as we say that the fact that the Jew signed last does not prove that this Samaritan was a ḥaver, as perhaps in signing last he was leaving space above his signature for one who was older than he is in deference to the elder, and instead, a Samaritan came and signed the document. The Gemara asks: Here too, in the case of a bill of divorce, perhaps he was leaving space above his signature for one who was his elder. Why, then, are bills of divorce and bills of manumission valid while other documents are not?,Rav Pappa says: That is to say, in explanation of the difference between bills of divorce and manumission and other documents, that the witnesses of a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission may not sign one without the other; rather, each witness signs in the presence of the other. A Jew would be aware that a Samaritan was signing with him, and he would not sign unless he knew that the Samaritan was a valid witness. However, with regard to other documents, witnesses are not required to sign such documents in each other’s presence. Therefore, the signature of the Jew indicates nothing about the fitness of the Samaritan witness.,The Gemara asks: What is the reason that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce and a bill of manumission together? Rav Ashi says: It is a rabbinic decree issued due to a case where the husband says: All of you are witnesses on this bill of divorce. In that case, if any one of them fails to sign the bill of divorce, it is invalid. Therefore, the Sages decreed that the witnesses must sign a bill of divorce together in all cases.,§ Since the Gemara mentioned the halakha stated by Rabbi Elazar, it analyzes the matter itself. Rabbi Elazar says: They deemed a bill of divorce valid only when just one witness is a Samaritan. The Gemara asks: What is he teaching us by this statement? We already learned in the mishna: Any document that has a Samaritan witness on it is invalid except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. This indicates that those are valid only if they have the signature of one Samaritan witness, not two.,The Gemara responds: If it is learned from the mishna alone I would have said that even two Samaritan witnesses are also valid for a bill of divorce or a bill of manumission. And the fact that the mishna teaches one witness is because it wants to emphasize that for other documents even one Samaritan witness is also not valid. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer teaches us that in the case of bills of divorce only one Samaritan witness is valid, but if both witnesses are Samaritans the bill of divorce is not valid.,The Gemara asks: And are two Samaritan witnesses not accepted on a bill of divorce? But the mishna teaches: An incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid. Abaye said that one should teach the mishna so that it does not read: Its witnesses, but rather: Its witness, i.e., Rabban Gamliel deemed valid a bill of divorce that had the signature of one Samaritan witness, as even he would invalidate a bill of divorce that included the signatures of two Samaritans.,Rava said: Actually, you do not need to say that the case was concerning one Samaritan witness, as it indeed is referring to two Samaritans witnesses, and Rabban Gamliel disagrees with the opinion of the first tanna. And the mishna is incomplete and this is what it is teaching: And Rabban Gamliel deems valid a bill of divorce that contains the signatures of two Samaritans, and an incident occurred in which they brought a bill of divorce before Rabban Gamliel in the village of Otnai, and its witnesses were Samaritan witnesses, and he deemed it valid.,all documents produced in gentile courts, even though their signatures are those of gentiles they are all valid, except for bills of divorce and bills of manumission. Rabbi Shimon says: Even these are valid, as these two types of documents are mentioned only when they are prepared by a common person, not in court.,tanna categorically teaches a general halakha in the mishna, and it is no different if it is a document concerning a sale and it is no different if it is a document concerning a gift, the document is valid in both cases.,The Gemara asks: Granted, in the case of a sale this is reasonable, as from when the buyer gave money to the seller in the presence of the gentile judges he has acquired the property, since he has performed an act of acquisition. And the document is merely a proof for the acquisition. It must be that he already acquired the property in question, as if he had not given money in their presence the court would not act to its own detriment and write a document for him, as the document detailing the sale would not be accurate, and writing such a document would reflect poorly on them. Therefore, the document clearly serves as proof that the acquisition was performed in the correct manner.,However, with regard to a gift, by what means does the one who receives the gift acquire it from the giver? Is it not via this document? And yet this document is merely a shard, as a document written by gentiles is not considered a legal document according to halakha. Shmuel said: The law of the kingdom is the law, i.e., Jews must obey the laws of the state in which they live. Consequently, every form of property transfer accepted by local law is valid according to halakha as well.,And if you wish, say that one should emend the text of the mishna, and teach: They are all valid except for documents that are like bills of divorce. In other words, the distinction is between different types of documents: Documents that are meant to serve only as proof are valid even if they were produced in gentile courts, whereas documents that effect a legal act, such as bills of divorce, are invalid if they were written in a gentile court.,§ The mishna taught that Rabbi Shimon says: Even these bills of divorce and bills of manumission are valid if they were written in a gentile court and were signed by gentiles. The Gemara asks: How can Rabbi Shimon rule in this manner? But gentiles are not fit for this role, as they are not subject to the halakhot concerning scrolls of severance. Since the halakhot of marriage and divorce in the Torah are stated exclusively with regard to Jews, gentiles cannot serve in any capacity in cases of this kind.,Rabbi Zeira says: Rabbi Shimon follows the opinion of Rabbi Elazar, who says that the witnesses of the transmission of the bill of divorce effect the divorce. In other words, the signing of the bill of divorce is not essential to its effectiveness. Rather, the transfer of the bill of divorce completes the act of divorce, and therefore no attention is paid to who the signatories were.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: But doesn’t Rabbi Abba say that although he considers a bill of divorce valid even without the signature of witnesses, Rabbi Elazar concedes with regard to a document whose falsification is inherent in it that it is invalid despite the fact that it was properly transferred. In other words, notwithstanding the halakha that the signatures on a bill of divorce are unnecessary, a document that includes invalid signatures is thereby invalidated. The reason is that there is a concern that people will rely upon these witnesses. The Gemara answers: With what are we dealing here?'' None|
|75. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81
|72a והאידנא הוא דליוה פרסאי אמר ליה אביי לרב יוסף להא גיסא דפרת עד היכא אמר ליה מאי דעתיך משום בירם מייחסי דפומבדיתא מבירם נסבי,אמר רב פפא כמחלוקת ליוחסין כך מחלוקת לענין גיטין ורב יוסף אמר מחלוקת ליוחסין אבל לגיטין דברי הכל עד ארבא תניינא דגישרא,אמר רמי בר אבא חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא תכילתא דחביל ימא רבינא אמר אף ציצורא תניא נמי הכי חנן בן פנחס אומר חביל ימא תכילתא דבבל שוניא וגוביא וציצורא תכילתא דחביל ימא אמר רב פפא והאידנא איערבי בהו כותאי ולא היא איתתא הוא דבעא מינייהו ולא יהבו ליה מאי חביל ימא אמר רב פפא זו פרת דבורסי,ההוא גברא דאמר להו אנא מן שוט מישוט עמד רבי יצחק נפחא על רגליו ואמר שוט מישוט בין הנהרות עומדת וכי בין הנהרות עומדת מאי הוי אמר אביי אמר ר\' חמא בר עוקבא אמר רבי יוסי בר\' חנינא בין הנהרות הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין והיכא קיימא אמר ר\' יוחנן מאיהי דקירא ולעיל והא אמר רבי יוחנן עד מעברתא דגיזמא אמר אביי רצועה נפקא,אמר רב איקא בר אבין אמר רב חננאל אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין א"ל אביי לא תציתו ליה יבמה היא דנפלה ליה התם א"ל אטו דידי היא דרב חננאל היא אזיל שיילוה לרב חננאל אמר להו הכי אמר רב חלזון ניהוונד הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין,ופליגא דר\' אבא בר כהנא דאמר ר\' אבא בר כהנא מאי דכתיב (מלכים ב יח, יא) וינחם בחלח ובחבור נהר גוזן וערי מדי חלח זו חלזון חבור זו הדייב נהר גוזן זו גינזק ערי מדי זו חמדן וחברותיה ואמרי לה זו נהוונד וחברותיה,מאי חברותיה אמר שמואל כרך מושכי חוסקי ורומקי אמר רבי יוחנן וכולם לפסול קסלקא דעתא מושכי היינו מושכני והאמר ר\' חייא בר אבין אמר שמואל מושכני הרי היא כגולה ליוחסין אלא מושכי לחוד ומושכני לחוד,(דניאל ז, ה) ותלת עלעין בפומה בין שיניה אמר רבי יוחנן זו חלזון הדייב ונציבין שפעמים בולעתן ופעמים פולטתן,(דניאל ז, ה) וארו חיוא אחרי תנינא דמיה לדוב תני רב יוסף אלו פרסיים שאוכלין ושותין כדוב ומסורבלין כדוב ומגדלין שער כדוב ואין להם מנוחה כדוב ר\' אמי כי הוה חזי פרסא דרכיב אמר היינו דובא ניידא,א"ל רבי ללוי הראני פרסיים אמר ליה דומים לחיילות של בית דוד הראני חברין דומין למלאכי חבלה הראני ישמעאלים דומין לשעירים של בית הכסא הראני תלמידי חכמים שבבבל דומים למלאכי השרת,כי הוה ניחא נפשיה דרבי אמר הומניא איכא בבבל כולה עמונאי היא מסגריא איכא בבבל כולה דממזירא היא בירקא איכא בבבל שני אחים יש שמחליפים נשותיהם זה לזה בירתא דסטיא איכא בבבל היום סרו מאחרי המקום דאקפי פירא בכוורי בשבתא ואזיל וצדו בהו בשבתא ושמתינהו ר\' אחי ברבי יאשיה ואישתמוד אקרא דאגמא איכא בבבל אדא בר אהבה יש בה'' None||72a And it is only now that the Persians moved the bridge further up northward. Abaye said to Rav Yosef: Until where does the border extend on this western side of the Euphrates? Rav Yosef said to him: What are you thinking? Why do you ask? Is it due to the town of Biram? Even those of pure lineage who live in Pumbedita marry women from Biram, which demonstrates that the residents of Biram are presumed to have unflawed lineage.,Rav Pappa says: Just as there is a dispute between Rav and Shmuel as to the northern border of Babylonia with regard to lineage, so is there a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. An agent bringing a bill of divorce from a country overseas to Eretz Yisrael must state that it was written and signed in his presence. If he brought it from Babylonia, there is no requirement for him to state this. Rav Pappa is teaching that the borders that define Babylonia with regard to this issue are the same as the borders with regard to lineage. And Rav Yosef says: This dispute is with regard to lineage, but with regard to bills of divorce, everyone agrees that it is considered Babylonia up to the second lake of the bridge that Shmuel mentioned.,Rami bar Abba said: The province of Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia with regard to lineage; Shunya and Guvya are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Ravina said: The town of Tzitzora is also like Shunya and Guvya. This is also taught in a baraita: Ḥa ben Pineḥas says: Ḥaveil Yamma is the glory of Babylonia; Shunya and Guvya and Tzitzora are the glory of Ḥaveil Yamma. Rav Pappa says: And nowadays, Samaritans have assimilated with them, and their lineage is problematic. The Gemara comments: And that is not so. Rather, one Samaritan requested to marry a woman from them and they would not give her to him, which led to the rumor that Samaritans had assimilated with them. The Gemara asks: What is this region called Ḥaveil Yamma? Rav Pappa said: This is the area near the Euphrates adjacent to Bursi.,The Gemara relates: There was a certain man who said to the Sages: I am from a place called Shot Mishot. Rabbi Yitzḥak Nappaḥa stood on his feet and said: Shot Mishot is located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. The Gemara asks: And if it is located between the rivers, what of it? What halakha is this relevant for? Abaye said that Rabbi Ḥama bar Ukva says that Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: The area between the rivers is like the exile, meaning Pumbedita, with regard to lineage. The Gemara inquires: And where is the area between the rivers located for the purpose of this halakha? Rabbi Yoḥa said: From Ihi Dekira and upward, i.e., northward. The Gemara asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Until the crossing at Gizma but no further? Abaye said: A strip extends from that region past Ihi Dekira.,Rav Ika bar Avin says that Rav Ḥael says that Rav says: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage. Abaye said to them: Do not listen to Rav Ika bar Avin about this, as it was a yevama who fell before him from there to perform levirate marriage, and he said that its lineage was unflawed because he wished to marry her. Rav Ika bar Avin said to him: Is that to say that this halakha is mine? It is Rav Ḥael’s, and it is not reasonable to say that I was influenced by my own interests in stating it. They went and asked Rav Ḥael. He said to them: Rav said as follows: Ḥillazon Nihavnad is like the exile with regard to lineage.,The Gemara comments: And this disagrees with the statement of Rabbi Abba bar Kahana, as Rabbi Abba bar Kahana says: What is the meaning of that which is written with regard to the exile of the ten tribes of the kingdom of Israel: “And he put them in Halah, and in Habor, on the river of Gozan, and in the cities of the Medes” (II\xa0Kings 18:11)? Halah is Ḥillazon; Habor is Hadyav; the river of Gozan is Ginzak; the cities of the Medes are Ḥamadan and its neighboring towns, and some say: This is Nihavnad and its neighboring towns. Since the ten tribes assimilated with the gentiles, the lineage of Jews from those places is flawed, unlike that which was taught before.,The Gemara asks: What are the neighboring towns of Nihavnad? Shmuel said: The city of Mushekhei, Ḥosekei, and Rumekei. Rabbi Yoḥa says: And all of these are the same with regard to flawed lineage. It was assumed that Mushekhei is the same as Mushekanei. The Gemara therefore asks: But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin say that Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile with regard to lineage? Rather, it must be that Mushekhei is discrete, and Mushekanei is discrete.,In connection to the aforementioned places, the Gemara analyzes the following verse, describing a vision of a bear-like animal: “And it had three ribs in its mouth between its teeth” (Daniel 7:5). Rabbi Yoḥa says: This is Ḥillazon, Hadyav, and Netzivin, which the Persian government sometimes swallows and sometimes discharges. In other words, control over these places passed from the Persians to the Romans and back again several times.,The first part of that verse stated: “And behold a second beast, similar to a bear” (Daniel 7:5). Rav Yosef taught: These are Persians, who eat and drink copious amounts like a bear, and are corpulent like a bear, and grow hair like a bear, and have no rest like a bear, which is constantly on the move from one place to another. When Rabbi Ami saw a Persian riding, he would say: This is a bear on the move.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said to Levi: Show me Persians, i.e., describe a typical Persian to me. Levi said to him: They are similar to the legions of the house of David. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ḥabbarin, Persian priests. Levi said to him: They are similar to angels of destruction. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Ishmaelites. Levi said to him: They are similar to demons of an outhouse. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: Show me Torah scholars of Babylonia. Levi said to him: They are similar to ministering angels.,When Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was dying, he said prophetically: There is a place called Homanya in Babylonia, and all its people are the sons of Ammon. There is a place called Masgariya in Babylonia, and all its people are mamzerim. There is a place called Bireka in Babylonia, and there are two brothers there who exchange wives with each other, and their children are therefore mamzerim. There is a place called Bireta DeSatya in Babylonia. Today they turned away from the Omnipresent. What did they do? A ditch with fish overflowed, and they went and trapped the fish on Shabbat. Rabbi Aḥai, son of Rabbi Yoshiya, excommunicated them, and they all became apostates. There is a place called Akra DeAgma in Babylonia. There is a man named Adda bar Ahava there.'' None|
|76. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court(s) • Court, of Seventy-one (Great Sanhedrin) • Lawyers and legal system, Roman court system • Lawyers and legal system, adversarial and inquisitorial courts • Lawyers and legal system, rabbinic court system • Lieberman, Saul, on rabbinic courts • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian • courts, non-Jewish
Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 233, 236, 238; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 45; Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 81, 95; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 81, 95
|17a עמך עמך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה עמך משום שכינה,ורבנן אמר קרא (במדבר יא, יז) ונשאו אתך במשא העם אתך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה אתך בדומין לך,ורבנן (שמות יח, כב) מוהקל מעליך ונשאו אתך נפקא וילפא סנהדרי גדולה מסנהדרי קטנה,ת"ר (במדבר יא, כו) וישארו שני אנשים במחנה יש אומרים בקלפי נשתיירו,שבשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אמר משה כיצד אעשה אברור ששה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו שנים יתירים אברור חמשה חמשה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו עשרה חסרים אברור ששה משבט זה וחמשה משבט זה הריני מטיל קנאה בין השבטים,מה עשה בירר ששה ששה והביא שבעים ושנים פיתקין על שבעים כתב זקן ושנים הניח חלק בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להם בואו וטלו פיתקיכם כל מי שעלה בידו זקן אמר כבר קידשך שמים מי שעלה בידו חלק אמר המקום לא חפץ בך אני מה אעשה לך,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר ג, מז) ולקחת חמשת חמשת שקלים לגולגולת אמר משה כיצד אעשה להן לישראל אם אומר לו תן לי פדיונך וצא יאמר לי כבר פדאני בן לוי,מה עשה הביא עשרים ושנים אלפים פיתקין וכתב עליהן בן לוי ועל שלשה ושבעים ומאתים כתב עליהן חמשה שקלים בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להן טלו פיתקיכם מי שעלה בידו בן לוי אמר לו כבר פדאך בן לוי מי שעלה בידו חמשת שקלים אמר לו תן פדיונך וצא,רבי שמעון אומר במחנה נשתיירו בשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש אמרו אלדד ומידד אין אנו ראויין לאותה גדולה אמר הקב"ה הואיל ומיעטתם עצמכם הריני מוסיף גדולה על גדולתכם ומה גדולה הוסיף להם שהנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והם נתנבאו ולא פסקו,ומה נבואה נתנבאו אמרו משה מת יהושע מכניס את ישראל לארץ אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר על עסקי שליו הן מתנבאים עלי שליו עלי שליו,רב נחמן אמר על עסקי גוג ומגוג היו מתנבאין שנאמר (יחזקאל לח, ג) כה אמר ה\' אלהים האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד עבדי נביאי ישראל הנבאים בימים ההם שנים להביא אותך עליהם וגו\' אל תיקרי שנים אלא שנים ואיזו הן שנים נביאים שנתנבאו בפרק אחד נבואה אחת הוי אומר אלדד ומידד,אמר מר כל הנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והן נתנבאו ולא פסקו מנא לן דפסקו אילימא מדכתיב (במדבר יא, כה) ויתנבאו ולא יספו אלא מעתה (דברים ה, יח) קול גדול ולא יסף ה"נ דלא אוסיף הוא אלא דלא פסק הוא,אלא הכא כתיב ויתנבאו התם כתיב (במדבר יא, כז) מתנבאים עדיין מתנבאים והולכים,בשלמא למ"ד משה מת היינו דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח) אדוני משה כלאם אלא למ"ד הנך תרתי מאי אדני משה כלאם דלאו אורח ארעא דהוה ליה כתלמיד המורה הלכה לפני רבו,בשלמא למ"ד הנך תרתי היינו דכתיב מי יתן אלא למ"ד משה מת מינח הוה ניחא ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,מאי כלאם א"ל הטל עליהן צרכי ציבור והן כלין מאיליהן:,מניין להביא עוד שלשה:,סוף סוף לרעה ע"פ שנים לא משכחת לה אי אחד עשר מזכין ושנים עשר מחייבין אכתי חד הוא אי עשרה מזכין ושלשה עשר מחייבין תלתא הוו א"ר אבהו אי אתה מוצא אלא במוסיפין ודברי הכל ובסנהדרי גדולה ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר שבעים,וא"ר אבהו במוסיפין עושין ב"ד שקול לכתחילה פשיטא מהו דתימא האי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דאיתיה דמי ואי אמר מילתא שמעינן ליה קמ"ל דהאי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דליתיה דמי ואי אמר טעמא לא שמעינן ליה,אמר רב כהנא סנהדרי שראו כולן לחובה פוטרין אותו מ"ט כיון דגמירי הלנת דין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה,א"ר יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרי אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בע\' לשון שלא תהא סנהדרי שומעת מפי המתורגמן,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא מי שיודע לטהר את השרץ מה"ת אמר רב אני אדון ואטהרנו'25b קים לי בנפשאי דידענא טפי אבל תולה בדעת יונו אימא לא,ואי תנא תולה בדעת יונו דאמר בנקשא תליא מילתא ואנא ידענא לנקושי טפי אבל תולה בדעת עצמו אימא לא צריכא,מיתיבי המשחק בקוביא אלו הן המשחקים בפיספסים ולא בפיספסים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו קליפי אגוזים וקליפי רימונים,ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פיספסיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפילו בחנם לא עבדי,מלוה בריבית אחד המלוה ואחד הלוה ואימתי חזרתן משיקרעו את שטריהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה אפילו לנכרי לא מוזפי,ומפריחי יונים אלו שממרין את היונים ולא יונים בלבד אמרו אלא אפילו בהמה חיה ועוף ואימתי חזרתן משישברו את פגמיהן ויחזרו בהן חזרה גמורה דאפי\' במדבר נמי לא עבדי,סוחרי שביעית אלו שנושאין ונותנין בפירות שביעית ואימתי חזרתן משתגיע שביעית אחרת ויבדלו,וא"ר נחמיה לא חזרת דברים בלבד אמרו אלא חזרת ממון כיצד אומר אני פלוני בר פלוני כינסתי מאתים זוז בפירות שביעית והרי הן נתונין במתנה לעניים,קתני מיהת בהמה בשלמא למאן דאמר אי תקדמיה יונך ליון היינו דמשכחת לה בהמה אלא למ"ד ארא בהמה בת הכי היא,אין בשור הבר וכמאן דאמר שור הבר מין בהמה הוא דתנן שור הבר מין בהמה הוא רבי יוסי אומר מין חיה,תנא הוסיפו עליהן הגזלנין והחמסנין,גזלן דאורייתא הוא לא נצרכא אלא למציאת חרש שוטה וקטן,מעיקרא סבור מציאת חרש שוטה וקטן לא שכיחא אי נמי מפני דרכי שלום בעלמא כיון דחזו דסוף סוף ממונא הוא דקא שקלי פסלינהו רבנן,החמסנין מעיקרא סבור דמי קא יהיב אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא חטפי גזרו בהו רבנן,תנא עוד הוסיפו עליהן הרועים הגבאין והמוכסין,רועים מעיקרא סבור אקראי בעלמא הוא כיון דחזו דקא מכווני ושדו לכתחילה גזרו בהו רבנן: הגבאין והמוכסין מעיקרא סבור מאי דקיץ להו קא שקלי כיון דחזו דקא שקלי יתירא פסלינהו,אמר רבא רועה שאמרו אחד רועה בהמה דקה ואחד רועה בהמה גסה,ומי אמר רבא הכי והאמר רבא רועה בהמה דקה בא"י פסולין בחוצה לארץ כשרין רועה בהמה גסה אפילו בא"י כשרין ההוא במגדלים איתמר,ה"נ מסתברא מדקתני נאמנין עלי שלשה רועי בקר מאי לאו לעדות,לא לדינא דיקא נמי דקתני שלשה רועי בקר ואי לעדות שלשה למה לי,ואלא מאי לדינא מאי איריא שלשה רועי בקר כל בי תלתא דלא גמרי דינא נמי,הכי קאמר אפילו הני דלא שכיחי ביישוב,א"ר יהודה סתם רועה פסול סתם גבאי כשר,אבוה דר\' זירא עבד גביותא תליסר שנין כי הוה אתי ריש נהרא למתא כי הוה חזי רבנן א"ל (ישעיהו כו, כ) לך עמי בא בחדריך כי הוה חזי אינשי דמתא אמר ריש נהרא אתא למתא והאידנא נכיס אבא לפום ברא וברא לפום אבא 36b כי קאמר רב כגון רב כהנא ורב אסי דלגמריה דרב הוו צריכי ולסבריה דרב לא הוו צריכי,א"ר אבהו עשרה דברים יש בין דיני ממונות לדיני נפשות וכולן אין נוהגין בשור הנסקל חוץ מעשרים ושלשה,מנא הני מילי אמר רב אחא בר פפא דאמר קרא (שמות כג, ו) לא תטה משפט אביונך בריבו משפט אביונך אי אתה מטה אבל אתה מטה משפט של שור הנסקל,עשרה הא ט\' הוו הא עשרה קתני משום דאין הכל כשרין ועשרים ושלשה חדא היא,הא איכא אחריתי דתניא אין מושיבין בסנהדרין זקן וסריס ומי שאין לו בנים ר\' יהודה מוסיף אף אכזרי וחילופיהן במסית דרחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו:,הכל כשרין לדון דיני ממונות: הכל לאתויי מאי אמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר,הא תנינא חדא זימנא כל הראוי לדון דיני נפשות ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ויש ראוי לדון דיני ממונות ואין ראוי לדון דיני נפשות והוינן בה לאתויי מאי ואמר רב יהודה לאתויי ממזר חדא לאתויי גר וחדא לאתויי ממזר,וצריכ\' דאי אשמעינן גר דראוי לבא בקהל אבל ממזר אימא לא ואי אשמעינן ממזר דבא מטיפה כשרה אבל גר דלא בא מטיפה כשרה אימא לא צריכא:,ואין הכל כשרין לדון דיני נפשות: מאי טעמא דתני רב יוסף כשם שב"ד מנוקין בצדק כך מנוקין מכל מום אמר אמימר מאי קרא (שיר השירים ד, ז) כולך יפה רעיתי ומום אין בך,ודילמא מום ממש אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (במדבר יא, טז) והתיצבו שם עמך עמך בדומין לך,ודילמא התם משום שכינה אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר קרא (שמות יח, כב) ונשאו אתך אתך בדומין לך ליהוי:,98a מלכים יראו וקמו שרים וישתחוו,אמר לו רבי אליעזר והלא כבר נאמר (ירמיהו ד, א) אם תשוב ישראל נאום ה\' אלי תשוב אמר לו רבי יהושע והלא כבר נאמר (דניאל יב, ז) ואשמע את האיש לבוש הבדים אשר ממעל למימי היאור וירם ימינו ושמאלו אל השמים וישבע בחי העולם כי למועד מועדים וחצי וככלות נפץ יד עם קדש תכלינה כל אלה וגו\' ושתק רבי אליעזר,ואמר רבי אבא אין לך קץ מגולה מזה שנאמר (יחזקאל לו, ח) ואתם הרי ישראל ענפכם תתנו ופריכם תשאו לעמי ישראל וגו\' רבי (אליעזר) אומר אף מזה שנאמר (זכריה ח, י) כי לפני הימים (האלה) ההם שכר האדם לא נהיה ושכר הבהמה איננה וליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר,מאי ליוצא ולבא אין שלום מן הצר רב אמר אף תלמידי חכמים שכתוב בהם שלום דכתיב (תהלים קיט, קסה) שלום רב לאהבי תורתך אין שלום מפני צר ושמואל אמר עד שיהיו כל השערים כולן שקולין,אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיתבקש דג לחולה ולא ימצא שנאמר (יחזקאל לב, יד) אז אשקיע מימיהם ונהרותם כשמן אוליך וכתב (בתריה) (יחזקאל כט, כא) ביום ההוא אצמיח קרן לבית ישראל,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שתכלה מלכות הזלה מישראל שנאמר (ישעיהו יח, ה) וכרת הזלזלים במזמרות וכתיב בתריה בעת ההיא יובל שי לה\' צבאות עם ממשך ומורט,אמר זעירי אמר רבי חנינא אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו גסי הרוח מישראל שנאמר (צפניה ג, יא) כי אז אסיר מקרבך עליזי גאותך וכתיב (צפניה ג, יב) והשארתי בקרבך עם עני ודל וחסו בשם ה\',אמר רבי שמלאי משום רבי אלעזר בר"ש אין בן דוד בא עד שיכלו כל שופטים ושוטרים מישראל שנאמר (ישעיהו א, כה) ואשיבה ידי עליך ואצרוף כבור סיגיך וגו\' ואשיבה שופטיך,אמר עולא אין ירושלים נפדית אלא בצדקה שנאמר (ישעיהו א, כז) ציון במשפט תפדה ושביה בצדקה אמר רב פפא אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי אי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי אי בטלי יהירי בטלי אמגושי דכתיב (ישעיהו א, כה) ואצרוף כבור סיגיך ואסירה כל בדיליך ואי בטלי דייני בטלי גזירפטי דכתיב (צפניה ג, טו) הסיר ה\' משפטיך פנה אויבך,אמר ר\' יוחנן אם ראית דור שמתמעט והולך חכה לו שנאמר (שמואל ב כב, כח) ואת עם עני תושיע וגו\' אמר רבי יוחנן אם ראית דור שצרות רבות באות עליו כנהר חכה לו שנאמר (ישעיהו נט, יט) כי יבא כנהר צר (ו) רוח ה\' נוססה בו וסמיך ליה ובא לציון גואל,ואמר רבי יוחנן אין בן דוד בא אלא בדור שכולו זכאי או כולו חייב בדור שכולו זכאי דכתיב (ישעיהו ס, כא) ועמך כולם צדיקים לעולם יירשו ארץ בדור שכולו חייב דכתיב (ישעיהו נט, טז) וירא כי אין איש וישתומם כי אין מפגיע וכתיב (ישעיהו מח, יא) למעני אעשה,אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב (ישעיהו ס, כב) בעתה וכתיב אחישנה זכו אחישנה לא זכו בעתה,אמר רבי אלכסנדרי רבי יהושע בן לוי רמי כתיב (דניאל ז, יג) וארו עם ענני שמיא כבר אינש אתה וכתיב (זכריה ט, ט) עני ורוכב על חמור זכו עם ענני שמיא לא זכו עני רוכב על חמור,אמר ליה שבור מלכא לשמואל אמריתו משיח על חמרא אתי אישדר ליה סוסיא ברקא דאית לי אמר ליה מי אית לך בר חיור גווני,ר\' יהושע בן לוי אשכח לאליהו דהוי קיימי אפיתחא דמערתא דרבי שמעון בן יוחאי אמר ליה אתינא לעלמא דאתי אמר ליה אם ירצה אדון הזה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי שנים ראיתי וקול ג\' שמעתי,אמר ליה אימת אתי משיח אמר ליה זיל שייליה לדידיה והיכא יתיב אפיתחא דקרתא ומאי סימניה יתיב ביני עניי סובלי חלאים וכולן שרו ואסירי בחד זימנא איהו שרי חד ואסיר חד אמר דילמא מבעינא דלא איעכב,אזל לגביה אמר ליה שלום עליך רבי ומורי אמר ליה שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל לאימת אתי מר א"ל היום אתא לגבי אליהו א"ל מאי אמר לך א"ל שלום עליך בר ליואי א"ל אבטחך לך ולאבוך לעלמא דאתי א"ל שקורי קא שקר בי דאמר לי היום אתינא ולא אתא א"ל הכי אמר לך (תהלים צה, ז) היום אם בקולו תשמעו,שאלו תלמידיו את רבי יוסי בן קיסמא אימתי בן דוד בא אמר מתיירא אני שמא תבקשו ממני אות אמרו לו אין אנו מבקשין ממך אות,א"ל לכשיפול השער הזה ויבנה ויפול ויבנה ויפול ואין מספיקין לבנותו עד שבן דוד בא אמרו לו רבינו תן לנו אות אמר להם ולא כך אמרתם לי שאין אתם מבקשין ממני אות,אמרו לו ואף על פי כן אמר להם אם כך יהפכו מי מערת פמייס לדם ונהפכו לדם,בשעת פטירתו אמר להן העמיקו לי ארוני ' None||17a with you” (Numbers 11:16), i.e., they will stand “with you,” and you are to be counted with them, leading to a total number of seventy-one. And Rabbi Yehuda holds that the term “with you” is mentioned due to the Divine Presence that rested on Moses. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses was instructed to remain with the seventy Elders in order for the Divine Presence to rest upon them as well. He was not formally part of their court and therefore the number of Sages on the Great Sanhedrin is seventy.,The Gemara asks: And how would the Rabbis respond to this line of reasoning? The Gemara answers: The verse states: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates: “With you,” and you are to be counted with them. And how would Rabbi Yehuda respond to that? He would explain that the term “with you” means similar to you, meaning, that the Elders appointed to the court had to be of fit lineage and free of blemish, like Moses.,And from where do the Rabbis derive that halakha? They derive it from what was stated with regard to the appointment of the ministers of thousands and the ministers of hundreds: “And they shall make it easier for you, and bear the burden with you” (Exodus 18:22), understanding the term “with you” to mean: Similar to you. And the halakha of the judges of the Great Sanhedrin of seventy is derived from the halakha of the judges of the lesser Sanhedrin, i.e., those ministers, that Moses appointed.,§ Apropos the appointment of the Elders by Moses, the Gemara discusses additional aspects of that event. There were seventy-two candidates for Elder but only seventy were needed. They were chosen by lots with their names put into a box. The Sages taught: The verse states: “And there remained two men in the camp; the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad, and the spirit rested upon them, and they were among those who were written but who did not go out to the tent, and they prophesied in the camp” (Numbers 11:26). Where did they remain? Some say this means they, i.e., their names, remained excluded from those selected from the lots in the box.,The baraita explains: At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: “Gather for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel” (Numbers 11:16), Moses said: How shall I do it? If I select six from each and every tribe, there will be a total of seventy-two, which will be two extra. But if I select five from each and every tribe, there will be a total of sixty, lacking ten. And if I select six from this tribe and five from that tribe, I will bring about envy between the tribes, as those with fewer representatives will resent the others.,What did he do? He selected six from every tribe and he brought seventy-two slips pitakin. On seventy of them he wrote: Elder, and he left two of them blank. He mixed them and placed them in the box. He then said to the seventy-two chosen candidates: Come and draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Elder, he said to him: Heaven has already sanctified you. And everyone whose hand drew up a blank slip, he said to him: The Omnipresent does not desire you; what can I do for you?,The Gemara comments: You can say something similar to this to explain the verse about the redemption of the firstborn by the Levites: “Take the Levites in place of all of the firstborn of the children of Israel…and as for the redemption of the 273 of the firstborn of the children of Israel who are in excess over the number of the Levites…you shall take five shekels per head” (Numbers 3:45–47). It can be explained that Moses said: How shall I do this for the Jews? If I say to one of the firstborns: Give me money for your redemption and you may leave, as you are among the 273 extra firstborns, he will say to me: A Levite already redeemed me; what is the reason you think that I am among those who were not redeemed?,What did he do? He brought 22,000 slips (see Numbers 3:39), and he wrote on them: Levite, and on 273 additional ones he wrote: Five shekels. He mixed them up and placed them in a box. He said to them: Draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Levite, he said to him: A Levite already redeemed you. Everyone whose hand drew up a slip that said: Five shekels, he said to him: Pay your redemption money and you may leave.,Rabbi Shimon says: Eldad and Medad remained in the camp, as they did not want to come to the lottery for the Elders. At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Gather for me seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad said: We are not fitting for that level of greatness; we are not worthy of being appointed among the Elders. The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Since you have made yourselves humble, I will add greatness to your greatness. And what is the greatness that he added to them? It was that all of the prophets, meaning the other Elders, who were given prophecy, prophesied for a time and then stopped prophesying, but they prophesied and did not stop.,Apropos Eldad and Medad being prophets, the Gemara asks: And what prophecy did they prophesy? They said: Moses will die, and Joshua will bring the Jewish people into Eretz Yisrael. Abba Ḥanin says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: They prophesied about the matter of the quail that came afterward (Numbers 11:31–33), saying: Arise quail, arise quail, and then the quail came.,Rav Naḥman says: They were prophesying about the matter of Gog and Magog, as it is stated with regard to Gog and Magog: “So says the Lord God: Are you the one of whom I spoke in ancient days, through my servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years shanim that I would bring you against them?” (Ezekiel 38:17). Do not read it as: “Years shanim”; rather, read it as: Two shenayim. And who are the two prophets who prophesied the same prophecy at the same time? You must say: Eldad and Medad.,The Master says: The baraita said: All of the prophets prophesied and then stopped, but Eldad and Medad prophesied and did not stop. The Gemara asks: From where do we derive that the other prophets stopped prophesying? If we say it is from that which is written about them: “And they prophesied but they did so no more velo yasafu” (Numbers 11:25), that is difficult: But if that is so, then concerning that which is stated in relation to the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly…with a great voice, and it went on no more velo yasaf” (Deuteronomy 5:19), so too shall it be understood that the great voice did not continue? Rather, the intention there is that it did not stop, interpreting the word yasafu as related to sof, meaning: End. Consequently, with regard to the seventy Elders as well, the word can be interpreted to mean that they did not stop prophesying.,Rather, the proof is as follows: It is written here with regard to the seventy Elders: “They prophesied” (Numbers 11:25), and it is written there: “Eldad and Medad are prophesying in the camp” (Numbers 11:27), from which it can be derived that they were continuously prophesying.,With regard to the content of Eldad and Medad’s prophecy, the Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says their prophecy was that Moses will die, this is the reason for that which is written there: “And Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of Moses from his youth, answered and said: My master Moses, imprison them” (Numbers 11:28), as their prophecy appeared to be a rebellion against Moses. But according to the one who says those other two opinions with regard to the content of the prophecy, according to which their prophecy had no connection to Moses, what is the reason that Joshua said: “My master Moses, imprison them”? The Gemara answers: He said this because it is not proper conduct for them to prophesy publicly in close proximity to Moses, as by doing so they are like a student who teaches a halakha in his teacher’s presence, which is inappropriate.,The Gemara asks: Granted, according to the one who says those other two opinions, this is the reason for that which is written: “And Moses said to him: Are you jealous for my sake? Would that all of the Lord’s people were prophets” (Numbers 11:29). But according to the one who says that Eldad and Medad prophesied that Moses will die and Joshua will bring Israel into the land, would it have been satisfactory to Moses that all of the people of God would utter similar prophecies? The Gemara answers: They did not conclude it before him. Moses was not aware of what they had said, but only that they were prophesying.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: “Imprison them kela’em”? The Gemara answers: Joshua said to him: Place responsibility for the needs of the public upon them, so that they will be occupied like the other Elders of Israel and they will cease kalin prophesying, on their own. Due to the burden of public responsibility they would not be able to be prophets.,§ The mishna derives the halakha that there are twenty-three judges on a lesser Sanhedrin from the verses: “And the congregation shall judge,” and: “And the congregation shall save” (Numbers 35:24–25). The mishna understands that the term “congregation” is referring to ten judges, so that the two congregations, one in each verse, total twenty judges. The mishna then asks: From where is it derived to bring three more judges to the court? The mishna answers: The implication of the verse: “You shall not follow a multitude to convict” (Exodus 23:2), is that your inclination after a majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after a majority to convict, and a conviction must be by a majority of two.,The Gemara objects: Ultimately, you do not find an occurrence of the inclination for evil according to a majority of two judges. If eleven judges vote to acquit the defendant and twelve vote to convict, this is still only a majority of one, and if ten vote to acquit and thirteen vote to convict, they are a majority of three. With a court of twenty-three judges, there is no possible way to convict with a majority of two. Rabbi Abbahu says: You do not find such a scenario except in a case where they add two additional judges because one of the judges abstained from the deliberation, the other judges are split in their decisions, and the two added judges both vote to convict. And this is a possibility according to all tanna’im, and in a case tried by the Great Sanhedrin according to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, who says there are seventy judges on the Great Sanhedrin. With an even number, it is possible to have a majority of two.,And Rabbi Abbahu says: When they add additional judges, they create a court consisting of an even number of judges ab initio. The Gemara asks: Isn’t that obvious? What is the novelty in Rabbi Abbahu’s statement? The Gemara answers: Lest you say: This judge who says: I do not know, is viewed as one who is still there, and if he says something afterward, we listen to him and include him in the count, so there are actually an odd number of judges on the court; therefore, Rabbi Abbahu teaches us that this judge who says: I do not know, is viewed as one who is not still there, and if he says a reason to rule in a certain manner afterward, we do not listen to him. Consequently, the court consists of an even number of judges.,§ Rav Kahana says: In a Sanhedrin where all the judges saw fit to convict the defendant in a case of capital law, they acquit him. The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning for this halakha? It is since it is learned as a tradition that suspension of the trial overnight is necessary in order to create a possibility of acquittal. The halakha is that they may not issue the guilty verdict on the same day the evidence was heard, as perhaps over the course of the night one of the judges will think of a reason to acquit the defendant. And as those judges all saw fit to convict him they will not see any further possibility to acquit him, because there will not be anyone arguing for such a verdict. Consequently, he cannot be convicted.,§ Rabbi Yoḥa says: They place on the Great Sanhedrin only men of high stature, and of wisdom, and of pleasant appearance, and of suitable age so that they will be respected. And they must also be masters of sorcery, i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, and they must know all seventy languages in order that the Sanhedrin will not need to hear testimony from the mouth of a translator in a case where a witness speaks a different language.,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: They place on the Sanhedrin only one who knows how to render a carcass of a creeping animal pure by Torah law. The judges on the Sanhedrin must be so skilled at logical reasoning that they could even produce a convincing argument that creeping animals, which the Torah states explicitly are ritually impure, are actually pure. Rav said: I will discuss the halakha of the creeping animal and render it pure, i.e., I am able to demonstrate how it is possible to construct such a proof:'25b I am certain of myself that I know better than my competitor how to win. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as he is aware that he cannot guarantee the results and therefore resolves to transfer the money if he loses.,And conversely, had the mishna taught this halakha only with regard to one who makes it dependent on the decision of his pigeon, one might assume that only this type of gambler is disqualified, as he presumably says: The matter, i.e., the race, is determined by knocking on trees and other objects to speed up the pigeons, and I know how to knock better than my opponent. Therefore, he does not resolve to transfer the money if he loses. But with regard to one who makes it dependent on his own decision, say that he is not disqualified from bearing witness, as the roll of the dice is pure chance. Therefore, it is necessary for the mishna to teach both cases.,The Gemara raises an objection to the opinion that the expression: Those who fly pigeons, refers to an ara, from a baraita: With regard to the expression one who plays with dice, these are ones who play with pispasim, which are dice of marble or other types of stone. But the Sages did not mean to say that only one who plays with pispasim is disqualified from bearing witness, but rather even one who plays with nutshells or pomegranate shells is disqualified.,And when is their repentance accepted, so that they may resume being fit to bear witness? Once they break their pispasim and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even for nothing, i.e., they do not play even without betting.,The baraita continues: The expression: One who lends with interest, is referring to both the lender and the borrower. Both are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they tear their promissory notes and repent of them completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not lend with interest even to a gentile.,The expression: And those who fly pigeons, is referring to those who induce the pigeons to behave in this manner, i.e., they train them. And the Sages did not mean to say that only those who fly pigeons are disqualified; rather, even those who do this with a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or any type of bird are disqualified. And when is their repentance accepted? Once they break their fixtures pigmeihen upon which they stand the competing animals, and repent completely, abandoning this occupation entirely, where they do not do this even in the wilderness, where there is no one from whom to steal.,The expression: Merchants who trade in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, is referring to those who do business with the produce of the Sabbatical Year. And when is their repentance accepted? Once another Sabbatical Year occurs and they refrain from selling its produce or from assuming ownership of such produce.,The baraita continues: And Rabbi Neḥemya said: The Sages did not say that verbal repentance alone is sufficient for a merchant who traded in the produce of the Sabbatical Year to be reinstated as a valid witness; rather, returning the money is also necessary. How can one return the money he gained from selling produce of the Sabbatical Year? He says: I, so-and-so the son of so-and-so, gathered, i.e., profited, two hundred dinars from trading in the produce of the Sabbatical Year, and as I gained it improperly, this sum is hereby given as a gift to the poor.,The Gemara explains the objection: In any event, it is taught in the baraita that the status of one who flies pigeons applies to one who uses a domesticated animal in the same manner. Granted, according to the one who says that the term: One who flies pigeons, is referring to those who race pigeons, saying: If your pigeon reaches a certain destination before my pigeon I will give you such and such an amount of money, this is how you find a parallel case of one who races a domesticated animal against another animal. But according to the one who says that the term pigeon flyer means an ara, is a domesticated animal capable of luring other domesticated animals?,The Gemara answers: Yes, the baraita states this with regard to the wild ox, which can be lured away from its owner’s property because it is not a completely domesticated animal. And the baraita states this according to the one who says that the wild ox is a species of domesticated animal, as we learned in a mishna (Kilayim 8:6): The wild ox is a species of domesticated animal. But Rabbi Yosei says: It is a species of undomesticated animal.,§ It was taught in a baraita: The Sages added the robbers and those who force transactions, i.e., who compel others to sell to them, to the list of those who are disqualified from bearing witness.,The Gemara asks: A robber is disqualified by Torah law; why is it necessary for the Sages to add such an individual to the list? The Gemara answers: It is necessary only to add one who steals an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, who acquire those items by rabbinic law only (see Gittin 59b). Since these people are not considered halakhically competent, by Torah law they do not acquire an item that they find, and consequently one who steals such an item from them is not in violation of a prohibition by Torah law.,One possibility is that taking such an item is prohibited by rabbinic law because it constitutes robbery. Nevertheless, initially the Sages did not disqualify such an individual from bearing witness, as they assumed that the case of an item found by a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor is uncommon. Therefore, it was not deemed necessary to disqualify one who robs them of such an item. Alternatively, the Sages may have reasoned that taking such an item is prohibited merely on account of the ways of peace, i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy, and is not considered actual robbery. When they realized that ultimately these people were taking property from others and were likely to perform actual robbery, the Sages disqualified them.,Similarly, with regard to those who force transactions, initially the Sages did not disqualify them, as they assumed that their behavior could be excused for two reasons: They would pay money for the items they took, and their forcing transactions was merely occasional; it was not a common practice. When they realized that these people were snatching items regularly, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness.,§ It is taught in a baraita: The Sages further added the following to the list of those disqualified from bearing witness: The shepherds, who shepherd their animals in the fields of others and are therefore considered like robbers; the collectors of government taxes, who collect more than the amount that people are legally liable to pay; and the customs officials, who collect customs in an illegal manner.,The Gemara explains: Shepherds were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed it was merely incidental that they would let their animals graze in the fields of others. When they realized that they would intentionally send the animals to the fields of others from the outset, the Sages issued a decree that they are disqualified from bearing witness. The collectors of taxes and the customs officials were not disqualified at first, as the Sages initially assumed they would take the set amount they were instructed to take. When they realized that these officials were taking more than that, they disqualified them.,Rava says: The shepherd that the Sages said is disqualified from bearing witness is referring to both a shepherd of small livestock and a herder of large livestock.,The Gemara asks: And does Rava say this? But doesn’t Rava say: Shepherds of small livestock in Eretz Yisrael are disqualified from bearing witness, as besides grazing in others’ fields they also ruin the land? Outside of Eretz Yisrael they are fit to bear witness. By contrast, herders of large livestock, even in Eretz Yisrael, are fit to bear witness. The Gemara answers: That was stated with regard to those who raise their animals on their own land, without herding them on land in the public domain.,The Gemara suggests a proof for Rava’s opinion that a herder of large livestock is also disqualified: This too stands to reason, from the fact that the mishna (24a) teaches that a litigant may state: Three cattle herders are trusted for me in court; by inference, cattle herders are generally disqualified. What, is it not with regard to bearing witness that cattle herders are disqualified, in accordance with Rava’s statement?,The Gemara rejects this proof: No, it is with regard to sitting in judgment. The Gemara comments: The language of the mishna is also precise according to this interpretation, as it teaches: Three cattle herders are trusted for me. And if it is with regard to bearing witness, why do I need three witnesses? Two are enough.,The Gemara asks: But rather, with regard to what are cattle herders disqualified? If it is with regard to sitting in judgment, why does the mishna mention specifically three cattle herders? Any three people who did not study halakha are also disqualified from serving as a court.,The Gemara answers: This is what the mishna is saying: The litigants can accept as judges even those cattle herders who dwell in the fields and do not frequent the settled area, and are therefore not proficient in the ways of business.,Rav Yehuda says: An ordinary shepherd is disqualified from bearing witness unless the court recognizes him as one who does not let his animals graze in the fields of others. An ordinary tax collector is fit unless the court determines he is one who collects more than people are obligated to pay.,The Gemara relates a story about a tax collector: The father of Rabbi Zeira collected taxes for thirteen years. When the head tax collector of the river region would come to the city, Rabbi Zeira’s father would prepare the residents ahead of time. When he would see the rabbis, he would say to them as a hint: “Come, my people, enter into your chambers, and shut your doors behind you; hide yourself for a little moment until the indignation has passed” (Isaiah 26:20). He said this so that the head tax collector would not see the rabbis, and it would be possible to lower the taxes of the city. When he would see the ordinary people of the city, he would say to them: Beware, as the head tax collector of the river region is coming to the city, and will now slaughter the father, i.e., take one’s money, before the son, and the son before the father. 36b The Gemara answers: When Rav says his statement, he is referring to not every student, but only those such as Rav Kahana and Rav Asi, who needed to learn the halakhic traditions of Rav, but they did not need to learn the reasoning of Rav, as they were capable of conducting their own analysis.,Rabbi Abbahu says: There are ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law, as was taught in the beginning of the chapter, and none of them is practiced with regard to a court hearing concerning an ox that is to be stoned, as it is treated as a case of monetary law, except for the requirement that the animal be judged by twenty-three judges, like in cases of capital law.,The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? Rav Aḥa bar Pappa says: As the verse states: “You shall not incline the judgment of your poor in his cause” (Exodus 23:6). He explains: You may not incline the judgment of, i.e., exert effort to find liable, your poor, but you may incline the judgment of an ox that is to be stoned. The reason for the procedural differences between cases of monetary law and cases of capital law is to render it more likely that one accused of a capital transgression will be acquitted. This is not a factor when judging the ox.,The Gemara asks: Are there really ten ways in which cases of monetary law are different from cases of capital law? There are only nine differences recorded in the mishna. The Gemara questions this: But the mishna teaches ten differences, not nine. The Gemara clarifies: Although there appear to be ten, there are in fact nine, because the halakha that not all are fit to judge cases of capital law and the halakha that twenty-three judges are required for cases of capital law are one. The reason not all are fit to judge cases of capital law is that the court of twenty-three is derived from the command to Moses: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” (Numbers 11:17), which indicates that only those “with you,” i.e., similar in lineage to Moses, can serve on that court (see 17a).,The Gemara answers: But there is another difference, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta 7:5): The court does not seat on the Sanhedrin a very old person or one who is castrated or one who has no children, as those who did not recently raise children may lack compassion. Rabbi Yehuda adds: Even a cruel person is not eligible. The Gemara comments: And the opposite of this is the halakha with regard to one who entices others to engage in idol worship, as the Merciful One states concerning him: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9).,§ The mishna teaches that all are fit to judge cases of monetary law. The Gemara asks: What is added by the mishna’s employing the expansive term all? Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a child born from an incestuous or adulterous relationship mamzer in the category of those qualified to judge cases of monetary law.,The Gemara questions this explanation: But we already learn this halakha one time, as it is taught in a baraita: All who are fit to judge cases of capital law are fit to judge cases of monetary law, but there are those who are fit to judge cases of monetary law and are not fit to judge cases of capital law. And we discussed it: What is included in the expansive term all employed by the baraita? And Rav Yehuda says: It serves to include a mamzer. The Gemara responds: One of the two sources serves to include a convert, who is qualified to judge only in cases of monetary law, and one of the two sources serves to include a mamzer.,The Gemara comments: And both the mishna and baraita are necessary, as the halakha taught by one source cannot be derived from the halakha taught by the other source. As, if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a convert, one could say that a convert is like a born Jew concerning this, since he is fit to enter into the congregation, i.e., marry a Jew of fit lineage, but with regard to a mamzer, who is not fit to enter into the congregation, say that he cannot serve as a judge. And if the tanna taught us the fitness to judge cases of monetary law only with regard to a mamzer, one could say that a mamzer is fit to judge, as he came from seed of unflawed lineage, but with regard to a convert, who does not come from seed of unflawed lineage, say that he cannot serve as a judge. Therefore, both sources are necessary.,§ The mishna teaches: But not all are fit to judge cases of capital law; the judges may be only priests, Levites, or Israelites who are of sufficiently fit lineage to marry their daughters to members of the priesthood. The Gemara asks: What is the reason for this? The Gemara explains: As Rav Yosef taught: Just as the court is clean in justice, so too, it is clean of any blemish, i.e., it does not include anyone of flawed lineage. Ameimar says: What is the verse from which it is derived? It states: “You are all fair, my love; and there is no blemish in you” (Song of Songs 4:7).,The Gemara asks: But perhaps you should say that this is referring to an actual blemish, and is teaching that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: It is not necessary to learn from this verse the halakha that one who has a physical blemish cannot be appointed to the Sanhedrin, as the verse states in connection with the transfer of the Divine Spirit from Moses to the Elders: “That they may stand there with you” (Numbers 11:16). The term “with you” is explained to mean: With similarity to you, teaching that the members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, like Moses.,The Gemara rejects this proof: But perhaps there, those who were with Moses had to be free of any blemish due to the Divine Presence, which was going to rest upon them, but this is not a requirement for judges to serve on the Sanhedrin. Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: The verse states: “So shall they make it easier for you and bear the burden with you” (Exodus 18:22). The term “with you” is explained to mean: They shall be similar to you, without blemish. This verse is referring to the appointment of regular judges, upon whom the Divine Presence does not rest, and teaches that all members of the Sanhedrin must be whole in body, and the verse from Song of Songs teaches that they must have unflawed lineage as well.,A Sanhedrin of twenty-three was arranged in the same layout as half of a circular threshing floor, in order that all the judges will see one another and the witnesses. And two judges’ scribes stand before the court, one on the right and one on the left, and they write the statements of those who find the accused liable and the statements of those who acquit the accused. Rabbi Yehuda says: There were three scribes. One writes only the statements of those who acquit the accused, one writes only the statements of those who find him liable, and the third writes both the statements of those who acquit the accused and the statements of those who find him liable, so that if there is uncertainty concerning the precise wording that one of the scribes writes, it can be compared to the words of the third scribe. 98a Kings shall see and arise, princes shall prostrate themselves, because of the Lord, Who is faithful, and the Holy One of Israel, Who has chosen you” (Isaiah 49:7), indicating that redemption will come independent of repentance?,Rabbi Eliezer said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “If you will return, Israel, says the Lord, return to Me” (Jeremiah 4:1), indicating that redemption is contingent upon repentance? Rabbi Yehoshua said to him: But isn’t it already stated: “And I heard the man clothed in linen, who was above the waters of the river, when he lifted up his right hand and his left hand to heaven and swore by the One Who lives forever that it shall be for a period, periods, and a half; when the crushing of the power of the holy people shall have been completed, all these things shall be finished” (Daniel 12:7), indicating that the time for redemption is set and unrelated to repentance? And Rabbi Eliezer was silent, unable to refute the proof from that verse.,§ And Rabbi Abba says: You have no more explicit manifestation of the end of days than this following phenomenon, as it is stated: “But you, mountains of Israel, you shall give your branches, and yield your fruit to My people of Israel, for they will soon be coming” (Ezekiel 36:8). When produce will grow in abundance in Eretz Yisrael, it is an indication that the Messiah will be coming soon. Rabbi Eliezer says: You have no greater manifestation of the end of days than this following phenomenon as well, as it is stated: “For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast; nor was there peace from the oppressor to him who exits and to him who enters” (Zechariah 8:10). When there are no wages for work and no rent paid for use of one’s animal, that is an indication that the coming of the Messiah is at hand.,The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the phrase: “Nor was there peace from the oppressor to him who exits and to him who enters”? Rav says: It means that even for Torah scholars, with regard to whom the promise of peace is written, as it is written: “Great peace have they who love Your Torah; and there is no obstacle for them” (Psalms 119:165), there will be no peace from the oppressor. And Shmuel says: It means that the Messiah will not come until all the prices are equal.,Rabbi Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until a fish will be sought for an ill person and will not be found, as it is stated with regard to the downfall of Egypt: “Then I will make their waters clear and cause their rivers to run like oil” (Ezekiel 32:14), meaning that the current in the rivers will come to a virtual standstill. And it is written thereafter: “On that day I will cause the glory of the house of Israel to flourish” (Ezekiel 29:21).,Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until the contemptuous hazalla kingdom of Rome will cease from the Jewish people, as it is stated: “And He shall sever the sprigs hazalzallim with pruning hooks” (Isaiah 18:5). And it is written thereafter: “At that time shall a present be brought to the Lord of hosts, by a people scattered and hairless” (Isaiah 18:7).,Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: The son of David will not come until the arrogant will cease to exist from among the Jewish people, as it is stated: “For then I will remove from your midst your proudly exulting ones” (Zephaniah 3:11), and it is written afterward: “And I will leave in your midst a poor and lowly people, and they shall take refuge in the name of the Lord” (Zephaniah 3:12).,Rabbi Simlai says in the name of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon: The son of David will not come until all the judges and officers will cease to exist from among the Jewish people, and there will be no more autonomous government in Eretz Yisrael, as it is stated: “And I will turn My hand against you and purge away your dross as with lye and take away your base alloy. And I will restore your judges as at the first” (Isaiah 1:25–26).,Ulla says: Jerusalem is redeemed only by means of righteousness, as it is stated: “Zion shall be redeemed with justice and those who return to it with righteousness” (Isaiah 1:27). Rav Pappa says: If the arrogant will cease to exist, the Persian sorcerers will cease to exist as well. If the deceitful judges will cease to exist, the royal officers gazirpatei and taskmasters will cease to exist. Rav Pappa elaborates: If the arrogant will cease, the Persian sorcerers will cease, as it is written: “And I will purge away your dross sigayikh as with lye, and I will remove all your alloy bedilayikh.” When the arrogant sigim are purged, the sorcerers, who are separated muvdalim from the fear of God, will also cease. And if the deceitful judges cease to exist, the royal officers and taskmasters will cease to exist, as it is written: “The Lord has removed your judgments; cast out your enemy” (Zephaniah 3:15).,Rabbi Yoḥa says: If you saw a generation whose wisdom and Torah study is steadily diminishing, await the coming of the Messiah, as it is stated: “And the afflicted people You will redeem” (II\xa0Samuel 22:28). Rabbi Yoḥa says: If you saw a generation whose troubles inundate it like a river, await the coming of the Messiah, as it is stated: “When distress will come like a river that the breath of the Lord drives” (Isaiah 59:19). And juxtaposed to it is the verse: “And a redeemer will come to Zion” (Isaiah 59:20).,And Rabbi Yoḥa says: The son of David will come only in a generation that is entirely innocent, in which case they will be deserving of redemption, or in a generation that is entirely guilty, in which case there will be no alternative to redemption. He may come in a generation that is entirely innocent, as it is written: “And your people also shall be all righteous; they shall inherit the land forever” (Isaiah 60:21). He may come in a generation that is entirely guilty, as it is written: “And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no intercessor; therefore His arm brought salvation to Him, and His righteousness, it sustained Him” (Isaiah 59:16). And it is written: “For My own sake, for My own sake will I do it; for how should it be profaned? And My glory I will not give it to another” (Isaiah 48:11).,§ Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction in a verse addressing God’s commitment to redeem the Jewish people. In the verse: “I the Lord in its time I will hasten it” (Isaiah 60:22), it is written: “In its time,” indicating that there is a designated time for the redemption, and it is written: “I will hasten it,” indicating that there is no set time for the redemption. Rabbi Alexandri explains: If they merit redemption through repentance and good deeds I will hasten the coming of the Messiah. If they do not merit redemption, the coming of the Messiah will be in its designated time.,Rabbi Alexandri says: Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi raises a contradiction between two depictions of the coming of the Messiah. It is written: “There came with the clouds of heaven, one like unto a son of man…and there was given him dominion and glory and a kingdom…his dominion is an everlasting dominion” (Daniel 7:13–14). And it is written: “Behold, your king will come to you; he is just and victorious; lowly and riding upon a donkey and upon a colt, the foal of a donkey” (Zechariah 9:9). Rabbi Alexandri explains: If the Jewish people merit redemption, the Messiah will come in a miraculous manner with the clouds of heaven. If they do not merit redemption, the Messiah will come lowly and riding upon a donkey.,King Shapur of Persia said to Shmuel mockingly: You say that the Messiah will come on a donkey; I will send him the riding barka horse that I have. Shmuel said to him: Do you have a horse with one thousand colors bar ḥivar gavanei like the donkey of the Messiah? Certainly his donkey will be miraculous.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi found Elijah the prophet, who was standing at the entrance of the burial cave of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: Will I be privileged to come to the World-to-Come? Elijah said to him: If this Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, will wish it so. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: Two I saw, Elijah and me, and the voice of three I heard, as the Divine Presence was also there, and it was in reference to Him that Elijah said: If this Master will wish it so.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: When will the Messiah come? Elijah said to him: Go ask him. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked: And where is he sitting? Elijah said to him: At the entrance of the city of Rome. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi asked him: And what is his identifying sign by means of which I can recognize him? Elijah answered: He sits among the poor who suffer from illnesses. And all of them untie their bandages and tie them all at once, but the Messiah unties one bandage and ties one at a time. He says: Perhaps I will be needed to serve to bring about the redemption. Therefore, I will never tie more than one bandage, so that I will not be delayed.,Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi went to the Messiah. He said to the Messiah: Greetings to you, my rabbi and my teacher. The Messiah said to him: Greetings to you, bar Leva’i. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to him: When will the Master come? The Messiah said to him: Today. Sometime later, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi came to Elijah. Elijah said to him: What did the Messiah say to you? He said to Elijah that the Messiah said: Greetings shalom to you, bar Leva’i. Elijah said to him: He thereby guaranteed that you and your father will enter the World-to-Come, as he greeted you with shalom. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said to Elijah: The Messiah lied to me, as he said to me: I am coming today, and he did not come. Elijah said to him that this is what he said to you: He said that he will come “today, if you will listen to his voice” (Psalms 95:7).,§ Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma’s students asked him: When will the son of David come? Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said: I am hesitant to answer you, lest you request from me a sign to corroborate my statement. They said to him: We are not asking you for a sign.,Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: You will see when this existing gate of Rome falls and will be rebuilt, and will fall a second time and will be rebuilt, and will fall a third time. And they will not manage to rebuild it until the son of David comes. The students said to him: Our rabbi, give us a sign. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: But didn’t you say to me that you are not asking me for a sign?,They said to him: And nevertheless, provide us with a sign. Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to them: If it is as I say, the water of the Cave of Pamyas will be transformed into blood. The Gemara relates: And it was transformed into blood.,At the time of his death, Rabbi Yosei ben Kisma said to his students: Place my coffin deep in the ground, ' None|
|77. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • courts, exilarchic • courts, exilarchic, Persian
Found in books: Secunda (2014), The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context. 98; Secunda (2020), The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context , 97, 98
|34b ועדים רואין אותו מבחוץ מאי,א"ל רב המנונא והלה מה טוען אי אמר לא היו דברים מעולם הוחזק כפרן אי אמר אין שקלי ודידי שקלי כי אתו עדים מאי הוי א"ל המנונא את עול תא,ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה אתו תרי סהדי אסהידו ביה דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"ל הוחזק כפרן,מתקיף לה ר"נ האי דינא פרסאה הוא מי קאמר מעולם בעסק זה קא"ל,איכא דאמרי ההוא דא"ל לחבריה מנה מניתי לך בצד עמוד זה א"ל לא עברתי בצד עמוד זה מעולם נפקו ביה סהדי דהשתין מים בצד עמוד זה אמר ר"נ הוחזק כפרן,א"ל רבא לר"נ כל מילתא דלא רמיא עליה דאיניש עביד לה ולאו אדעתיה:,ר"ש אומר חייב כאן וחייב בפקדון כו\':,מחכו עלה במערבא מאי חוכא,דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מושבע מפי עצמו בעדות לר"ש מנא ליה דגמר מפקדון פקדון נמי מושבע מפי אחרים נגמר מעדות,ומאי חוכא דלמא ר"ש בק"ו מייתי לה מפי אחרים חייב מפי עצמו לא כל שכן,אלא חוכא אמזיד כשוגג דקתני מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,מכדי מזיד גבי עדות מנא ליה דלא כתיב ביה ונעלם ה"נ לא כתיב ביה ונעלם,אמר להו רב הונא ומאי חוכא דלמא מזיד דלאו כשוגג בפקדון ממעילה ר"ש גמר לה,והיינו חוכא אדגמר לה ממעילה נגמר לה מעדות,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה ממעילה,אדרבה מעדות הוה ליה למילף שכן תחטא מתחטא,מסתברא ממעילה הוה ליה למילף שכן מעילה בכל נהנה בקבוע חומש ואשם,אדרבה מעדות ה"ל למילף שכן חטא הדיוט בשבועה תבעיה וכפריה ואואין הנך נפישין,אלא מאי חוכא,כי אתא רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע מבי רב אמרי היינו חוכא מכדי ר"ש ג"ש גמיר למה ליה דפריך מה לפקדון שכן לא עשה בו מושבע כנשבע מזיד כשוגג,ומאי חוכא דלמא כי פריך מקמי דתיקום ליה ג"ש בתר דקמא ליה ג"ש לא פריך,ולא והאמר להו רבא בר איתי לרבנן מאן תנא שבועת הפקדון לא ניתן זדונה לכפרה ר"ש היא,דלמא מזיד כשוגג פריך דגמר לה ממעילה דהנך נפישין אבל מושבע כנשבע לא פריך,ותהדר עדות ותגמר לה מפקדון מזיד דלאו כשוגג מה פקדון שוגג אין מזיד לא אף עדות שוגג אין מזיד לא כי היכי דיליף פקדון ממעילה'' None||34b and witnesses see him counting the money from outside, what is the halakha? Is their testimony accepted?,Rav Hamnuna said to Rav Yehuda: And what does the other person claim in response to the demand for repayment? If he says: These matters never happened, he assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him. If he says: Yes, I took money from him, but it is my money that I took, then when the witnesses come and testify that they saw the claimant counting the money and giving it to him, what of it? The testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his claim, as the witnesses do not know the circumstances under which the money changed hands. Rav Yehuda said to him: Are you Hamnuna? Enter and come into the study hall, as you make your teacher wiser.,The Gemara relates a similar incident: There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I did not pass alongside this column. Two witnesses came and testified about him that they saw that he urinated alongside this column. Reish Lakish said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the testimony of witnesses proves that he passed alongside the column.,Rav Naḥman objects to this: That is a ruling characteristic of a Persian court, not a reasonable ruling characteristic of a Jewish court. Did the respondent say that he never passed alongside the column? It was that he did not pass alongside the column in the context of this matter that he said to him that he did not pass the column; therefore, the testimony of the witnesses does not contradict his statement.,There are those who say that the incident transpired a bit differently. There was a certain individual who said to another: I counted for you and gave you one hundred dinars as a loan alongside this column. The other person said to him in response: I never passed alongside this column. Witnesses emerged and testified concerning him that he urinated alongside this column. Rav Naḥman said: He assumes the presumptive status of a denier of the truth, as the witnesses contradicted his claim.,Rava said to Rav Naḥman: There is no proof from here that he assumes the presumptive status of a denier, as any matter that is not incumbent upon a person to remember, he performs it and it is not on his mind. Therefore, when he denied ever passing alongside the column, it was because there was never any reason for him to remember that he had been there.,§ The Gemara proceeds to cite the opinion cited last in the baraita explaining the source of the halakha that one is liable for taking a false oath of testimony only for a case involving monetary matters. Rabbi Shimon says: The Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath here, with regard to an oath of testimony, and the Torah rendered one liable if he takes a false oath with regard to an oath on a deposit; just as there, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims, so too here, the verse is speaking of liability only in cases involving monetary claims.,They mocked this proof in the West, i.e., Eretz Yisrael. The Gemara asked: What is worthy of mockery in the statement of Rabbi Shimon?,The Gemara explains that they mocked that which the baraita teaches in the continuation, rejecting the a fortiori inference suggested by Rabbi Shimon: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,This rejection is difficult: Now, with regard to the fact that one who administered an oath to himself is liable in the case of an oath of testimony, from where is it derived according to Rabbi Shimon? Rabbi Shimon derives it by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit. If so, based on the same verbal analogy, in the case of an oath on a deposit too, let us derive from the case of an oath of testimony the fact that one is liable for a false oath that was administered by others.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps Rabbi Shimon does not derive that one who takes a false oath of testimony on his own is liable by means of a verbal analogy from an oath on a deposit; rather, he derives it by means of an a fortiori inference: If one is liable for a false oath of testimony administered by others, is it not all the more so that he is liable for an oath that he takes on his own?,The Gemara answers: Rather, the mockery is with regard to the distinction between an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony in the matter of whether the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, as it teaches in the baraita: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath.,Now, from where does he derive that one who takes an intentional false oath of testimony is liable? He derives it as it is not written in the context of an oath of testimony: And it is hidden. Here too, it is not written in the context of an oath on a deposit: And it is hidden. Therefore, there should be no distinction between intentional and unwitting with regard to an oath on a deposit either.,Rav Huna said to the Sages: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps the fact that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath in the case of a deposit, and it is from the halakhot of misuse of consecrated property that Rabbi Shimon derived it. Just as one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for the misuse of consecrated property only if he did so unwittingly, one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for a false oath on a deposit only if he unwittingly took the false oath.,The Gemara answers: And that is what is worthy of mockery. Instead of deriving the lack of liability for an intentional false oath of deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property, let him derive liability for an intentional false oath on a deposit from the case of an oath of testimony.,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that he should have derived it from the case of misuse of consecrated property, as that is a derivation of misuse written with regard to an oath on a deposit: “If any one shall sin and commits an act of misuse and dealt falsely with his colleague in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21), which is derived from misuse written with regard to misuse of consecrated property: “If any one commits an act of misuse and sinned unwittingly from items consecrated to the Lord” (Leviticus 5:15).,The Gemara asks: On the contrary, he should have derived it from the case of an oath of testimony, as that is a derivation of “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit which is derived from “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony: “And if any one shall sin and he hears the voice of an oath, and he is a witness” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara rejects this: It stands to reason that it is from the case of misuse of consecrated property that he should have derived it, as there are many elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property represented by the mnemonic: Misuse, with regard to all, derive benefit, with fixed, one-fifth, and guilt-offering. The term misuse is employed in both cases. Both cases are relevant with regard to all individuals and not only those fit to testify. Both involve one deriving benefit from property that is not his. In both cases, one is liable to bring a fixed guilt-offering, as opposed to one who takes a false oath of testimony, who is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. In both cases, one adds one-fifth to the payment of the principal. In both cases, that is the offering with which one gains atonement.,The Gemara rejects this: On the contrary, he should have derived the halakha with regard to an oath on a deposit from the halakha of an oath of testimony, as there are many elements common to both oaths represented by the mnemonic: Sin, ordinary hedyot, with an oath, claimed from him, denied his claim, and multiple instances of the term “or.” The term “shall sin” is written in both contexts. Both oaths relate to the property of ordinary individuals, not to consecrated property. In both cases there is a claim presented by one of the parties and denial of that claim by the one taking the oath. Multiple instances of the term “or” appear in both passages in the Torah. The Gemara responds: These elements common to an oath on a deposit and misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony.,Rather, after resolving all the difficulties that were raised against the opinion of Rabbi Shimon, the question remains: What did the Sages of Eretz Yisrael find that is worthy of mockery in that baraita?,When Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, came from the study hall of their teacher, they said: This is what is worthy of mockery: Now, since ultimately Rabbi Shimon derives the halakha by means of a verbal analogy between the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath on a deposit and the term “shall sin” written with regard to an oath of testimony, why is it that he refutes the parallel between them by saying: What is notable about the case of a deposit? It is notable in that with regard to a deposit the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others like that of one who himself took an oath, as one to whom an oath was administered by others is exempt; and the Torah did not render the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Rabbi Shimon should have derived by means of the verbal analogy that all the halakhot of an oath of testimony and all the halakhot of an oath on a deposit are identical.,The Gemara rejects this: And what is worthy of mockery in that statement? Perhaps when Rabbi Shimon refuted the parallel between the two oaths, it was prior to the verbal analogy being established for him, and the derivation was by means of a paradigm. After the verbal analogy was established for him, he does not refute the parallel and holds that in the case of an oath on a deposit one is liable to bring a guilt-offering for false oaths administered by others as well as for intentional false oaths.,The Gemara asks: And does Rabbi Shimon not refute the parallel between the two oaths? But didn’t Rava bar Ittai say to the Sages: Who is the tanna who taught with regard to an oath on a deposit that atonement by means of an offering is not possible for one who takes an intentional false oath? It is Rabbi Shimon. Apparently, Rabbi Shimon concludes that there remains a distinction between intentional and unwitting in the case of an oath on a deposit.,The Gemara suggests: Perhaps with regard to the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath being like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath, Rabbi Shimon refutes the parallel between the two oaths even after the verbal analogy is established for him, as he derives the halakha of an oath on a deposit from the halakha of misuse of consecrated property, where there is a distinction between intentional and unwitting, as those elements common to an oath on a deposit and the misuse of consecrated property are more numerous than the elements common to an oath on a deposit and an oath of testimony. But he does not refute the parallel between the two oaths with the claim that there is a distinction between them with regard to whether the halakhic status of one to whom an oath was administered by others is like that of one who himself took an oath. Once the verbal analogy was established for him, there is no longer a distinction between the two oaths in that regard.,The Gemara asks: If, according to Rabbi Shimon, based on the derivation from the misuse of consecrated property, one who intentionally takes a false oath on a deposit does not bring a guilt-offering like one who took the false oath unwittingly, let the discussion of the case of an oath of testimony return to the verbal analogy and derive it from the case of an oath on a deposit that the halakhic status of one who takes an intentional false oath is not like that of one who takes an unwitting false oath. Just as in the case of an oath on a deposit, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a guilt-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, so too, in the case of an oath of testimony, one who takes an unwitting false oath, yes, he is liable to bring a sin-offering, and one who takes an intentional false oath, no, he is not liable, just as he derives the case of an oath on a deposit from the case of misuse of consecrated property.'' None|
|78. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Law, Jewish (courts, Jewish legal) • Womens Court
Found in books: Levine (2005), The Ancient Synagogue, The First Thousand Years, 504; Salvesen et al. (2020), Israel in Egypt: The Land of Egypt as Concept and Reality for Jews in Antiquity and the Early Medieval Period, 635
|51b באבוקות של אור שבידיהן ואומרים לפניהם דברי שירות ותושבחות והלוים בכנורות ובנבלים ובמצלתים ובחצוצרות ובכלי שיר בלא מספר על חמש עשרה מעלות היורדות מעזרת ישראל לעזרת נשים כנגד חמש עשרה (מעלות) שבתהלים שעליהן לוים עומדין בכלי שיר ואומרים שירה,ועמדו שני כהנים בשער העליון שיורד מעזרת ישראל לעזרת נשים ושני חצוצרות בידיהן קרא הגבר תקעו והריעו ותקעו הגיעו למעלה עשירית תקעו והריעו ותקעו הגיעו לעזרה תקעו והריעו ותקעו,(הגיעו לקרקע תקעו והריעו ותקעו) היו תוקעין והולכין עד שמגיעין לשער היוצא ממזרח הגיעו לשער היוצא ממזרח הפכו פניהן ממזרח למערב ואמרו אבותינו שהיו במקום הזה אחוריהם אל ההיכל ופניהם קדמה ומשתחוים קדמה לשמש ואנו ליה עינינו ר\' יהודה אומר היו שונין ואומרין אנו ליה וליה עינינו:,||51b with flaming torches that they would juggle in their hands, and they would say before them passages of song and praise to God. And the Levites would play on lyres, harps, cymbals, and trumpets, and countless other musical instruments. The musicians would stand on the fifteen stairs that descend from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, corresponding to the fifteen Songs of the Ascents in Psalms, i.e., chapters 120–134, and upon which the Levites stand with musical instruments and recite their song.,And this was the ceremony of the Water Libation: Two priests stood at the Upper Gate that descends from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, with two trumpets in their hands. When the rooster crowed at dawn, they sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia. When they who would draw the water reached the tenth stair the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia, to indicate that the time to draw water from the Siloam pool had arrived. When they reached the Women’s Courtyard with the basins of water in their hands, the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia.,When they reached the ground of the Women’s Courtyard, the trumpeters sounded a tekia, and sounded a terua, and sounded a tekia. They continued sounding the trumpets until they reached the gate through which one exits to the east, from the Women’s Courtyard to the eastern slope of the Temple Mount. When they reached the gate through which one exits to the east, they turned from facing east to facing west, toward the Holy of Holies, and said: Our ancestors who were in this place during the First Temple period who did not conduct themselves appropriately, stood “with their backs toward the Sanctuary of the Lord, and their faces toward the east; and they worshipped the sun toward the east” (Ezekiel 8:16), and we, our eyes are to God. Rabbi Yehuda says that they would repeat and say: We are to God, and our eyes are to God.,The Sages taught: One who did not see the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, never saw celebration in his life. One who did not see Jerusalem in its glory, never saw a beautiful city. One who did not see the Temple in its constructed state, never saw a magnificent structure. The Gemara asks: What is the Temple building to which the Sages refer? Abaye said, and some say that it was Rav Ḥisda who said: This is referring to the magnificent building of Herod, who renovated the Second Temple.,The Gemara asks: With what materials did he construct it? Rava said: It was with stones of green-gray marble and white marble marmara. Some say: It was with stones of blue marble and white marble. The rows of stones were set with one row slightly protruded and one row slightly indented, so that the plaster would take better. He thought to plate the Temple with gold, but the Sages said to him: Leave it as is, and do not plate it, as it is better this way, as with the different colors and the staggered arrangement of the rows of stones, it has the appearance of waves of the sea.,It is taught in a baraita that Rabbi Yehuda says: One who did not see the great synagogue deyofloston of Alexandria of Egypt never saw the glory of Israel. They said that its structure was like a large basilica basileki, with a colonnade within a colonnade. At times there were six hundred thousand men and another six hundred thousand men in it, twice the number of those who left Egypt. In it there were seventy-one golden chairs katedraot, corresponding to the seventy-one members of the Great Sanhedrin, each of which consisted of no less than twenty-one thousand talents of gold. And there was a wooden platform at the center. The sexton of the synagogue would stand on it, with the scarves in his hand. And because the synagogue was so large and the people could not hear the communal prayer, when the prayer leader reached the conclusion of a blessing requiring the people to answer amen, the sexton waved the scarf and all the people would answer amen.,And the members of the various crafts would not sit mingled. Rather, the goldsmiths would sit among themselves, and the silversmiths among themselves, and the blacksmiths among themselves, and the coppersmiths among themselves, and the weavers among themselves. And when a poor stranger entered there, he would recognize people who plied his craft, and he would turn to join them there. And from there he would secure his livelihood as well as the livelihood of the members of his household, as his colleagues would find him work in that craft.,After depicting the glory of the synagogue, the Gemara relates that Abaye said: All of the people who congregated in that synagogue were killed by Alexander the Great of Macedonia. The Gemara asks: What is the reason that they were punished and killed? It is due to the fact that they violated the prohibition with regard to Egypt in this verse: “You shall henceforth return no more that way” (Deuteronomy 17:16), and they returned. Since they established their permanent place of residence in Egypt, they were punished.,When Alexander arrived, he found them, and saw that they were reading the verse in the Torah scroll: “The Lord will bring a nation against you from far, from the end of the earth, as the vulture swoops down; a nation whose tongue you shall not understand” (Deuteronomy 28:49). He said, referring to himself: Now, since that man sought to come by ship in ten days, and a wind carried it and the ship arrived in only five days, apparently the verse referring a vulture swooping down is referring to me and heavenly forces are assisting me. Immediately, he set upon them and slaughtered them.,§ The mishna continues: At the conclusion of the first Festival day, etc., the priests and the Levites descended from the Israelites’ courtyard to the Women’s Courtyard, where they would introduce a significant repair. The Gemara asks: What is this significant repair? Rabbi Elazar said that it is like that which we learned: The walls of the Women’s Courtyard were smooth, without protrusions, initially. Subsequently, they affixed protrusions to the wall surrounding the Women’s Courtyard. Each year thereafter, for the Celebration of the Place of the Drawing of the Water, they placed wooden planks on these projections and surrounded the courtyard with a balcony gezuztra. And they instituted that the women should sit above and the men below.,The Sages taught in the Tosefta: Initially, women would stand on the inside of the Women’s Courtyard, closer to the Sanctuary to the west, and the men were on the outside in the courtyard and on the rampart. And they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity in each other’s company, as the men needed to enter closer to the altar when the offerings were being sacrificed and as a result they would mingle with the women. Therefore, the Sages instituted that the women should sit on the outside and the men on the inside, and still they would come to conduct themselves with inappropriate levity. Therefore, they instituted in the interest of complete separation that the women would sit above and the men below.,The Gemara asks: How could one do so, i.e., alter the structure of the Temple? But isn’t it written with regard to the Temple: “All this I give you in writing, as the Lord has made me wise by His hand upon me, even all the works of this pattern” (I Chronicles 28:19), meaning that all the structural plans of the Temple were divinely inspired; how could the Sages institute changes?,Rav said: They found a verse, and interpreted it homiletically and acted accordingly:'' None|
|79. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Babylonian “mini-tractate of conversion” (immersion and conversion), fourth (conversion court / witnesses) • Court, of Three • Rabbi Yehudah ha-Nasi, conversion court in second-century Palestine • conversion court, Rabbi Yehudah and the • conversion court, Rav Sheshet and the • conversion court, conversion at night and • conversion court, fourth baraita (conversion court / witnesses) • conversion court, invention of • conversion court, requirements of
Found in books: Lavee (2017), The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity, 50, 51, 244, 264, 265, 266, 280, 281, 283; Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84
|47a אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין תלמוד לומר אתך בכל מקום שאתך אם כן מה ת"ל בארץ בארץ צריך להביא ראיה בח"ל אין צריך להביא ראיה דברי ר\' יהודה וחכמים אומרים בין בארץ בין בחוצה לארץ צריך להביא ראיה,בא הוא ועדיו עמו קרא למה לי אמר רב ששת דאמרי שמענו שנתגייר בב"ד של פלוני סד"א לא ליהמנייהו קמ"ל,בארץ אין לי אלא בארץ בח"ל מנין ת"ל אתך בכל מקום שאתך והא אפיקתיה חדא מאתך וחדא מעמך,וחכ"א בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה ואלא הא כתיב בארץ,ההוא מיבעי ליה דאפילו בארץ מקבלים גרים דסד"א משום טיבותא דארץ ישראל קמגיירי והשתא נמי דליכא טיבותא איכא לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני קמ"ל,א"ר חייא בר אבא אמר ר\' יוחנן הלכה בין בארץ בין בח"ל צריך להביא ראיה פשיטא יחיד ורבים הלכה כרבים מהו דתימא מסתבר טעמא דרבי יהודה דקמסייעי ליה קראי קמ"ל,ת"ר (דברים א, טז) ושפטתם צדק בין איש ובין אחיו ובין גרו מכאן א"ר יהודה גר שנתגייר בב"ד הרי זה גר בינו לבין עצמו אינו גר,מעשה באחד שבא לפני רבי יהודה ואמר לו נתגיירתי ביני לבין עצמי א"ל רבי יהודה יש לך עדים אמר ליה לאו יש לך בנים א"ל הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול את עצמך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול את בניך,ומי א"ר יהודה אבנים לא מהימן והתניא (דברים כא, יז) יכיר יכירנו לאחרים מכאן א"ר יהודה נאמן אדם לומר זה בני בכור וכשם שנאמן לומר זה בני בכור כך נאמן לומר בני זה בן גרושה הוא או בן חלוצה הוא וחכ"א אינו נאמן,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק ה"ק ליה לדבריך עובד כוכבים אתה ואין עדות לעובד כוכבים רבינא אמר הכי קאמר ליה יש לך בנים הן יש לך בני בנים הן א"ל נאמן אתה לפסול בניך ואי אתה נאמן לפסול בני בניך,תניא נמי הכי ר\' יהודה אומר נאמן אדם לומר על בנו קטן ואין נאמן על בנו גדול ואמר ר\' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לא קטן קטן ממש ולא גדול גדול ממש אלא קטן ויש לו בנים זהו גדול גדול ואין לו בנים זהו קטן,והלכתא כוותיה דרב נחמן בר יצחק והתניא כוותיה דרבינא ההוא לענין יכיר איתמר,תנו רבנן גר שבא להתגייר בזמן הזה אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר אי אתה יודע שישראל בזמן הזה דוויים דחופים סחופים ומטורפין ויסורין באין עליהם אם אומר יודע אני ואיני כדאי מקבלין אותו מיד,ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות ומודיעין אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני ומודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות אומרים לו הוי יודע שעד שלא באת למדה זו אכלת חלב אי אתה ענוש כרת חללת שבת אי אתה ענוש סקילה ועכשיו אכלת חלב ענוש כרת חללת שבת ענוש סקילה,וכשם שמודיעין אותו ענשן של מצות כך מודיעין אותו מתן שכרן אומרים לו הוי יודע שהעולם הבא אינו עשוי אלא לצדיקים וישראל בזמן הזה אינם יכולים לקבל'47b לא רוב טובה ולא רוב פורענות ואין מרבין עליו ואין מדקדקין עליו,קיבל מלין אותו מיד נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין את המילה חוזרים ומלין אותו שניה נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו ומודיעין אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו,אשה נשים מושיבות אותה במים עד צוארה ושני ת"ח עומדים לה מבחוץ ומודיעין אותה מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר ובמקום שנדה טובלת שם גר ועבד משוחרר טובלין וכל דבר שחוצץ בטבילה חוצץ בגר ובעבד משוחרר ובנדה,אמר מר גר שבא להתגייר אומרים לו מה ראית שבאת להתגייר ומודיעים אותו מקצת מצות קלות ומקצת מצות חמורות מ"ט דאי פריש נפרוש דא"ר חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת דכתיב (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב:,ומודיעים אותו עון לקט שכחה ופאה ומעשר עני: מ"ט א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן בן נח נהרג על פחות משוה פרוטה ולא ניתן להשבון,(ומודיעים אותו עון שכחה ופאה): ואין מרבים עליו ואין מדקדקים עליו: אמר רבי אלעזר מאי קראה דכתיב (רות א, יח) ותרא כי מתאמצת היא ללכת אתה ותחדל לדבר אליה,אמרה לה אסיר לן תחום שבת (רות א, טז) באשר תלכי אלך אסיר לן יחוד (רות א, טז) באשר תליני אלין,מפקדינן שש מאות וי"ג מצות (רות א, טז) עמך עמי אסיר לן עבודת כוכבים (רות א, טז) ואלהיך אלהי ארבע מיתות נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) באשר תמותי אמות ב\' קברים נמסרו לב"ד (רות א, יז) ושם אקבר,מיד ותרא כי מתאמצת היא וגו\':,קיבל מלין אותו מיד: מ"ט שהויי מצוה לא משהינן:,נשתיירו בו ציצין המעכבין המילה וכו\': כדתנן אלו הן ציצין המעכבין המילה בשר החופה את רוב העטרה ואינו אוכל בתרומה וא"ר ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב בשר החופה רוב גובהה של עטרה:,נתרפא מטבילין אותו מיד: נתרפא אין לא נתרפא לא מאי טעמא משום דמיא מרזו מכה:,ושני ת"ח עומדים על גביו: והא א"ר חייא א"ר יוחנן גר צריך שלשה הא א"ר יוחנן לתנא תני שלשה:,טבל ועלה הרי הוא כישראל לכל דבריו: למאי הלכתא דאי הדר ביה ומקדש בת ישראל ישראל מומר קרינא ביה וקידושיו קידושין:,אחד גר ואחד עבד משוחרר: קסלקא דעתך לקבל עליו עול מצות ורמינהו במה דברים אמורים בגר אבל בעבד משוחרר אין צריך לקבל,אמר רב ששת לא קשיא הא ר"ש בן אלעזר הא רבנן,דתניא (דברים כא, יג) ובכתה את אביה ואת אמה וגו\' בד"א שלא קבלה עליה אבל קבלה עליה מטבילה ומותר בה מיד,ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר אע"פ שלא קבלה עליה כופה ומטבילה לשם שפחות וחוזר ומטבילה לשם שחרור ומשחררה ' None||47a I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states “with you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: In the land? This indicates that in Eretz Yisrael he needs to bring evidence that he is a convert, but outside of Eretz Yisrael he does not need to bring evidence that he is a convert; rather, his claim is accepted. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita: In the case when he came and brought witnesses to his conversion with him, why do I need a verse to teach that he is accepted? In all cases, the testimony of witnesses is fully relied upon. Rav Sheshet said: The case is where they say: We heard that he converted in the court of so-and-so, but they did not witness the actual conversion. And it is necessary to teach this because it could enter your mind to say that they should not be relied upon; therefore, the verse teaches us that they are relied upon.,As cited above, the latter clause of the baraita states: “With you in your land” (Leviticus 19:33). I have derived only that a convert is accepted in Eretz Yisrael; from where do I derive that also outside of Eretz Yisrael he is to be accepted? The verse states: “With you,” which indicates that in any place that he is with you, you should accept him. The Gemara asks: But didn’t you already expound that phrase in the first clause of the baraita to teach that one doesn’t accept the claims of an individual that he is a valid convert? The Gemara explains: One of these halakhot is derived from the phrase “with you” in the verse cited, and the other one is derived from the phrase “with you” in a subsequent verse (Leviticus 25:35).,The baraita states: And the Rabbis say: Whether he is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence. The Gemara asks: But isn’t “in your land” written in the verse? How can the Rabbis deny any distinction between the halakha inside and outside of Eretz Yisrael?,The Gemara explains: That phrase is necessary to teach that even in Eretz Yisrael, the Jewish people should accept converts, as it could enter your mind to say that it is only for the sake of benefiting from the goodness of Eretz Yisrael, and not for the sake of Heaven, that they are converting, and therefore they should not be accepted. And it could also enter your mind to say that even nowadays, when God’s blessing has ceased and there is no longer the original goodness from which to benefit, one should still suspect their purity of motives because there are the gleanings, the forgotten sheaves, and the corners of fields, and the poor man’s tithe from which they would benefit by converting. Therefore, the verse teaches us that they are accepted even in Eretz Yisrael.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The halakha is that whether a convert is in Eretz Yisrael or whether he is outside of Eretz Yisrael, he needs to bring evidence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious; in all disputes between an individual Sage and many Sages the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of the many Sages. The Gemara explains: It is necessary to state this lest you say that Rabbi Yehuda’s reason is more logical, being that the verse supports him when it states: “In your land.” Therefore, it is necessary for Rabbi Yoḥa to teach us that the halakha is not in accordance with his opinion.,The Sages taught: The verse states that Moses charged the judges of a court: “And judge righteously between a man and his brother, and the convert with him” (Deuteronomy 1:16). From here, based on the mention of a convert in the context of judgment in a court, Rabbi Yehuda said: A potential convert who converts in a court is a valid convert. However, if he converts in private, he is not a convert.,The Gemara relates: There was an incident involving one who was presumed to be Jewish who came before Rabbi Yehuda and said to him: I converted in private, and therefore I am not actually Jewish. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Do you have witnesses to support your claim? He said to him: No. Rabbi Yehuda asked: Do you have children? He said to him: Yes. Rabbi Yehuda said to him: You are deemed credible in order to render yourself unfit to marry a Jewish woman by claiming that you are a gentile, but you are not deemed credible in order to render your children unfit.,The Gemara asks: But did Rabbi Yehuda actually say that with regard to his children he is not deemed credible? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The verse states: “He shall acknowledge yakir the firstborn, the son of the hated, by giving him a double portion of all that he has” (Deuteronomy 21:17). The phrase “he shall acknowledge” is apparently superfluous. It is therefore expounded to teach that the father is deemed credible so that he can identify him yakirenu to others. From here Rabbi Yehuda said: A man is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, and just as he is deemed credible to say: This is my firstborn son, so too, a priest is deemed credible to say: This son of mine is a son of a divorced woman and myself, or to say: He is a son of a ḥalutza and myself, and therefore he is disqualified due to flawed lineage ḥalal. And the Rabbis say: He is not deemed credible. If Rabbi Yehuda holds that a father is deemed credible to render his children unfit, why did he rule otherwise in the case of the convert?,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said that this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to him: According to your statement you are a gentile, and there is no testimony for a gentile, as a gentile is a disqualified witness. Consequently, you cannot testify about the status of your children and render them unfit. Ravina said that this is what Rabbi Yehuda said to him: Do you have children? He said: Yes. He said to him: Do you have grandchildren? He said: Yes. He said to him: You are deemed credible in order to render your children unfit, based on the phrase “he shall acknowledge,” but you are not deemed credible in order to render your grandchildren unfit, as the verse affords a father credibility only with respect to his children.,This opinion of Ravina is also taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda says: A man is deemed credible to say about his minor son that he is unfit, but he is not deemed credible to say about his adult son that he is unfit. And in explanation of the baraita, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: The reference to a minor son does not mean one who is literally a minor, who has not yet reached majority, and the reference to an adult son does not mean one who is literally an adult, who has reached majority; rather, a minor who has children, this is what the baraita is referring to as an adult, and an adult who does not have children, this is what the baraita is referring to as a minor.,The Gemara concludes: And the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak. The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in the baraita in accordance with the opinion of Ravina? If there is a baraita that supports his opinion, the halakha should be in accordance with his opinion. The Gemara explains: That baraita was stated concerning the matter of “he shall acknowledge,” that a father is deemed credible to render his son unfit; however, if one claims he is a gentile, he is not deemed credible to say the same about his son.,§ The Sages taught in a baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, at the present time, when the Jews are in exile, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? Don’t you know that the Jewish people at the present time are anguished, suppressed, despised, and harassed, and hardships are frequently visited upon them? If he says: I know, and although I am unworthy of joining the Jewish people and sharing in their sorrow, I nevertheless desire to do so, then the court accepts him immediately to begin the conversion process.,And the judges of the court inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot, and they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. And they inform him of the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, as follows: They say to him: Be aware that before you came to this status and converted, had you eaten forbidden fat, you would not be punished by karet, and had you profaned Shabbat, you would not be punished by stoning, since these prohibitions do not apply to gentiles. But now, once converted, if you have eaten forbidden fat you are punished by karet, and if you have profaned Shabbat, you are punished by stoning.,And just as they inform him about the punishment for transgressing the mitzvot, so too, they inform him about the reward granted for fulfilling them. They say to him: Be aware that the World-to-Come is made only for the righteous, and if you observe the mitzvot you will merit it, and be aware that the Jewish people, at the present time, are unable to receive their full reward in this world;'47b they are not able to receive either an abundance of good nor an abundance of calamities, since the primary place for reward and punishment is in the World-to-Come. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot.,If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, they circumcise him again a second time to remove them. When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately, and two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion and inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. Once he has immersed and emerged, he is like a born Jew in every sense.,For the immersion of a woman: Women appointed by the court seat her in the water of the ritual bath up to her neck, and two Torah scholars stand outside the bath house so as not to compromise her modesty, and from there they inform her of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot.,The procedure applies for both a convert and an emancipated slave who, upon immersion at the time of his emancipation, becomes a Jew in every sense. And in the same place that a menstruating woman immerses, i.e., in a ritual bath of forty se’a of water, there a convert and an emancipated slave also immerse. And anything that interposes between one’s body and the water of the ritual bath with regard to immersion of a ritually impure person, in a manner that would invalidate the immersion, also interposes and invalidates the immersion for a convert, and for an emancipated slave, and for a menstruating woman.,The Gemara analyzes the baraita. The Master said in the baraita: With regard to a potential convert who comes to a court in order to convert, the judges of the court say to him: What did you see that motivated you to come to convert? And they inform him of some of the lenient mitzvot and some of the stringent mitzvot. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to say this to him? It is so that if he is going to withdraw from the conversion process, let him withdraw already at this stage. He should not be convinced to continue, as Rabbi Ḥelbo said: Converts are as harmful to the Jewish people as a leprous scab sappaḥat on the skin, as it is written: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave venispeḥu to the house of Jacob” (Isaiah 14:1). This alludes to the fact that the cleaving of the convert to the Jewish people is like a scab.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field, and about the poor man’s tithe. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to specifically mention these mitzvot? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Because a gentile is executed even on account of stealing less than the value of a peruta, since gentiles are particular about even such a small loss, and an item that a gentile steals is not subject to being returned, i.e., he is not obligated to return it to its owner. Since gentiles are unwilling to separate even from items of little value, a potential convert must be made aware that he if converts, he will be required to relinquish some of his property to others.,The baraita continues: And they inform him of the sin of neglecting the mitzva to allow the poor to take gleanings, forgotten sheaves, and produce in the corner of one’s field. And they do not overwhelm him with threats, and they are not exacting with him about the details of the mitzvot, i.e., the court should not overly dissuade the convert from converting. Rabbi Elazar said: What is the verse from which this ruling is derived? As it is written: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded to go with her, she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). When Naomi set out to return to Eretz Yisrael, Ruth insisted on joining her. The Gemara understands this to mean that Ruth wished to convert. Naomi attempted to dissuade her, but Ruth persisted. The verse states that once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her. The Gemara infers from here that the same approach should be taken by a court in all cases of conversion.,The Gemara reconstructs the original dialogue in which Naomi attempted to dissuade Ruth from converting: Naomi said to her: On Shabbat, it is prohibited for us to go beyond the Shabbat limit. Ruth responded: “Where you go, I shall go” (Ruth 1:16), and no further. Naomi said to her: It is forbidden for us to be alone together with a man with whom it is forbidden to engage in relations. Ruth responded: “Where you lodge, I shall lodge” (Ruth 1:16), and in the same manner.,Naomi said to her: We are commanded to observe six hundred and thirteen mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Your people are my people” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Idolatrous worship is forbidden to us. Ruth responded: “Your God is my God” (Ruth 1:16). Naomi said to her: Four types of capital punishment were handed over to a court with which to punish those who transgress the mitzvot. Ruth responded: “Where you die, I shall die” (Ruth 1:17). Naomi said to her: Two burial grounds were handed over to the court, one for those executed for more severe crimes and another for those executed for less severe crimes. Ruth responded: “And there I shall be buried” (Ruth 1:17).,Immediately following this dialogue, the verse states: “And when she saw that she was steadfastly minded she left off speaking with her” (Ruth 1:18). Once Naomi saw Ruth’s resolve to convert, she desisted from her attempts to dissuade her.,The baraita continues: If he accepts upon himself all of these ramifications, then they circumcise him immediately. The Gemara asks: What is the reason to act immediately? It is that we do not delay the performance of a mitzva.,The baraita continues: If there still remain on him shreds of flesh from the foreskin that invalidate the circumcision, he is circumcised a second time to remove them. The Gemara explains: This is as we learned in a mishna (Shabbat 137a): These are the shreds of flesh that invalidate the circumcision if they are not cut: Any fragments of the flesh that cover the greater part of the corona. If such shreds remain, the child is considered uncircumcised, and he may not partake of teruma. And in explanation of this mishna, Rav Yirmeya bar Abba said that Rav said: This also includes the flesh that covers the greater part of the height of the corona.,The baraita continues: When he is healed from the circumcision, they immerse him immediately. The Gemara infers from the precise formulation of the baraita that when he has healed, then yes, he is immersed, but as long as he has not healed, then no, he is not. What is the reason for this? It is because water agitates a wound.,The baraita continues: And two Torah scholars stand over him at the time of his immersion. The Gemara asks: But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya say that Rabbi Yoḥa said that a convert requires a court of three to be present at his conversion? The Gemara answers: In fact, Rabbi Yoḥa said to the tanna reciting the mishna: Do not teach that there are two Torah scholars; rather, teach that there are three.,The baraita continues: Once he has immersed and emerged he is a Jew in every sense. The Gemara asks: With regard to what halakha is this said? It is that if he reverts back to behaving as a gentile, he nevertheless remains Jewish, and so if he betroths a Jewish woman, although he is considered to be an apostate Jew, his betrothal is a valid betrothal.,The baraita continues: This applies both for a convert and for an emancipated slave. The Gemara considers the meaning of this clause: If it enters your mind to interpret the baraita to mean that a convert and an emancipated slave are the same with regard to accepting upon oneself the yoke of mitzvot, then one could raise a contradiction from that which is taught in another baraita: In what case is this statement that there is a need to accept the yoke of mitzvot said? It is with respect to a convert; however, an emancipated slave does not need to accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot when he immerses for the sake of emancipation. Rather, the immersion alone is sufficient to emancipate him and thereby render him a Jew.,Rav Sheshet said: This is not difficult, as this baraita that states that an emancipated slave is not required to accept the yoke of mitzvot is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, whereas that baraita that implies he is required to do so is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the first tanna of the following baraita.,As it is taught in a baraita: The Torah permits a Jewish soldier to take a beautiful female prisoner of war out of her captivity in order to marry her. Before he may do so, she must first undergo the process that the Torah describes: “And she shall shave her head, and do her nails; and she shall remove the raiment of her captivity from upon her, and she shall remain in your house and bewail her father and her mother a month of days” (Deuteronomy 21:12–13). She may then be immersed for the sake of conversion, even though she does not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot. At that point it is permitted to marry her. The baraita asks: Under what circumstance are these matters stated? It is when she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot; however, if she willingly accepted upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, he may immerse her for the sake of conversion, and he is permitted to marry her immediately without the need for her to undergo the process described in the Torah.,Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Even if she did not accept upon herself the yoke of mitzvot, the need for the process can still be circumvented if he forces her and immerses her for the sake of slavery, and then he again immerses her for the sake of emancipation and thereby emancipates her, rendering her a Jewess. Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar holds that the immersion of a slave for the sake of emancipation is effective even if the slave does not accept upon himself the yoke of mitzvot. ' None|
|80. Eusebius of Caesarea, Ecclesiastical History, 8.9.7 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • court • leaves Africa for Nicomedia, teaches at Diocletians court
Found in books: Maier and Waldner (2022), Desiring Martyrs: Locating Martyrs in Space and Time, 103; Simmons(1995), Arnobius of Sicca: Religious Conflict and Competition in the Age of Diocletian, 34
8.9.7 Such an one was Philoromus, who held a high office under the imperial government at Alexandria, and who administered justice every day, attended by a military guard corresponding to his rank and Roman dignity. Such also was Phileas, bishop of the church of Thmuis, a man eminent on account of his patriotism and the services rendered by him to his country, and also on account of his philosophical learning.'' None
|81. None, None, nan (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court procedures in rabbinic literature enforcement of, liability for errors • high court decisions, status of
Found in books: Flatto (2021), The Crown and the Courts, 146; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 47
|82. None, None, nan (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Aquileia, arbitration, decisions of Jewish courts as • Arkadios, arbitration in Jewish courts and • bishops court • courts, transferral of cases between
Found in books: Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 163; Kraemer (2020), The Mediterranean Diaspora in Late Antiquity: What Christianity Cost the Jews, 166, 228
|83. None, None, nan (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Donatists, bishops, acting in court • Governor, court of
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 377; Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 187
|84. None, None, nan (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Court-made law, importance of • Courts, Roman • Courts, non-Roman • Governor, court of • courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 230, 380, 489; Ferrándiz (2022), Shipwrecks, Legal Landscapes and Mediterranean Paradigms: Gone Under Sea, 65; Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 63
|85. None, None, nan (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE)
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 377; Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 73, 74
|86. Aeschines, Or., 3.181-3.182
Tagged with subjects: • lawcourt, character evidence • lawcourt, discursive parameters • lawcourt, historical allusions • lawcourts, Athenian,
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 68; Marincola et al. (2021), Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and Calum Maciver, Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians, 218, 220
3.181 How true this is, I wish to teach you a little more explicitly. Does it seem to you that Themistocles, who was general when you conquered the Persian in the battle of Salamis , was the better man, or Demosthenes, who the other day deserted his post? Miltiades, who won the battle of Marathon, or yonder man? Further—the men who brought back the exiled democracy from Phyle ? And Aristeides “the Just,” a title most unlike the name men give Demosthenes? 3.182 But, by the Olympian gods, I think one ought not to name those men on the same day with this monster! Now let Demosthenes show if anywhere stands written an order to crown any one of those men. Was the democracy, then, ungrateful? No, but noble-minded, and those men were worthy of their city. For they thought that their honor should be conferred, not in written words, but in the memory of those whom they had served; and from that time until this day it abides, immortal. But what rewards they did receive, it is well to recall.'' None
|87. Demosthenes, Orations, 18.206-18.208, 18.253, 19.1, 19.219-19.220, 19.281, 21.112, 21.123-21.124, 21.143, 23.64, 23.68, 23.71, 23.196-23.203, 24.149-24.151, 25.79-25.80
Tagged with subjects: • (law)court system • Eubulus, in court • Orchomenos, Boiotian city, Palladion, court at • Zeus,oaths invoking, in law-court speeches • divination, not admitted in court role in public life • divination, not admitted in court through oracles • homicide courts • informal oaths, in law-court speeches • law courts • law courts, • law courts, and anger • law-courts, dicasts oath • law-courts, witnesses oaths • lawcourt, Heliastic Oath • lawcourt, allocation to panels • lawcourt, character evidence • lawcourt, discursive parameters • lawcourt, eligibility • lawcourt, historical allusions • lawcourt, pay • lawcourt, size of panels • lawcourts, Athenian, • myth, on homicide courts • perjury, in law-court speeches • self-curses, in law-court speeches
Found in books: Barbato (2020), The Ideology of Democratic Athens: Institutions, Orators and the Mythical Past, 43, 67, 68; Braund and Most (2004), Ancient Anger: Perspectives from Homer to Galen, 76, 81, 127; Edmonds (2019), Drawing Down the Moon: Magic in the Ancient Greco-Roman World, 382; Lalone (2019), Athena Itonia: Geography and Meaning of an Ancient Greek War Goddess, 258; Marincola et al. (2021), Lloyd Llewellyn-Jones and Calum Maciver, Greek Notions of the Past in the Archaic and Classical Eras: History Without Historians, 218, 220, 222; Martin (2009), Divine Talk: Religious Argumentation in Demosthenes, 81, 125, 126, 207; Parker (2005), Polytheism and Society at Athens, 108; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 136, 233; Sommerstein and Torrance (2014), Oaths and Swearing in Ancient Greece, 21, 40, 138, 234, 239, 319
18.206 If I had attempted to claim that you were first inspired with the spirit of your forefathers by me, every one would justly rebuke me. But I do not: I am asserting these principles as your principles; I am showing you that such was the pride of Athens long before my time,—though for myself I do claim some credit for the administration of particular measures. 18.207 Aeschines, on the other hand, arraigns the whole policy, stirs up your resentment against me as the author of your terrors and your dangers, and, in his eagerness to strip me of the distinction of a moment, would rob you of the enduring praises of posterity. For if you condemn Ctesiphon on the ground of my political delinquency, you yourselves will be adjudged as wrongdoers, not as men who owed the calamities they have suffered to the unkindness of fortune. 18.208 But no; you cannot, men of Athens, you cannot have done wrongly when you accepted the risks of war for the redemption and the liberties of mankind; I swear it by our forefathers who bore the brunt of warfare at Marathon, who stood in array of battle at Plataea, who fought in the sea-fights of Salamis and Artemisium, and by all the brave men who repose in our public sepulchres, buried there by a country that accounted them all to be alike worthy of the same honor —all, I say, Aeschines, not the successful and the victorious alone. So justice bids: for by all the duty of brave men was accomplished: their fortune was such as Heaven severally allotted to them.
18.253 I attribute good fortune to our city, and so, I observe, does the oracle of Zeus at Dodona ; but the present fortune of all mankind I account grievous and distressing. Is there a man living, Greek or barbarian, who has not in these days undergone many evils?
19.1 Citizens of Athens, I do not doubt that you are all pretty well aware that this trial has been the center of keen partisanship and active canvassing, for you saw the people who were accosting and annoying you just now at the casting of lots. For the selection of jurors. But I have to make a request which ought to be granted without asking, that you will all give less weight to private entreaty or personal influence than to the spirit of justice and to the oath which you severally swore when you entered that box. You will reflect that justice and the oath concern yourselves and the commonwealth, whereas the importunity and party spirit of advocates serve the end of those private ambitions which you are convened by the laws to thwart, not to encourage for the advantage of evil-doers.
19.219 and with foreknowledge on the assurance of your ambassadors that your allies would be ruined, that the Thebans would gain strength, that Philip would occupy the northern positions, that a basis of attack would be established against you in Euboea, and that everything that has in fact resulted would befall you, you thereupon cheerfully made the peace, by all means acquit Aeschines, and do not crown your other dishonors with the sin of perjury. He has done you no wrong, and I am a madman and a fool to accuse him. 19.220 But if the truth is otherwise, if they spoke handsomely of Philip and told you that he was the friend of Athens, that he would deliver the Phocians, that he would curb the arrogance of the Thebans, that he would bestow on you many boons of more value than Amphipolis, and would restore Euboea and Oropus, if only he got his peace,—if, I say, by such assertions and such promises they have deceived and deluded you, and wellnigh stripped you of all Attica, find him guilty, and do not reinforce the outrages, for I can find no better word,—that you have endured, by returning to your homes laden with the curse and the guilt of perjury, for the sake of the bribes that they have pocketed.
19.281 will you be content that all these men should have been subjected to the inexorable penalty of law; that they should find no succor in mercy or compassion, in weeping children bearing honored names, or in any other plea? And then, when you have in your power a son of Atrometus the dominie, and of Glaucothea, the fuglewoman of those bacchanalian routs for which another priestess According to Ulpian her name was Nino and her crime was mixing a love-potion. suffered death, will you release the son of such parents, a man who has never been of the slightest use to the commonwealth, neither he, nor his father, nor any member of his precious family?
21.112 For, if I may add a word on this subject also, where the rich are concerned, Athenians, the rest of us have no share in our just and equal rights. Indeed we have not. The rich can choose their own time for facing a jury, and their crimes are stale and cold when they are dished up before you, but if any of the rest of us is in trouble, he is brought into court while all is fresh. The rich have witnesses and counsel in readiness, all primed against us; but, as you see, my witnesses are some of them unwilling even to bear testimony to the truth.
21.123 Yet this habit of his, Athenians, this scheme of involving in yet greater calamities all who stand up against him in just defence, is not something that might well rouse indignation and resentment in me, but that the rest of you should overlook. Far from it. All citizens alike should be stirred to anger, when they reflect and observe that it is exactly the poorest and weakest of you that run the greatest risk of being thus wantonly wronged, while it is the rich blackguards that find it easiest to oppress others and escape punishment, and even to hire agents to put obstacles in the path of justice. 21.124 Such conduct must not be overlooked. It must not be supposed that the man who by intimidation tries to debar any citizen from obtaining reparation for his wrongs is doing less than robbing us of our liberties and of our right of free speech. Perhaps I and one or two others may have managed to repel a false and calamitous charge and so have escaped destruction; but what will the vast majority of you do, if you do not by a public example make it a dangerous game for anyone to abuse his wealth for such a purpose?
21.143 History tells us that Alcibiades lived at Athens in the good old days of her prosperity, and I want you to consider what great public services stand to his credit and how your ancestors dealt with him when he thought fit to behave like a ruffian and a bully. And assuredly it is not from any desire to compare Meidias with Alcibiades that I mention this story. I am not so foolish or infatuated. My object, men of Athens, is that you may know and feel that there is not, and never will be, anything—not birth, not wealth, not power—that you, the great mass of citizens, ought to tolerate, if it is coupled with insolence.
23.64 —Yes, but,—someone will say,—those tribunals are worthless and unfairly constituted, whereas the proposals of the defendant are righteous and admirable.—I deny it. I say that of all the proposals ever laid before you I know of none more outrageous than this decree, and that of all the tribunals to be found in the whole world there are none that can be shown to be more venerable or more righteous than ours. I desire to speak briefly of certain truths, the relation of which reflects credit and honor upon the city, and which you will be gratified to hear. I will begin with a statement which you will find especially instructive, first referring to the free gift which has already been conferred upon Charidemus.
23.68 econdly, that he must not treat this oath as an ordinary oath, but as one which no man swears for any other purpose; for he stands over the entrails of a boar, a ram, and a bull, and they must have been slaughtered by the necessary officers and on the days appointed, so that in respect both of the time and of the functionaries every requirement of solemnity has been satisfied. Even then the person who has sworn this tremendous oath does not gain immediate credence; and if any falsehood is brought home to him, he will carry away with him to his children and his kindred the stain of perjury,—but gain nothing.
23.71 Secondly, there is another tribunal, the court by the Palladium, for the trial of involuntary homicide; and it shall be shown that he nullifies that tribunal also, and transgresses the laws there observed. Here also the order is first the oath-taking, secondly the pleadings, and thirdly the decision of the court; and not one of these processes is found in the defendant’s decree. If the culprit be convicted, and found to have committed the act, neither the prosecutor nor any other person has any authority over him, but only the law. And what does the law enjoin?
23.196 It is also opportune, men of Athens, to inquire how our forefathers bestowed distinctions and rewards upon genuine benefactors, whether they were citizens or strangers. If you find their practice better than yours, you will do well to follow their example; if you prefer your own, it rests with you to continue it. Take first Themistocles, who won the naval victory at Salamis, Miltiades, who commanded at Marathon, and many others, whose achievements were not on a level with those of our commanders today. By not equal Demosthenes seems here to mean superior. Our ancestors did not put up bronze statues of these men, nor did they carry their regard for them to extremes. 23.197 So they were not grateful to those who had served them well? Yes, men of Athens, they were very grateful; they showed their gratitude in a manner that was equally creditable to themselves and the recipients. They were all men of merit, but they chose those men to lead them; and to men of sobriety, who have a keen eye for realities, being raised to the primacy of a brave and noble people is a far greater distinction than any effigy of bronze. 23.198 The truth is, gentlemen, that they would not rob themselves of their own share in any of those ancient achievements; and no man would say that the battle of Salamis belonged to Themistocles,—it was the battle of the Athenians; or that the victory at Marathon belonged to Miltiades,—it was the victory of the commonwealth. But today, men of Athens, it is commonly said that Corcyra was captured by Timotheus, that the Spartan battalion was cut to pieces by Iphicrates, that the naval victory off Naxos was won by Chabrias. It really looks as though you disclaimed any merit for those feats of arms by the extravagant favours that you lavish on the several commanders. 23.199 Thus they distributed rewards within the city righteously and to the public advantage; we do it the wrong way. But what about those bestowed on strangers? When Meno of Pharsalus had given us twelve talents for the war at Eion near Amphipolis, and had reinforced us with three hundred of his own mounted serfs, they did not pass a decree that whoever slew Meno should be liable to seizure; they made him a citizen, and thought that distinction adequate. 23.200 Or take Perdiccas, who was reigning in Macedonia at the time of the Persian invasion, and who destroyed the Persians on their retreat from Plataea, and made the defeat of the King irreparable. They did not resolve that any man should be liable to seizure who killed Perdiccas, the man who for our sake had provoked the enmity of the great King; they gave him our citizenship, and that was all. The truth is that in those days to be made a citizen of Athens was an honor so precious in the eyes of the world that, to earn that favour alone, men were ready to render to you those memorable services. Today it is so worthless that not a few men who have already received it have wrought worse mischief to you than your declared enemies. 23.201 Not only this guerdon of the common wealth but all your honors have been dragged through the mire and made contemptible by those execrable and god-forsaken politicians, who make proposals like this on such easy terms; men who, in their inordinate lust of dishonest gain, put up honors and civic rewards for sale, like hucksters vending and cheapening their pitiful, trumpery merchandise, and supply a host of buyers at fixed prices with any decree they want. 23.202 In the first place,—let me mention the latest instance first,—they not only claimed that Ariobarzanes and his two sons deserved everything they chose to ask for, but they associated with him two men of Abydus, unprincipled fellows, and bitter enemies of Athens, Philiscus and Agavus. Again, when Timotheus was held to have served your needs in some way, besides conferring on him all manner of great rewards, they associated with him Phrasierides and Polysthenes, who were not even free-born, but were blackguards whose conduct had been such as any man of good feeling will be loth to describe. 23.203 Finally on this occasion, while demanding for Cersobleptes any honors they thought proper, and while concentrating on that, they attached two other names to his. One is the man of whose many misdeeds you have just heard the story. The other is named Euderces, but nobody in the wide world knows who he is. You see the result, men of Athens : honors that were once great now appear trifling; and the practice is advancing ever farther and farther. The old rewards no longer suffice, and they are not in the least grateful for them, unless you will also protect their persons, man by man, or so it seems.
24.149 The Oath of the Heliasts I will give verdict in accordance with the statutes and decrees of the People of Athens and of the Council of Five-hundred. I will not vote for tyranny or oligarchy. If any man try to subvert the Athenian democracy or make any speech or any proposal in contravention thereof I will not comply. I will not allow private debts to be cancelled, nor lands nor houses belonging to Athenian citizens to be redistributed. I will not restore exiles or persons under sentence of death. I will not expel, nor suffer another to expel, persons here resident in contravention of the statutes and decrees of the Athenian People or of the Council. 24.150 I will not confirm the appointment to any office of any person still subject to audit in respect of any other office, to wit the offices of the nine Archons or of the Recorder or any other office for which a ballot is taken on the same day as for the nine Archons, or the office of Marshal, or ambassador, or member of the Allied Congress. I will not suffer the same man to hold the same office twice, or two offices in the same year. I will not take bribes in respect of my judicial action, nor shall any other man or woman accept bribes for me with my knowledge by any subterfuge or trick whatsoever. 24.151 I am not less than thirty years old. I will give impartial hearing to prosecutor and defendant alike, and I will give my verdict strictly on the charge named in the prosecution. The juror shall swear by Zeus, Poseidon, and Demeter, and shall invoke destruction upon himself and his household if he in any way transgress this oath, and shall pray that his prosperity may depend upon his loyal observance thereof. The oath, gentlemen of the jury, does not contain the words I will not imprison any Athenian citizen. The courts alone decide every question brought to trial; and they have full authority to pass sentence of imprisonment, or any other sentence they please.
25.79 No; I am wrong. He has a brother, who is present here in court and who brought that precious action against him. What need to say anything about him? He is own brother to the defendant, born of the same father and mother, and, to add to his misfortunes, he is his twin. It was this brother—I pass over the other facts—who got possession of the drugs and charms from the servant of Theoris of Lemnos, the filthy sorceress whom you put to death on that account with all her family. 25.80 She gave information against her mistress, and this rascal has had children by her, and with her help he plays juggling tricks and professes to cure fits, being himself subject to fits of wickedness of every kind. So this is the man who will beg him off! This poisoner, this public pest, whom any man would ban at sight as an evil omen rather than choose to accost him, and who has pronounced himself worthy of death by bringing such an action.'' None
|88. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • (law)court system • lawcourts
Found in books: Papakonstantinou (2021), Cursing for Justice: Magic, Disputes, and the Lawcourts in Classical Athens, 17, 35, 36, 41, 47, 48, 90, 127; Riess (2012), Performing interpersonal violence: court, curse, and comedy in fourth-century BCE Athens, 163
|89. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • law courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 371; Edmondson (2008), Roman Dress and the Fabrics of Roman Culture, 251
|90. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • court
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 248; Tuori (2016), The Emperor of Law: The Emergence of Roman Imperial Adjudication<, 1, 82
|91. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Court proceedings (records) • courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 2; Humfress (2007), Oppian's Halieutica: Charting a Didactic Epic, 74
|92. None, None, nan
Tagged with subjects: • Governor, court of • gentile courts
Found in books: Czajkowski et al. (2020), Vitruvian Man: Rome under Construction, 92; Katzoff (2019), On Jews in the Roman World: Collected Studies. 69