1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 22.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, foundation of Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 113 22.16. אִם־מָאֵן יְמָאֵן אָבִיהָ לְתִתָּהּ לוֹ כֶּסֶף יִשְׁקֹל כְּמֹהַר הַבְּתוּלֹת׃ | 22.16. If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.27, 2.23-2.24, 7.9, 32.33 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 108, 110, 111, 112, 163, 164 1.27. וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃ 2.23. וַיֹּאמֶר הָאָדָם זֹאת הַפַּעַם עֶצֶם מֵעֲצָמַי וּבָשָׂר מִבְּשָׂרִי לְזֹאת יִקָּרֵא אִשָּׁה כִּי מֵאִישׁ לֻקֳחָה־זֹּאת׃ 2.24. עַל־כֵּן יַעֲזָב־אִישׁ אֶת־אָבִיו וְאֶת־אִמּוֹ וְדָבַק בְּאִשְׁתּוֹ וְהָיוּ לְבָשָׂר אֶחָד׃ 7.9. שְׁנַיִם שְׁנַיִם בָּאוּ אֶל־נֹחַ אֶל־הַתֵּבָה זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה אֱלֹהִים אֶת־נֹחַ׃ 32.33. עַל־כֵּן לֹא־יֹאכְלוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־גִּיד הַנָּשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר עַל־כַּף הַיָּרֵךְ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה כִּי נָגַע בְּכַף־יֶרֶךְ יַעֲקֹב בְּגִיד הַנָּשֶׁה׃ | 1.27. And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them. 2.23. And the man said: ‘This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.’ 2.24. Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife, and they shall be one flesh. 7.9. there went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, male and female, as God commanded Noah. 32.33. Therefore the children of Israel eat not the sinew of the thigh-vein which is upon the hollow of the thigh, unto this day; because he touched the hollow of Jacob’s thigh, even in the sinew of the thigh-vein. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 15.16-15.17, 17.3, 18.3, 18.8, 18.16, 20.11, 20.14, 20.17, 20.21, 25.5-25.9, 25.41 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage •levirate marriage laws, converts and •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 159; Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 158, 163, 164 15.16. וְאִישׁ כִּי־תֵצֵא מִמֶּנּוּ שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם אֶת־כָּל־בְּשָׂרוֹ וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ 15.17. וְכָל־בֶּגֶד וְכָל־עוֹר אֲשֶׁר־יִהְיֶה עָלָיו שִׁכְבַת־זָרַע וְכֻבַּס בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃ 17.3. אִישׁ אִישׁ מִבֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט שׁוֹר אוֹ־כֶשֶׂב אוֹ־עֵז בַּמַּחֲנֶה אוֹ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁחַט מִחוּץ לַמַּחֲנֶה׃ 18.3. וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־מִשְׁמַרְתִּי לְבִלְתִּי עֲשׂוֹת מֵחֻקּוֹת הַתּוֹעֵבֹת אֲשֶׁר נַעֲשׂוּ לִפְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא תִטַּמְּאוּ בָּהֶם אֲנִי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם׃ 18.3. כְּמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־מִצְרַיִם אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁבְתֶּם־בָּהּ לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּכְמַעֲשֵׂה אֶרֶץ־כְּנַעַן אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי מֵבִיא אֶתְכֶם שָׁמָּה לֹא תַעֲשׂוּ וּבְחֻקֹּתֵיהֶם לֹא תֵלֵכוּ׃ 18.8. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת־אָבִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָבִיךָ הִוא׃ 18.16. עֶרְוַת אֵשֶׁת־אָחִיךָ לֹא תְגַלֵּה עֶרְוַת אָחִיךָ הִוא׃ 20.11. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁכַּב אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָבִיו עֶרְוַת אָבִיו גִּלָּה מוֹת־יוּמְתוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם דְּמֵיהֶם בָּם׃ 20.14. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת־אִשָּׁה וְאֶת־אִמָּהּ זִמָּה הִוא בָּאֵשׁ יִשְׂרְפוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶתְהֶן וְלֹא־תִהְיֶה זִמָּה בְּתוֹכְכֶם׃ 20.17. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יִקַּח אֶת־אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת־אָבִיו אוֹ בַת־אִמּוֹ וְרָאָה אֶת־עֶרְוָתָהּ וְהִיא־תִרְאֶה אֶת־עֶרְוָתוֹ חֶסֶד הוּא וְנִכְרְתוּ לְעֵינֵי בְּנֵי עַמָּם עֶרְוַת אֲחֹתוֹ גִּלָּה עֲוֺנוֹ יִשָּׂא׃ 20.21. וְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִקַּח אֶת־אֵשֶׁת אָחִיו נִדָּה הִוא עֶרְוַת אָחִיו גִּלָּה עֲרִירִים יִהְיוּ׃ 25.5. אֵת סְפִיחַ קְצִירְךָ לֹא תִקְצוֹר וְאֶת־עִנְּבֵי נְזִירֶךָ לֹא תִבְצֹר שְׁנַת שַׁבָּתוֹן יִהְיֶה לָאָרֶץ׃ 25.5. וְחִשַּׁב עִם־קֹנֵהוּ מִשְּׁנַת הִמָּכְרוֹ לוֹ עַד שְׁנַת הַיֹּבֵל וְהָיָה כֶּסֶף מִמְכָּרוֹ בְּמִסְפַּר שָׁנִים כִּימֵי שָׂכִיר יִהְיֶה עִמּוֹ׃ 25.6. וְהָיְתָה שַׁבַּת הָאָרֶץ לָכֶם לְאָכְלָה לְךָ וּלְעַבְדְּךָ וְלַאֲמָתֶךָ וְלִשְׂכִירְךָ וּלְתוֹשָׁבְךָ הַגָּרִים עִמָּךְ׃ 25.7. וְלִבְהֶמְתְּךָ וְלַחַיָּה אֲשֶׁר בְּאַרְצֶךָ תִּהְיֶה כָל־תְּבוּאָתָהּ לֶאֱכֹל׃ 25.8. וְסָפַרְתָּ לְךָ שֶׁבַע שַׁבְּתֹת שָׁנִים שֶׁבַע שָׁנִים שֶׁבַע פְּעָמִים וְהָיוּ לְךָ יְמֵי שֶׁבַע שַׁבְּתֹת הַשָּׁנִים תֵּשַׁע וְאַרְבָּעִים שָׁנָה׃ 25.9. וְהַעֲבַרְתָּ שׁוֹפַר תְּרוּעָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִעִי בֶּעָשׂוֹר לַחֹדֶשׁ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפֻּרִים תַּעֲבִירוּ שׁוֹפָר בְּכָל־אַרְצְכֶם׃ 25.41. וְיָצָא מֵעִמָּךְ הוּא וּבָנָיו עִמּוֹ וְשָׁב אֶל־מִשְׁפַּחְתּוֹ וְאֶל־אֲחֻזַּת אֲבֹתָיו יָשׁוּב׃ | 15.16. And if the flow of seed go out from a man, then he shall bathe all his flesh in water, and be unclean until the even. 15.17. And every garment, and every skin, whereon is the flow of seed, shall be washed with water, and be unclean until the even. 17.3. What man soever there be of the house of Israel, that killeth an ox, or lamb, or goat, in the camp, or that killeth it without the camp, 18.3. After the doings of the land of Egypt, wherein ye dwelt, shall ye not do; and after the doings of the land of Canaan, whither I bring you, shall ye not do; neither shall ye walk in their statutes. 18.8. The nakedness of thy father’s wife shalt thou not uncover: it is thy father’s nakedness. 18.16. Thou shalt not uncover the nakedness of thy brother’s wife: it is thy brother’s nakedness. 20.11. And the man that lieth with his father’s wife—he hath uncovered his father’s nakedness—both of them shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 20.14. And if a man take with his wife also her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. 20.17. And if a man shall take his sister, his father’s daughter, or his mother’s daughter, and see her nakedness, and she see his nakedness: it is a shameful thing; and they shall be cut off in the sight of the children of their people: he hath uncovered his sister’s nakedness; he shall bear his iniquity. 20.21. And if a man shall take his brother’s wife, it is impurity: he hath uncovered his brother’s nakedness; they shall be childless. 25.5. That which groweth of itself of thy harvest thou shalt not reap, and the grapes of thy undressed vine thou shalt not gather; it shall be a year of solemn rest for the land. 25.6. And the sabbath-produce of the land shall be for food for you: for thee, and for thy servant and for thy maid, and for thy hired servant and for the settler by thy side that sojourn with thee; 25.7. and for thy cattle, and for the beasts that are in thy land, shall all the increase thereof be for food. 25.8. And thou shalt number seven sabbaths of years unto thee, seven times seven years; and there shall be unto thee the days of seven sabbaths of years, even forty and nine years. 25.9. Then shalt thou make proclamation with the blast of the horn on the tenth day of the seventh month; in the day of atonement shall ye make proclamation with the horn throughout all your land. 25.41. Then shall he go out from thee, he and his children with him, and shall return unto his own family, and unto the possession of his fathers shall he return. |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 18.21-18.32 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 158 18.21. וְלִבְנֵי לֵוִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי כָּל־מַעֲשֵׂר בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לְנַחֲלָה חֵלֶף עֲבֹדָתָם אֲשֶׁר־הֵם עֹבְדִים אֶת־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ 18.22. וְלֹא־יִקְרְבוּ עוֹד בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד לָשֵׂאת חֵטְא לָמוּת׃ 18.23. וְעָבַד הַלֵּוִי הוּא אֶת־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהֵם יִשְׂאוּ עֲוֺנָם חֻקַּת עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם וּבְתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִנְחֲלוּ נַחֲלָה׃ 18.24. כִּי אֶת־מַעְשַׂר בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ לַיהוָה תְּרוּמָה נָתַתִּי לַלְוִיִּם לְנַחֲלָה עַל־כֵּן אָמַרְתִּי לָהֶם בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא יִנְחֲלוּ נַחֲלָה׃ 18.25. וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃ 18.26. וְאֶל־הַלְוִיִּם תְּדַבֵּר וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי־תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם מֵאִתָּם בְּנַחֲלַתְכֶם וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מַעֲשֵׂר מִן־הַמַּעֲשֵׂר׃ 18.27. וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן־הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן־הַיָּקֶב׃ 18.28. כֵּן תָּרִימוּ גַם־אַתֶּם תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן׃ 18.29. מִכֹּל מַתְּנֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כָּל־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ אֶת־מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ׃ 18.31. וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּכָל־מָקוֹם אַתֶּם וּבֵיתְכֶם כִּי־שָׂכָר הוּא לָכֶם חֵלֶף עֲבֹדַתְכֶם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃ 18.32. וְלֹא־תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת־חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֶת־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ׃ | 18.21. And unto the children of Levi, behold, I have given all the tithe in Israel for an inheritance, in return for their service which they serve, even the service of the tent of meeting. 18.22. And henceforth the children of Israel shall not come nigh the tent of meeting, lest they bear sin, and die. 18.23. But the Levites alone shall do the service of the tent of meeting, and they shall bear their iniquity; it shall be a statute for ever throughout your generations, and among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance. 18.24. For the tithe of the children of Israel, which they set apart as a gift unto the LORD, I have given to the Levites for an inheritance; therefore I have said unto them: Among the children of Israel they shall have no inheritance.’ 18.25. And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying: 18.26. ’Moreover thou shalt speak unto the Levites, and say unto them: When ye take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall set apart of it a gift for the LORD, even a tithe of the tithe. 18.27. And the gift which ye set apart shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor, and as the fulness of the wine-press. 18.28. Thus ye also shall set apart a gift unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and thereof ye shall give the gift which is set apart unto the LORD to Aaron the priest. 18.29. Out of all that is given you ye shall set apart all of that which is due unto the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it. 18.30. Therefore thou shalt say unto them: When ye set apart the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing-floor, and as the increase of the wine-press. 18.31. And ye may eat it in every place, ye and your households; for it is your reward in return for your service in the tent of meeting. 18.32. And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof; and ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not.’ |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 1.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, on marriage vs. torah study Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 104 1.3. וְהָיָה כְּעֵץ שָׁתוּל עַל־פַּלְגֵי מָיִם אֲשֶׁר פִּרְיוֹ יִתֵּן בְּעִתּוֹ וְעָלֵהוּ לֹא־יִבּוֹל וְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה יַצְלִיחַ׃ | 1.3. And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, that bringeth forth its fruit in its season, and whose leaf doth not wither; and in whatsoever he doeth he shall prosper. |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.17, 22.13-22.20, 22.29 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy •marriage laws, foundation of Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 113, 114, 158, 159, 163, 164 17.17. וְלֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ נָשִׁים וְלֹא יָסוּר לְבָבוֹ וְכֶסֶף וְזָהָב לֹא יַרְבֶּה־לּוֹ מְאֹד׃ 22.13. כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבָא אֵלֶיהָ וּשְׂנֵאָהּ׃ 22.14. וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא־מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים׃ 22.15. וְלָקַח אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] וְאִמָּהּ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֶת־בְּתוּלֵי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] אֶל־זִקְנֵי הָעִיר הַשָּׁעְרָה׃ 22.16. וְאָמַר אֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעַרָה] אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים אֶת־בִּתִּי נָתַתִּי לָאִישׁ הַזֶּה לְאִשָּׁה וַיִּשְׂנָאֶהָ׃ 22.17. וְהִנֵּה־הוּא שָׂם עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים לֵאמֹר לֹא־מָצָאתִי לְבִתְּךָ בְּתוּלִים וְאֵלֶּה בְּתוּלֵי בִתִּי וּפָרְשׂוּ הַשִּׂמְלָה לִפְנֵי זִקְנֵי הָעִיר׃ 22.18. וְלָקְחוּ זִקְנֵי הָעִיר־הַהִוא אֶת־הָאִישׁ וְיִסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ׃ 22.19. וְעָנְשׁוּ אֹתוֹ מֵאָה כֶסֶף וְנָתְנוּ לַאֲבִי הַנַּעֲרָה כִּי הוֹצִיא שֵׁם רָע עַל בְּתוּלַת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה לֹא־יוּכַל לְשַּׁלְּחָהּ כָּל־יָמָיו׃ 22.29. וְנָתַן הָאִישׁ הַשֹּׁכֵב עִמָּהּ לַאֲבִי הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] חֲמִשִּׁים כָּסֶף וְלוֹ־תִהְיֶה לְאִשָּׁה תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר עִנָּהּ לֹא־יוּכַל שַׁלְּחָה כָּל־יָמָיו׃ | 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. 22.13. If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, 22.14. and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: ‘I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity’; 22.15. then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel’s virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate. 22.16. And the damsel’s father shall say unto the elders: ‘I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her; 22.17. and, lo, he hath laid wanton charges, saying: I found not in thy daughter the tokens of virginity; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity.’ And they shall spread the garment before the elders of the city. 22.18. And the elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. 22.19. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel; and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days. 22.20. But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel; 22.29. then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he hath humbled her; he may not put her away all his days. |
|
7. Hesiod, Works And Days, 275, 277-289, 276 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 276. τόνδε γὰρ ἀνθρώποισι νόμον διέταξε Κρονίων | 276. For evil. You who hold supremacy |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 23.20 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 165 | 23.20. And she doted upon concubinage with them, whose flesh is as the flesh of asses, and whose issue is like the issue of horses. |
|
9. Pindar, Fragments, frag. 169a (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
10. Hipponax, Fragments, 68, west (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 142 |
11. Plato, Cratylus, 388d12, 384d7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
12. Plato, Gorgias, 484b, 484c, 482e6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
13. Plato, Phaedo, 58b5 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
14. Plato, Phaedrus, 256d7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
15. Plato, Statesman, 275b1-7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 189 |
16. Plato, Protagoras, 337d2-3 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
17. Plato, Republic, 9.587a10, 10.607a7, 8.546a2-3, 10.604b6, 10.604a10, 9.587c2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
18. Xenophon, Symposium, 2.10 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •laws, on marriage Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 142 | 2.10. If that is your view, Socrates , asked Antisthenes, how does it come that you don’t practise what you preach by yourself educating Xanthippe, but live with a wife who is the hardest to get along with of all the women there are—yes, or all that ever were, I suspect, or ever will be? Because, he replied, I observe that men who wish to become expert horsemen do not get the most docile horses but rather those that are high-mettled, believing that if they can manage this kind, they will easily handle any other. My course is similar. Mankind at large is what I wish to deal and associate with; and so I have got her, well assured that if I can endure her, I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind. These words, in the judgment of the guests, did not go wide of the mark. 2.10. If that is your view, Socrates, asked Antisthenes, how does it come that you don’t practise what you preach by yourself educating Xanthippe, but live with a wife who is the hardest to get along with of all the women there are—yes, or all that ever were, I suspect, or ever will be? Because, he replied, I observe that men who wish to become expert horsemen do not get the most docile horses but rather those that are high-mettled, believing that if they can manage this kind, they will easily handle any other. My course is similar. Mankind at large is what I wish to deal and associate with; and so I have got her, well assured that if I can endure her, I shall have no difficulty in my relations with all the rest of human kind. These words, in the judgment of the guests, did not go wide of the mark. |
|
19. Xenophon, Constitution of The Spartans, 1.7-1.9 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •laws, on marriage Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 141 | 1.7. It might happen, however, that an old man had a young wife; and he observed that old men keep a very jealous watch over their young wives. To meet these cases he instituted an entirely different system by requiring the elderly husband to introduce into his house some man whose physical and moral qualities he admired, in order to beget children. 1.7. , Now the people at home deposed the above-mentioned generals, with the exception of Conon; and as his colleagues they chose two men, Adeimantus and Philocles. As for those generals who had taken part in the battle, two of them—Protomachus and Aristogenes—did not return to Athens, but when the other six came home—, Pericles, Diomedon, Lysias, Aristocrates, Thrasyllus, and Erasinides,—Archedemus, who was at that time a leader of the popular party at Athens and had charge of the two-obol fund, For the relief of poverty and distress caused by the war, not to be confounded with the theoric fund; see Wilamowitz, Aristoteles und Athen, Vol. II. pp. 212 ff. brought accusation against Erasinides before a court and urged that a fine be imposed upon him, claiming that he had in his possession money from the Hellespont which belonged to the people; he accused him, further, of misconduct as general. And the court decreed that Erasinides should be imprisoned., After this the generals made a statement before the Senate in regard to the battle and the violence of the storm; and upon motion of 406 B.C. Timocrates, that the others also should be imprisoned and turned over to the Assembly for trial, the Senate imprisoned them., After this a meeting of the Assembly was called, at which a number of people, and particularly Theramenes, spoke against the generals, saying that they ought to render an account of their conduct in not picking up the shipwrecked. For as proof that the generals fastened the responsibility upon no person apart from themselves, Theramenes showed a letter which they had sent to the Senate and to the Assembly, in which they put the blame upon nothing but the storm., After this the several generals spoke in their own defence (though briefly, for they were not granted the hearing prescribed by the law) and stated what they had done, saying that they themselves undertook to sail against the enemy and that they assigned the duty of recovering the shipwrecked to certain of the captains who were competent men and had been generals in the past,—Theramenes, Thrasybulus, and others of that sort;, and if they had to blame any, they could blame no one else in the matter of the recovery except these men, to whom the duty was assigned. And we shall not, they added, just because they accuse us, falsely say that they were to blame, but rather that it was the violence of the storm which prevented the recovery. , They offered as witnesses to the truth of these statements the pilots and many others among their ship-companions. With such arguments they were on the point of persuading the Assembly, and many of the citizens rose and wanted to give bail for them; it was decided, however, that the matter should be postponed to another meeting of the Assembly (for 406 B.C. by that time it was late in the day and they could not have distinguished the hands in the voting), and that the Senate should draft and bring in a proposal Athenian procedure required in general that a matter should first be considered by the Senate, whose προβούλευμα, or preliminary resolution, was then referred to the Assembly for final action. regarding the manner in which the men should be tried., After this the Apaturia A family festival, at which the members of each Athenian clan gathered together. was celebrated, at which fathers and kinsmen meet together. Accordingly Theramenes and his supporters arranged at this festival with a large number of people, who were clad in mourning garments and had their hair close shaven, to attend the meeting of the Assembly, pretending that they were kinsmen of those who had perished, and they bribed Callixeinus to accuse the generals in the Senate., Then they called an Assembly, at which the Senate brought in its proposal, which Callixeinus had drafted in the following terms: Resolved, that since the Athenians have heard in the previous meeting of the Assembly both the accusers who brought charges against the generals and the generals speaking in their own defence, they do now one and all cast their votes by tribes; and that two urns be set at the voting-place of each tribe; and that in each tribe a herald proclaim that whoever adjudges the generals guilty, for not picking up the men who won the victory in the naval battle, shall cast his vote in the first urn, and whoever adjudges them not guilty, shall cast his vote in the second; , and if they be adjudged guilty, that they be punished with death and handed over to the Eleven, A Board which had charge of condemned prisoners and of the execution of the death sentence. and that their property be confiscated and the tenth thereof belong to the goddess. Athena, the state deity, into whose treasury a tenth part of the revenue derived from confiscations was regularly paid. , And there came before the 406 B.C. Assembly a man who said that he had been saved by floating upon a meal-tub, and that those who were perishing charged him to report to the people, if he were saved, that the generals did not pick up the men who had proved themselves most brave in the service of their country., Now Euryptolemus, the son of Peisianax, and some others served a summons upon Callixeinus, alleging that he had made an unconstitutional proposal. And some of the people applauded this act, but the greater number cried out that it was monstrous if the people were to be prevented from doing whatever they wished., Indeed, when Lyciscus thereupon moved that these men also should be judged by the very same vote as the generals, unless they withdrew the summons, the mob broke out again with shouts of approval, and they were compelled to withdraw the summonses., Furthermore, when some of the Prytanes An executive committee of the Senate, who presided over the meetings of both Senate and Assembly. refused to put the question to the vote in violation of the law, Callixeinus again mounted the platform i.e. the βῆμα . and urged the same charge against them; and the crowd cried out to summon to court those who refused., Then the Prytanes, stricken with fear, agreed to put the question,—all of them except Socrates, On Socrates’ conduct at this time cp. Plato, Apol. 32B and Xen. Mem. I. i. 18. the son of Sophroniscus; and he said that in no case would he act except in accordance with the law., After this Euryptolemus mounted the platform and spoke as follows in defence of the generals: I have come to the platform, men of Athens, partly to accuse Pericles, though he is my kinsman and intimate, and Diomedon, who is my friend, partly 406 B.C. to speak in their defence, and partly to advise the measures which seem to me to be best for the state as a whole. , I accuse them, because they persuaded their colleagues to change their purpose when they wanted to send a letter to the Senate and to you, in which they stated that they assigned to Theramenes and Thrasybulus, with forty-seven triremes, the duty of picking up the shipwrecked, and that they failed to perform this duty. , Such being the case, are these generals to share the blame now with Theramenes and Thrasybulus, although it was those alone who blundered, and are they now, in return for the humanity they showed then, to be put in hazard of their lives through the machinations of those men and certain others? , No! at least not if you take my advice and follow the just and righteous course, the course which will best enable you to learn the truth and to avoid finding out hereafter, to your sorrow, that it is you yourselves who have sinned most grievously, not only against the gods, but against yourselves. The advice I give you is such that, it you follow it, you cannot be deceived either by me or by anyone else, and that with full knowledge you will punish the guilty with whatever punishment you may desire, either all of them together or each one separately, namely, by first granting them at least one day, if not more, to speak in their own defence, and by putting your trust, not so much in others, but in yourselves. , Now you all know, men of Athens, that the decree of Cannonus is exceedingly severe: it provides that if anyone shall wrong the people of Athens, he shall plead his case in fetters before the people, and if he be adjudged guilty, he shall be put to death by being cast into 406 B.C. the pit, and his property shall be confiscated and the tenth part thereof shall belong to the goddess. , Under this decree I urge you to try the generals, and, by Zeus, if it so please you, Pericles, my kinsman, first of them all; for it would be base for me to think more of him than of the general interests of the state. , Or if you do not wish to do this, try them under the following law, which applies to temple-robbers and traitors: namely, if anyone shall be a traitor to the state or shall steal sacred property, he shall be tried before a court, and if he be convicted, he shall not be buried in Attica, and his property shall be confiscated. , By whichever of these laws you choose, men of Athens, let the men be tried, each one separately, It was a general principle of Athenian law—perhaps specifically stated in the decree of Cannonus (see above)—that each accused person had the right to a separate trial. and let the day be divided into three parts, one wherein you shall gather and vote as to whether you judge them guilty or not, another wherein the accusers shall present their case, and another wherein the accused shall make their defence. , If this is done, the guilty will incur the severest punishment, and the guiltless will be set free by you, men of Athens, and will not be put to death unjustly. , As for yourselves, you will be granting a trial in accordance with the law and standing true to religion and your oaths, and you will not be fighting on the side of the Lacedaemonians by putting to death the men who captured seventy ships from them and defeated them,—by putting to death these men, I say, without a trial, in violation of the law. , What is it, pray, that you fear, that you are in such 406 B.C. excessive haste? Do you fear lest you will lose the right to put to death and set free anyone you please if you proceed in accordance with the law, but think that you will retain this right if you proceed in violation of the law, by the method which Callixeinus persuaded the Senate to report to the people, that is, by a single vote? , Yes, but you might possibly be putting to death some one who is really innocent; and repentance afterwards—ah, remember how painful and unavailing it always is, and especially when one’s error has brought about a man’s death. , You would do a monstrous thing if, after granting in the past to Aristarchus, In 411 B.C. Aristarchus helped to establish the short-lived oligarchical government of the Four Hundred. the destroyer of the democracy and afterwards the betrayer of Oenoe to your enemies the Thebans, a day in which to defend himself as he pleased, and allowing him all his other rights under the law,—if, I say, you shall now deprive the generals, who have done everything to your satisfaction, and have defeated the enemy, of these same rights. , Let no such act be yours, men of Athens, but guard the laws, which are your own and above all else have made you supremely great, and do not try to do anything without their sanction. And now come back to the actual circumstances under which the mistakes are thought to have been committed by the generals. When, after winning the battle, they sailed in to the shore, Diomedon urged that they should one and all put out to sea in line and pick up the wreckage and the shipwrecked men, while Erasinides proposed that all should sail with the utmost speed against the enemy at Mytilene. But Thrasyllus said that both things 406 B.C. would be accomplished if they should leave some of the ships there and should sail with the rest against the enemy; , and if this plan were decided upon, he advised that each of the generals, who were eight in number, should leave behind three ships from his own division, and that they should also leave the ten ships of the taxiarchs, the ten of the Samians, and the three of the nauarchs. These amount all told to forty-seven ships, four for each one of the lost vessels, which were twelve in number. , Among the captains who were left behind were both Thrasybulus and Theramenes, the man who accused the generals at the former meeting of the Assembly. And with the rest of the ships they planned to sail against the enemy’s fleet. Now what one of these acts did they not do adequately and well? It is but just, therefore, that those, on the one hand, who were detailed to go against the enemy should be held to account for their lack of success in dealing with the enemy, and that those, on the other hand, who were detailed to recover the shipwrecked, in case they did not do what the generals ordered, should be tried for not recovering them. , This much, however, I can say in defence of both parties, that the storm absolutely prevented them from doing any of the things which the generals had planned. And as witnesses to this fact you have those who were saved by mere chance, among whom is one of our generals, who came through safely on a disabled ship, and whom they now bid you judge by the same vote (although at that time he needed to be picked up himself) by which you judge those who did not do what they 406 B.C. were ordered to do. , Do not, then, men of Athens, in the face of your victory and your good fortune, act like men who are beaten and unfortunate, nor, in the face of heaven’s visitation, show yourselves unreasonable by giving a verdict of treachery instead of helplessness, since they found themselves unable on account of the storm to do what they had been ordered to do; nay, it would be far more just for you to honour the victors with garlands than, yielding to the persuasions of wicked men, to punish them with death. , When Euryptolemus had thus spoken, he offered a resolution that the men be tried under the decree of Cannonus, each one separately; whereas the proposal of the Senate was to judge them all by a single vote. The vote being now taken as between these two proposals, they decided at first in favour of the resolution of Euryptolemus; but when Menecles interposed an objection under oath Apparently questioning the legality of Euryptolemus’ proposal. Under the law such an objection should have suspended the consideration of the matter before the Assembly, but in this case it seems to have had no such result. and a second vote was taken, they decided in favour of that of the Senate. After this they condemned the generals who took part in the battle, eight in all; and the six who were in Athens were put to death., And not long afterwards the Athenians repented, and they voted that complaints A προβολή was a complaint presented to the Assembly, alleging an offence against the state. The Assembly, acting as a grand jury, might then hold the accused for trial before a court. be brought against any who had deceived the people, that they furnish bondsmen men until such time as they should be brought to 406 B.C. trial, and that Callixeinus be included among them. Complaints were brought against four others also, and they were put into confinement by their bondsmen. But when there broke out afterwards a factional disturbance, in the course of which Cleophon A popular leader of the democratic party. was put to death, these men escaped, before being brought to trial; Callixeinus indeed returned, at the time when the Piraeus party returned to the city, i.e., in the restoration which followed the overthrow of the Thirty Tyrants ( Xen. Hell. 2.4.39-43 ). but he was hated by everybody and died of starvation. 1.8. On the other hand, in case a man did not want to cohabit with his wife and nevertheless desired children of whom he could be proud, he made it lawful for him to choose a woman who was the mother of a fine family and of high birth, and if he obtained her husband’s consent, to make her the mother of his children. 1.9. He gave his sanction to many similar arrangements. For the wives i.e., at Sparta . want to take charge of two households, and the husbands want to get brothers for their sons, brothers who are members of the family and share in its influence, but claim no part of the money. |
|
20. Plato, Symposium, 182a7 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
21. Plato, Timaeus, 60e2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 |
22. Plato, Laws, 1.632b3-c1, 1.632b2, 1.632a5, 5.734e3-735a7, 1.632c4, 5.734e5, 5.735a5-6, 5.735a7, 1.631d3, 1.631d2-632d1, 6.751a3-b2, 7.793a10, 9.853a5, 9.880d8, 4.715e3-718a6, 5.726a1-734e2, 1.632c2-4, 10.904a9, 10.904c9, 4.721b1-3, 4.721b6-c8, 8.836e4, 2.674b7, 8.835e5, 6.768d7, 6.780d5, 7.795a1, 10.889e6, 5.734e3, 12.951d4-5, 10.890d4, 6.751a5, 4.721c8-d6 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 29 |
23. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 10.5 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •law, on marriage vs. torah study Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 104 10.5. יֵשׁ רָעָה רָאִיתִי תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ כִּשְׁגָגָה שֶׁיֹּצָא מִלִּפְנֵי הַשַּׁלִּיט׃ | 10.5. There is an evil which I have seen under the sun, like an error which proceedeth from a ruler: |
|
24. Aristotle, Politics, 4.1, 7.14.12.1, 335a, 335b (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 139 |
25. Anon., Jubilees, 13.25-13.27, 32.2-32.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 158 | 13.25. and slew the king of Gomorrah, and the king of Sodom fled, and many fell through wounds in the vale of Siddim, by the Salt Sea.rAnd they took captive Sodom and Adam and Zeboim, 13.26. and they took captive Lot also, the son of Abram's brother, and all his possessions, and they went to Dan. 13.27. And one who had escaped came and told Abram that his brother's son 32.2. and he awoke from his sleep and blessed the Lord. 32.3. And Jacob rose early in the morning, on the fourteenth of this month, and he gave a tithe of all that came with him, both of men and cattle, both of gold and every vessel and garment, yea, he gave tithes of all. 32.4. And in those days Rachel became pregt with her son Benjamin. And Jacob counted his sons from him upwards and Levi fell to the portion of the Lord, 32.5. and his father clothed him in the garments of the priesthood and filled his hands. 32.6. And on the fifteenth of this month, he brought to the altar fourteen oxen from amongst the cattle, and twenty-eight rams, and forty-nine sheep, and seven lambs, and twenty-one kids of the goats as a burnt-offering on the altar of sacrifice, well pleasing for a sweet savour before God 32.7. This was his offering, in consequence of the vow which he had vowed that he would give a tenth, with their fruit-offerings and their drink-offerings. 32.8. And when the fire had consumed it, he burnt incense on the fire over the fire, 32.9. and for a thank-offering two oxen and four rams and four sheep, four he-goats, and two sheep of a year old, and two kids of the goats; |
|
26. Dead Sea Scrolls, Instructionb, 2iii.20-2iv.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, foundation of Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 111 |
27. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 45.7, 45.8, 45.9, 45.10, 45.11, 45.12, 54.4, 57.15, 57.16, 57.17-118-19, 57.17, 57.18, 57.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 118 |
28. Dead Sea Scrolls, Orda, a b c\n0 2-4+8.8-10 2 2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, foundation of Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 115 |
29. Dead Sea Scrolls, Mmt, b.75-82, b.27-33 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 163, 164 |
30. Dead Sea Scrolls, Bibpar, 01-feb (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, foundation of Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 110 |
31. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.20-5.11, 12.14, 12.15, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 112 |
32. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.20-5.11, 12.14, 12.15, 13.15, 13.16, 13.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 112 |
33. Nicolaus of Damascus, Fragments, 144.6 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laws, on marriage Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 141 |
34. New Testament, Luke, 20 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, and resurrection •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage •resurrection, and marriage laws Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 124 | 20. , It happened on one of those days, as he was teaching the people in the temple and preaching the gospel, that the chief priests and scribes came to him with the elders. , They asked him, "Tell us: by what authority do you do these things? Or who is giving you this authority?", He answered them, "I also will ask you one question. Tell me: , the baptism of John, was it from heaven, or from men?", They reasoned with themselves, saying, "If we say, 'From heaven,' he will say, 'Why didn't you believe him?' , But if we say, 'From men,' all the people will stone us, for they are persuaded that John was a prophet.", They answered that they didn't know where it was from. , Jesus said to them, "Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things.", He began to tell the people this parable. "A man planted a vineyard, and rented it out to some farmers, and went into another country for a long time. , At the proper season, he sent a servant to the farmers to collect his share of the fruit of the vineyard. But the farmers beat him, and sent him away empty. , He sent yet another servant, and they also beat him, and treated him shamefully, and sent him away empty. , He sent yet a third, and they also wounded him, and threw him out. , The lord of the vineyard said, 'What shall I do? I will send my beloved son. It may be that seeing him, they will respect him.' , "But when the farmers saw him, they reasoned among themselves, saying, 'This is the heir. Come, let's kill him, that the inheritance may be ours.' , They threw him out of the vineyard, and killed him. What therefore will the lord of the vineyard do to them? , He will come and destroy these farmers, and will give the vineyard to others."When they heard it, they said, "May it never be!", But he looked at them, and said, "Then what is this that is written, 'The stone which the builders rejected, The same was made the chief cornerstone?' , "Everyone who falls on that stone will be broken to pieces, But it will crush whomever it falls on to dust.", The chief priests and the scribes sought to lay hands on Him that very hour, but they feared the people -- for they knew He had spoken this parable against them. , They watched him, and sent out spies, who pretended to be righteous, that they might trap him in something he said, so as to deliver him up to the power and authority of the governor. , They asked him, "Teacher, we know that you say and teach what is right, and aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. , Is it lawful for us to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?", But he perceived their craftiness, and said to them, "Why do you test me? , Show me a denarius. Whose image and inscription are on it?"They answered, "Caesar's.", He said to them, "Then give to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.", They weren't able to trap him in his words before the people. They marveled at his answer, and were silent. , Some of the Sadducees came to him, those who deny that there is a resurrection. , They asked him, "Teacher, Moses wrote to us that if a man's brother dies having a wife, and he is childless, his brother should take the wife, and raise up children for his brother. , There were therefore seven brothers. The first took a wife, and died childless. , The second took her as wife, and he died childless. , The third took her, and likewise the seven all left no children, and died. , Afterward the woman also died. , Therefore in the resurrection whose wife of them will she be? For the seven had her as a wife.", Jesus said to them, "The sons of this age marry, and are given in marriage. , But those who are considered worthy to attain to that age and the resurrection from the dead, neither marry, nor are given in marriage. , For they can't die any more, for they are like the angels, and are sons of God, being sons of the resurrection. , But that the dead are raised, even Moses showed at the bush, when he called the Lord 'The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.' , Now he is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all are alive to him.", Some of the scribes answered, "Teacher, you speak well.", They didn't dare to ask him any more questions. , He said to them, "Why do they say that the Christ is David's son? , David himself says in the book of Psalms, 'The Lord said to my Lord,"Sit at my right hand, , Until I make your enemies the footstool of your feet."' , "David therefore calls him Lord, so how is he his son?", In the hearing of all the people, he said to his disciples, , "Beware of the scribes, who like to walk in long robes, and love greetings in the marketplaces, the best seats in the synagogues, and the best places at feasts; , who devour widows' houses, and for a pretense make long prayers: these will receive greater condemnation." |
|
35. New Testament, Matthew, 22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, and resurrection •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage •resurrection, and marriage laws Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 124 | 22. , Jesus answered and spoke again in parables to them, saying, , "The Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who made a marriage feast for his son, , and sent out his servants to call those who were invited to the marriage feast, but they would not come. , Again he sent out other servants, saying, 'Tell those who are invited, "Behold, I have made ready my dinner. My oxen and my fatlings are killed, and all things are ready. Come to the marriage feast!"' , But they made light of it, and went their ways, one to his own farm, another to his merchandise, , and the rest grabbed his servants, and treated them shamefully, and killed them. , But the king was angry, and he sent his armies, destroyed those murderers, and burned their city. , "Then he said to his servants, 'The wedding is ready, but those who were invited weren't worthy. , Go therefore to the intersections of the highways, and as many as you may find, invite to the marriage feast.' , Those servants went out into the highways, and gathered together as many as they found, both bad and good. The wedding was filled with guests. , But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who didn't have on wedding clothing, , and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here not wearing wedding clothing?' He was speechless. , Then the king said to the servants, 'Bind him hand and foot, take him away, and throw him into the outer darkness; there is where the weeping and grinding of teeth will be.' , For many are called, but few chosen.", Then the Pharisees went and took counsel how they might entrap him in his talk. , They sent their disciples to him, along with the Herodians, saying, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and teach the way of God in truth, no matter who you teach, for you aren't partial to anyone. , Tell us therefore, what do you think? Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?", But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, "Why do you test me, you hypocrites? , Show me the tax money."They brought to him a denarius. , He asked them, "Whose is this image and inscription?", They said to him, "Caesar's."Then he said to them, "Give therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.", When they heard it, they marveled, and left him, and went away. , On that day Sadducees (those who say that there is no resurrection) came to him. They asked him, , saying, "Teacher, Moses said, 'If a man dies, having no children, his brother shall marry his wife, and raise up seed for his brother.' , Now there were with us seven brothers. The first married and died, and having no seed left his wife to his brother. , In like manner the second also, and the third, to the seventh. , After them all, the woman died. , In the resurrection therefore, whose wife will she be of the seven? For they all had her.", But Jesus answered them, "You are mistaken, not knowing the Scriptures, nor the power of God. , For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are like God's angels in heaven. , But concerning the resurrection of the dead, haven't you read that which was spoken to you by God, saying, , 'I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob?' God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.", When the multitudes heard it, they were astonished at his teaching. , But the Pharisees, when they heard that he had put the Sadducees to silence, gathered themselves together. , One of them, a lawyer, asked him a question, testing him. , "Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the law?", Jesus said to him, "'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' , This is the first and great commandment. , A second likewise is this, 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' , The whole law and the prophets depend on these two commandments.", Now while the Pharisees were gathered together, Jesus asked them a question, , saying, "What do you think of the Christ? Whose son is he?"They said to him, "of David.", He said to them, "How then does David in the Spirit call him Lord, saying, , 'The Lord said to my Lord, Sit on my right hand, Until I make your enemies a footstool for your feet?' , "If then David calls him Lord, how is he his son?", No one was able to answer him a word, neither dared any man from that day forth ask him any more questions. |
|
36. New Testament, Mark, 12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, and resurrection •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage •resurrection, and marriage laws Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 124 |
37. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 7.4, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage •marriage laws, and resurrection •resurrection, and marriage laws Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 119, 124 7.4. אֵלּוּ הֵן הַנִּסְקָלִין, הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, וְעַל אֵשֶׁת הָאָב, וְעַל הַכַּלָּה, וְעַל הַזְּכוּר, וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהַמְגַדֵּף, וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, וְהַנּוֹתֵן מִזַּרְעוֹ לַמֹּלֶךְ, וּבַעַל אוֹב וְיִדְּעוֹנִי, וְהַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַשַּׁבָּת, וְהַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְהַבָּא עַל נַעֲרָה הַמְאֹרָסָה, וְהַמֵּסִית, וְהַמַּדִּיחַ, וְהַמְכַשֵּׁף, וּבֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הַבָּא עַל הָאֵם, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵם וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב אֶלָּא מִשּׁוּם הָאֵם בִּלְבָד. הַבָּא עַל אֵשֶׁת אָב חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אָב וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי אָבִיו בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת אָבִיו, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל כַּלָּתוֹ, חַיָּב עָלֶיהָ מִשּׁוּם כַּלָּתוֹ וּמִשּׁוּם אֵשֶׁת אִישׁ, בֵּין בְּחַיֵּי בְנוֹ בֵּין לְאַחַר מִיתַת בְּנוֹ, בֵּין מִן הָאֵרוּסִין בֵּין מִן הַנִּשּׂוּאִין. הַבָּא עַל הַזְּכוּר וְעַל הַבְּהֵמָה, וְהָאִשָּׁה הַמְבִיאָה אֶת הַבְּהֵמָה, אִם אָדָם חָטָא, בְּהֵמָה מֶה חָטָאת, אֶלָּא לְפִי שֶׁבָּאת לָאָדָם תַּקָּלָה עַל יָדָהּ, לְפִיכָךְ אָמַר הַכָּתוּב תִּסָּקֵל. דָּבָר אַחֵר, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא בְּהֵמָה עוֹבֶרֶת בַּשּׁוּק וְיֹאמְרוּ זוֹ הִיא שֶׁנִּסְקַל פְּלוֹנִי עַל יָדָהּ: 10.1. כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: | 7.4. The following are stoned:He who has sexual relations with his mother, with his father's wife, with his daughter-in-law, with a male; with a beast; a woman who commits bestiality with a beast; a blasphemer; an idolater; one who gives of his seed to molech; a necromancer or a wizard; one who desecrates the Sabbath; he who curses his father or mother; he who commits adultery with a betrothed woman; one who incites [individuals to idolatry]; one who seduces [a whole town to idolatry]; a sorcerer; and a wayward and rebellious son. He who has sexual relations with his mother incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his mother and as his father's wife. R. Judah says: “He is liable in respect of her as his mother only.” He who has sexual relations with his father's wife incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his father's wife, and as a married woman, both during his father's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with his daughter-in-law incurs a penalty in respect of her both as his daughter-in-law and as a married woman, both during his son's lifetime and after his death, whether she was widowed from betrothal or from marriage. He who has sexual relations with a male or a beast, and a woman that commits bestiality: if the man has sinned, how has the animal sinned? But because the human was enticed to sin by the animal, therefore scripture ordered that it should be stoned. Another reason is that the animal should not pass through the market, and people say, this is the animal on account of which so and so was stoned. 10.1. All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.” |
|
38. Seneca The Younger, Letters, 12.3, 83.4, 94.37 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •juridical authorities, on lawful marriages •marriage on the choice of a spouse, first law of the cycle Found in books: Hug, Fertility, Ideology, and the Cultural Politics of Reproduction at Rome (2023) 128; Laks, Plato's Second Republic: An Essay on the Laws (2022) Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2022 215 | 94.37. "Still," it is objected, "laws do not always make us do what we ought to do; and what else are laws than precepts mingled with threats?" Now first of all, the laws do not persuade just because they threaten; precepts, however, instead of coercing, correct men by pleading. Again, laws frighten one out of communicating crime, while precepts urge a man on to his duty. Besides, the laws also are of assistance towards good conduct, at any rate if they instruct as well as command. 94.37. Still, it is objected, "laws do not always make us do what we ought to do; and what else are laws than precepts mingled with threats?" Now first of all, the laws do not persuade just because they threaten; precepts, however, instead of coercing, correct men by pleading. Again, laws frighten one out of communicating crime, while precepts urge a man on to his duty. Besides, the laws also are of assistance towards good conduct, at any rate if they instruct as well as command. 94.37. Now, as the former sort, who are inclined towards the good, can be raised to the heights more quickly: so the weaker spirits will be assisted and freed from their evil opinions if we entrust to them the accepted principles of philosophy; and you may understand how essential these principles are in the following way. Certain things sink into us, rendering us sluggish in some ways, and hasty in others. These two qualities, the one of recklessness and the other of sloth, cannot be respectively checked or roused unless we remove their causes, which are mistaken admiration and mistaken fear. As long as we are obsessed by such feelings, you may say to us: "You owe this duty to your father, this to your children, this to your friends, this to your guests"; but greed will always hold us back, no matter how we try. A man may know that he should fight for his country, but fear will dissuade him. A man may know that he should sweat forth his last drop of energy on behalf of his friends, but luxury will forbid. A man may know that keeping a mistress is the worst kind of insult to his wife, but lust will drive him in the opposite direction. |
|
39. Plutarch, Solon, 20.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage, phernas and solonic law Found in books: Satlow, The Gift in Antiquity (2013) 160 |
40. Tosefta, Yevamot, 2.5, 2.6, 11.2, 12a, 3d (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 158, 159, 165 |
41. Plutarch, Aristides, 27.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laws, on marriage Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 142 27.4. καὶ οὐδέν ἐστι θαυμαστὸν οὕτω φροντίσαι τῶν ἐν ἄστει τὸν δῆμον, ὅπου θυγατριδῆν Ἀριστογείτονος ἐν Λήμνῳ πυθόμενοι ταπεινὰ πράττειν ἀνδρὸς ἀποροῦσαν διὰ πενίαν κατήγαγον Ἀθήναζε, καὶ συνοικίσαντες ἀνδρὶ τῶν εὖ γεγονότων τὸ Ποταμοῖ χωρίον εἰς φερνὴν ἐπέδωκαν. ἧς φιλανθρωπίας καὶ χρηστότητος ἔτι πολλὰ καὶ καθʼ ἡμᾶς ἡ πόλις ἐκφέρουσα δείγματα θαυμάζεται καὶ ζηλοῦται δικαίως. | 27.4. It is not to be wondered at that the people took such thought for families in the city, since on learning that the granddaughter of Aristogeiton was living humbly in Lemnos, unmarried because of her poverty, they brought her back to Athens, consorted her with a well-born man, and gave her the estate in Potamus for her dowry. For such humanity and benevolence, of which the city still gives illustrious examples even in my own day, she is justly admired and lauded. |
|
42. Anon., Sifra, kedoshim 10, kedoshim 12 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 122 |
43. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 9.13.1, 1.3.5, 1.3.53, 9.13.1b, 9.13.1g (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 130 |
44. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 55.2.5-55.2.7 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •augustan legislation, summary of marriage law provisions Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 109 | 55.2.5. And the same festivities were being prepared for Drusus; even the Feriae were to be held a second time on his account, so that he might celebrate his triumph on that occasion. But his untimely death upset these plans. To Livia statues were voted by way of consoling her and she was enrolled among the mothers of three children. 55.2.5. And the same festivities were being prepared for Drusus; even the Feriae were to be held a second time on his account, so that he might celebrate his triumph on that occasion. But his untimely death upset these plans. To Livia statues were voted by way of consoling her and she was enrolled among the mothers of three children. 6 For in certain cases, formerly by act of the senate, but now by the emperor's, the law bestows the privileges which belong to the parents of three children upon men or women to whom Heaven has not granted that number of children. In this way they are not subject to the penalties imposed for childlessness and may receive all but a few of the rewards offered for large families; 55.2.6. For in certain cases, formerly by act of the senate, but now by the emperor's, the law bestows the privileges which belong to the parents of three children upon men or women to whom Heaven has not granted that number of children. In this way they are not subject to the penalties imposed for childlessness and may receive all but a few of the rewards offered for large families; |
|
45. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, bachodesh 7 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 121 |
46. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, 71a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, converts and •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 159 71a. בכדי חייו,רבינא אמר הכא בתלמידי חכמים עסקינן טעמא מאי גזור רבנן שמא ילמוד ממעשיו וכיון דתלמיד חכם הוא לא ילמוד ממעשיו,איכא דמתני לה להא דרב הונא אהא דתני רב יוסף (שמות כב, כד) אם כסף תלוה את עמי את העני עמך עמי ונכרי עמי קודם עני ועשיר עני קודם ענייך ועניי עירך ענייך קודמין עניי עירך ועניי עיר אחרת עניי עירך קודמין,אמר מר עמי ונכרי עמי קודם פשיטא אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא לא נצרכא דאפילו לנכרי ברבית ולישראל בחנם,תניא אמר ר' יוסי בא וראה סמיות עיניהם של מלוי ברבית אדם קורא לחבירו רשע יורד עמו לחייו והם מביאין עדים ולבלר וקולמוס ודיו וכותבין וחותמין פלוני זה כפר באלהי ישראל,תניא ר' שמעון בן אלעזר אומר כל מי שיש לו מעות ומלוה אותם שלא ברבית עליו הכתוב אומר (תהלים טו, ה) כספו לא נתן בנשך ושוחד על נקי לא לקח עושה אלה לא ימוט לעולם הא למדת שכל המלוה ברבית נכסיו מתמוטטין והא קא חזינן דלא מוזפי ברבית וקא מתמוטטין אמר רבי אלעזר הללו מתמוטטין ועולין והללו מתמוטטין ואינן עולין,(חבקוק א, יג) למה תביט בוגדים תחריש כבלע רשע צדיק ממנו אמר רב הונא צדיק ממנו בולע צדיק גמור אינו בולע,תניא רבי אומר גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה וגר תושב האמור לענין רבית איני יודע מה הוא,גר צדק האמור לענין מכירה דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לט) וכי ימוך אחיך עמך ונמכר לך ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר,ולא לגר צדק אלא לגר תושב שנא' (ויקרא כה, מז) לגר תושב משפחת גר זה הנכרי כשהוא אומר או לעקר זה הנמכר לעבודת כוכבים עצמה,אמר מר ולא לך אלא לגר שנא' לגר למימרא דגר קני עבד עברי ורמינהי אין הגר נקנה בעבד עברי ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי,גר לא נקנה בעבד עברי (ויקרא כה, מא) ושב אל משפחתו בעינן והא ליכא ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי אשה לאו אורח ארעא גר נמי גמירי דמקני קני דלא מקני לא קני,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אינו קונה ודינו כישראל אבל קונה ודינו כנכרי,דתניא הנרצע והנמכר לנכרי אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת,אמר מר ואין אשה וגר קונין עבד עברי נימא דלא כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל דתניא אשה קונה את השפחות ואינה קונה את העבדים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף קונה את העבדים אפילו תימא רבן שמעון בן גמליאל ולא קשיא כאן בעבד עברי כאן בעבד כנעני,עבד עברי צניע לה עבד כנעני פריץ לה,אלא הא דתני רב יוסף ארמלתא לא תרבי כלבא ולא תשרי בר בי רב באושפיזא בשלמא בר בי רב צניע לה אלא כלבא כיון דמסריך בה מירתתא אמרי כיון דכי שדיא ליה אומצא מסריך בתרה אמרי אינשי משום אומצא דשדיא ליה הוא דמסריך,גר תושב האמור לענין רבית מאי היא דכתיב (ויקרא כה, לה) וכי ימוך אחיך ומטה ידו עמך והחזקת בו גר ותושב וחי עמך אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית ויראת מאלהיך וחי אחיך עמך ורמינהי לוין מהן ומלוין אותן ברבית וכן בגר תושב,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מי כתיב אל תקח מאתם מאתו כתיב מישראל,תנו רבנן אל תקח מאתו נשך ותרבית אבל אתה נעשה לו ערב | 71a. to teach that one may lend money with interest to a ger toshav only to the extent required to provide a livelihood to the lender, but not to do so as a regular business.,Ravina said: Here in the mishna we are dealing with Torah scholars, for whom it is permitted to lend money to a gentile with interest. The Gemara explains: What is the reason the Sages decreed that one should not lend money to a gentile with interest? The reason is that perhaps the Jew will learn from the gentile’s actions. Continuous interactions with gentiles for the sake of ficial dealings may have a negative influence on a Jew. And since in this case the lender is a Torah scholar, he will not learn from the gentile’s actions.,There are those who teach that which Rav Huna said in connection with that which Rav Yosef taught: The verse states: “If you lend money to any of My people, even to the poor person who is with you” (Exodus 22:24). The term “My people” teaches that if one of My people, i.e., a Jew, and a gentile both come to borrow money from you, My people take precedence. The term “the poor person” teaches that if a poor person and a rich person come to borrow money, the poor person takes precedence. And from the term: “Who is with you,” it is derived: If your poor person, meaning one of your relatives, and one of the poor of your city come to borrow money, your poor person takes precedence. If it is between one of the poor of your city and one of the poor of another city, the one of the poor of your city takes precedence.,The Master said above: If one of My people and a gentile come to you for a loan, My people take precedence. The Gemara asks: Isn’t this obvious? Is there any reason to think that a gentile would take precedence over a Jew? Rav Naḥman said that Rav Huna said to me: It is necessary only to teach that even if the choice is to lend money to a gentile with interest or to a Jew for free, without interest, one must still give preference to the Jew and lend the money to him, even though this will entail a lack of profit.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Come and see the blindness in the eyes of those who lend money with interest. If a person calls another a wicked person in public, the other becomes insulted and he harasses him in all aspects of his life because he called him by this disgraceful name. But they who lend with interest bring witnesses and a scribe [velavlar] and a pen [vekulmos] and ink and write and sign a document that testifies: So-and-so denies the existence of the God of Israel, as the very fact that he lent with interest in defiance of the Torah is tantamount to a denial of the existence of God.,It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Concerning anyone who has money and lends it without interest, the verse says about him: “He who has not given his money with interest and who has not taken a bribe against the innocent, he who does these shall never collapse” (Psalms 15:5). From this statement, the opposite can also be inferred: You learn from this that concerning anyone who lends his money to others with interest, his property, i.e., his ficial standing, collapses. The Gemara asks: But we see people who do not lend money with interest and nevertheless their property collapses. Rabbi Elazar says: There is still a difference: Those who do not lend money with interest collapse but then ultimately rise, but these, who lend with interest, collapse and do not rise again.,Referring to the subject of honest people who collapse temporarily, it is said: “Why do You observe the treacherous, and remain silent while the wicked swallows the one who is more righteous than he?” (Habakkuk 1:13). Rav Huna says about this verse: One who is more righteous than he, he swallows for the moment, but he does not swallow a completely righteous person at all.,§ The Gemara returns to the clarification of the mishna, which mentioned the subject of a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ger toshav]. It is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi says: With regard to the convert that is mentioned concerning the sale of a Hebrew slave and the ger toshav that is mentioned concerning interest, I do not know what the meaning of each of these references is.,The Gemara explains: The convert that is mentioned concerning the sale of a Hebrew slave is referring to the following, as it is written: “If your brother waxes poor with you and is sold unto you” (Leviticus 25:39), and it was expounded in a baraita: And not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will be sold even to a convert, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger [leger]” (Leviticus 25:47).,And this sale to a ger is referring to a sale not only to a righteous convert [leger tzedek], but even to a ger toshav, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger who is a settler [leger toshav]” (Leviticus 25:47). With regard to the continuation of the verse: “Or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to a gentile, i.e., he will reach a state where he has no choice but to sell himself to a gentile. When it states: “Or to an offshoot of a stranger’s family,” this is referring to one sold for idol worship itself, i.e., he is forced to sell himself as a slave to work in a temple of idol worship.,The Gemara clarifies the baraita. The Master said: And not only will he be sold to you, a born Jew, but he will be sold even to a convert, as it is stated: “And sells himself to a stranger.” Is this to say that a convert may acquire a Hebrew slave? The Gemara raises a contradiction from a baraita: A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, and a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave.,The Gemara explains the baraita. A convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, as we require the fulfillment of the verse: “Then he shall go out from you, he and his children with him, and shall return to his own family” (Leviticus 25:41), and a convert is not able to do this, since upon conversion the convert severs his relationship with his gentile family, and he therefore has no family. The baraita teaches: And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. With regard to a woman, the reason is that it is not proper conduct, since people may say that she is purchasing him to engage in sexual intercourse with him. With regard to a convert as well, it is learned as a tradition: Only one who can be acquired as a Hebrew slave can acquire a Hebrew slave, and one who cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave cannot acquire a Hebrew slave. Since a convert cannot be acquired as a Hebrew slave, he also cannot acquire one.,Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s question was that since it has been established that a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave, why was he mentioned in the verse? Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: He cannot acquire a Hebrew slave and have his halakha be like that of a Jew who owns a Hebrew slave, but he can acquire a Hebrew slave and have his halakha be like that of a gentile who owns a Hebrew slave.,This is as it is taught in a baraita: A Hebrew slave who had his ear pierced by his own request in order to remain a slave after his six-year period of servitude was over, and therefore is emancipated only during the Jubilee Year, and also a Hebrew slave who was sold to a gentile, does not serve his master’s son and does not serve his master’s daughter after his master’s death, but rather is emancipated. The same halakha would apply to a Hebrew slave sold to a convert, whose status in this respect is similar to that of a gentile.,The Master said above: And a woman or a convert may not acquire a Hebrew slave. The Gemara suggests: Let us say that this baraita is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it is taught in a baraita: A woman may acquire maidservants but may not acquire male slaves, in order to preserve standards of modesty. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may also acquire male slaves. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: Even if you say that this baraita is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, it is not difficult. Here, where it is prohibited, the ruling is stated with regard to a Hebrew slave, and there, where Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel renders it permitted, the ruling is stated with regard to a Canaanite slave.,The Gemara explains the difference: A Hebrew slave is regarded as discreet in her eyes, and since she trusts that a Hebrew slave will not reveal their actions to others if they engage in sexual intercourse, it is prohibited for her to acquire a male Hebrew slave. By contrast, a Canaanite slave is regarded as indiscreet in her eyes, so she will be deterred from transgressing with him.,The Gemara asks: But this seems to contradict the baraita that Rav Yosef teaches: A widow may not raise a dog, due to suspicion that she may engage in bestiality, and she may not allow a student of Torah to dwell as a lodger in her home. Granted, it makes sense that it is prohibited for her to have a student of Torah lodging in her home, as he is regarded as discreet in her eyes. But concerning a dog, since it would follow her around afterward if she would engage in bestiality with it, she is afraid to sin with it. Therefore, it should be permitted for her to raise it. The Sages say in response: Since it will also follow her around if she throws it a piece of meat [umtza], people will say: It is following her due to the meat she threw to it, and they will not suspect her of sinning. Consequently, she will not be deterred from transgressing.,The Gemara discusses Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s second difficulty: The ger toshav that was mentioned concerning interest, what is it? What was Rabbi Yehuda’s difficulty? As it is written: “And if your brother waxes poor, and his means fail with you, then you shall strengthen him, as a stranger and a resident [ger vetoshav] shall he live with you. You may not take interest or increase from him, but fear your God, and your brother should live with you” (Leviticus 25:35–36). This indicates that interest may not be taken from a ger toshav. And the Gemara raises a contradiction from the mishna: One may borrow money from them, i.e., from gentiles, and lend money to them with interest, and similarly, one may borrow money from and lend money to a ger toshav with interest.,Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Is it written: Do not take from them? No, it is written: “Do not take from him,” in the singular, and it means: Do not take interest from a Jew.,With regard to this verse the Sages taught: “You may not take interest or increase from him,” but you may become a guarantor for him for a transaction involving interest. |
|
47. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 22a, 23a, 62a, 97b, 97b-98b, 98a, 87b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 159 |
48. Diogenes Laertius, Lives of The Philosophers, 26 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •laws, on marriage Found in books: Brule, Women of Ancient Greece (2003) 141 |
49. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, 47a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 165 47a. יכיר לחוד והכרת פנים לחוד,איתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה רבי יוחנן אומר אין לו בכור לנחלה דהא הוה ליה ראשית אונו ור"ש בן לקיש אומר יש לו בכור לנחלה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,ואזדו לטעמייהו דאיתמר היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר ר' יוחנן אמר קיים פריה ורביה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים ר' יוחנן אמר קיים (ישעיהו מה, יח) לא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה ור"ש בן לקיש אמר לא קיים פריה ורביה גר שנתגייר כקטן שנולד דמי,וצריכא דאי איתמר בהא קמייתא בהא קאמר רשב"ל משום דבהיותו עובד כוכבים לאו בני נחלה נינהו אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לרבי יוחנן דלא תוהו בראה לשבת יצרה והא עבד ליה שבת,ואי איתמר בהא בהא קאמר רבי יוחנן אבל בהא אימא מודה ליה לר"ש בן לקיש צריכא,תנן מי שלא היו לו בנים ונשא אשה שכבר ילדה עודה שפחה ונשתחררה עודה עובדת כוכבים ונתגיירה ומשבאתה לישראל ילדה ולדה בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן,ילדה ממאן אילימא מישראל שלא היו לו בנים מאי איריא גיורת ושפחה אפילו בת ישראל נמי,אלא לאו מגר שהיו לו בנים ונתגייר וקתני בכור לנחלה,לא לעולם מישראל שלא היו לו בנים ואינו בכור לכהן איצטריכא ליה,לאפוקי מדרבי יוסי הגלילי דאמר בכור לנחלה ולכהן שנאמר (שמות יג, יב) פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל קמ"ל דלא,ת"ש היו לו בנים בהיותו עובד כוכבים ונתגייר יש לו בכור לנחלה אמר רבינא ואיתימא רב אחא הא ודאי רבי יוסי הגלילי הוא דאמר פטר רחם בישראל עד שיפטרו רחם מישראל ויליף איהו מינה דידה,אמר רב אדא בר אהבה לוייה שילדה בנה פטור מה' סלעים דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ומלוי מאי איריא לוייה אפילו ישראלית נמי,אלא דאיעבר מישראל (במדבר א, ב) למשפחותם לבית אבותם כתיב,אמר רב פפא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים ולא תימא אליבא דמאן דאמר אין מזהמין את הולד אלא אפילו למאן דאמר מזהמין את הולד לוי פסול מיקרי,מר בריה דרב יוסף אמר משמיה דרבא לעולם דאיעבר מישראל ושאני התם דאמר קרא פטר רחם בפטר רחם תלא רחמנא,תנן מי שהיו לו בנים ונשא אשה שלא ילדה נתגיירה מעוברת נשתחררה מעוברת,וילדה היא וכהנת היא ולויה היא ואשה שכבר ילדה וכן מי שלא שהתה אחרי בעלה ג' חדשים ונשאת וילדה ואין ידוע אם בן ט' לראשון אם בן ז' לאחרון בכור לכהן ואינו בכור לנחלה,מכלל דכהונה ולויה פטורין דאיעבר ממאן אילימא דאיעבר מכהן ולוי אי הכי מאי איריא כהנת ולויה אפי' בת ישראל נמי,אלא דאיעבר מעובד כוכבים כהנת פטורה והאמר רב פפא בדיק לן רבה כהנת שנתעברה מעובד כוכבים מהו ואמינא ליה לאו היינו דרב אדא בר אהבה דאמר לויה שילדה בנה פטור מחמש סלעים,ואמר לי הכי השתא בשלמא לויה בקדושתה קיימא דתניא לויה שנשבית או שנבעלה בעילת זנות נותנין לה מן המעשר ואוכלת,אלא כהנת כיון דאי בעיל לה הויא זרה,הניחא למר בריה דרב יוסף משמיה דרבא דאמר דאיעבר מישראל מוקי לה בדאיעבר מישראל אלא לרב פפא במאי מוקי לה,לעולם דאיעבר מכהן והיא בת ישראל ואמאי קרי לה כהנת דבנה כהן | 47a. The requirement of “He shall recognize” with regard to a firstborn for inheritance, and the recognition of a husband’s face, are discrete matters.,§ It was stated that amora’im engaged in a dispute concerning the case of a man who had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted: Rabbi Yoḥa says he does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, i.e., a son who is his firstborn after his conversion does not inherit a double portion; and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance. The Gemara elaborates: Rabbi Yoḥa says: He does not have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as this man already had “the first of his strength” (Deuteronomy 21:17), the Torah’s description of the firstborn in this context, before he converted. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He does have a firstborn with regard to inheritance, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born.,The Gemara comments: And these amora’im follow their regular line of reasoning, as it was stated: If a man had children when he was a gentile and he subsequently converted, Rabbi Yoḥa says: He has already fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, and Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says: He has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply. The Gemara clarifies: Rabbi Yoḥa says he has fulfilled the aspect of the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply expressed in the command: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited” (Isaiah 45:18), i.e., to increase the inhabitation of the world. And Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says he has not fulfilled the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, as the halakhic status of a convert who just converted is like that of a child just born, and it is considered as though he did not have children.,The Gemara adds: And it is necessary to state their opinions in both cases. As, if it were stated only in that first case with regard to inheritance, perhaps it is only in that case that Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish says his opinion that the first son born after conversion inherits a double portion, because in their gentile state they are not subject to the halakhot of inheritance. But with regard to that case, the mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, say he concedes to Rabbi Yoḥa that since the verse states: “He did not create it to be a waste; He formed it to be inhabited,” and he has indeed performed an action that enables the world to be further inhabited, he has therefore fulfilled the mitzva.,And conversely, if their dispute were stated only with regard to this mitzva to be fruitful and multiply, perhaps it is only in this case that Rabbi Yoḥa says his opinion, due to the verse: “He formed it to be inhabited.” But with regard to that case of inheritance, say he concedes to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish that sons born when one was a gentile are disregarded. Consequently, it is necessary to teach their opinions in both disputes.,The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa: We learned in the mishna: One who did not have sons and he married a woman who had already given birth; or if he married a woman who gave birth when she was still a Canaanite maidservant and she was then emancipated; or one who gave birth when she was still a gentile and she then converted, and when the maidservant or the gentile came to join the Jewish people she gave birth to a male, that offspring is a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.,The Gemara analyzes the mishna: This maidservant or convert, whose child that was born when she came to join the Jewish people is a firstborn for inheritance, from whom, i.e., from what type of father, did she bear him? If we say she bore him from a Jew who did not previously have sons, the initial subject of this clause of the mishna, why does it make reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant, indicating that this son is a firstborn for inheritance because the ones born when she was not Jewish are disregarded? The halakha would be the same even with regard to a Jewish woman who had already given birth.,Rather, is the mishna not referring to two distinct cases? The first concerns a man who already had children before converting, and then marries a Jew who has already given birth to children, while the second involves a woman who had children when she was a maidservant or a gentile, and when she became Jewish she bore a child from one like her, a convert who had sons when he was a gentile and then converted. And the mishna teaches that this son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance, which apparently contradicts the opinion of Rabbi Yoḥa.,The Gemara answers: No; actually, her child was born from a Jew who did not have sons, and the reason the mishna makes reference specifically to a gentile or a maidservant is not due to the case of inheritance. Rather, it was necessary for the clause: But is not a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest.,This statement serves to exclude the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: That son is a firstborn with regard to inheritance and with regard to redemption from a priest, as it is stated: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2), i.e., one is not considered a firstborn unless he opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people, and therefore the children that she bore before she converted are not considered to have opened her womb. Therefore, the first tanna of the mishna teaches us that he is not a firstborn with regard to redemption, as his mother’s womb was already opened when she was a gentile.,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear a proof against Rabbi Yoḥa from a baraita: If a man had sons when he was a gentile and he converted, and then fathered more sons, he has a firstborn with regard to inheritance. Ravina says, and some say it is Rav Aḥa who says: This ruling is certainly in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says that the phrase in the verse “whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” means it is not a firstborn unless it opens the womb of a woman from the Jewish people. And he derives his halakha, that of a gentile who converted, from her halakha, that of a female convert, that one does not take into account the children born before they converted. Rabbi Yoḥa may hold in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili.,§ Rav Adda bar Ahava says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins to the priest for his redemption, as the child is considered to be the son of a Levite and Levites are exempt from this obligation. The Gemara asks: From whom did she become pregt? If we say that she became pregt from a priest or a Levite, why does Rav Adda bar Ahava refer specifically to the daughter of a Levite? The halakha would be the same even for an Israelite woman who became pregt from a priest or a Levite.,Rather, Rav Adda bar Ahava must be referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregt from an Israelite. But if so, why is the son’s status determined by his mother’s status in this instance? After all, it is written: “By their families, by their fathers’ houses” (Numbers 1:2), which indicates that the lineage of a Jewish family follows the father rather than the mother.,Rav Pappa says: This is referring to the daughter of a Levite who became pregt from a gentile. In such a case, the son’s status is determined by that of the mother, and therefore the son is exempt from the redemption of the firstborn. And do not say this is the halakha only according to the one who says that in such a situation one does not disqualify the child at all due to his gentile father, and he is of fit lineage. Rather, even according to the one who says that one does disqualify the child due to the gentile father, nevertheless, one also follows the mother and he is therefore called a Levite of flawed lineage, and is exempt from redemption.,Mar, son of Rav Yosef, says a different explanation, in the name of Rava: Actually, Rav Adda bar Ahava is referring to a case where the daughter of a Levite became pregt from an Israelite. And although the son’s status is usually determined by that of the father, there, with regard to the redemption of the firstborn, it is different, as the verse states: “Whatever opens the womb among the children of Israel” (Exodus 13:2). This teaches that the Merciful One renders the obligation dependent upon the opening of the womb, and since this firstborn came from the womb of a daughter of a Levite, and not a Levite, the obligation of redemption does not apply.,The Gemara raises a difficulty concerning the opinion of Rav Pappa: We learned in the mishna: One who had sons and married a woman who had not given birth; or a woman who converted while she was pregt, or a Canaanite maidservant who was emancipated while she was pregt and she gave birth to a son, he is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but he is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.,And likewise, if an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a priest, neither of whom had given birth yet, or an Israelite woman and the daughter or wife of a Levite, or an Israelite woman and a woman who had already given birth, gave birth, and it is uncertain which son was born to which mother; and likewise a woman who did not wait three months after the death of her husband and she married and gave birth, and it is unknown whether the child was born after nine months and is the son of the first husband, or whether he was born after seven months and is the son of the latter husband, in all these cases the child is a firstborn with regard to redemption from a priest but is not a firstborn with regard to inheritance.,The Gemara explains the difficulty: From the ruling in the case of one whose child became confused with that of a daughter of a priest or a Levite, by inference one can derive that the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite are exempt from redemption.Now, from whom did she become pregt? If we say that she became pregt from a priest or a Levite, if so, why specifically mention the daughter of a priest and the daughter of a Levite? The same halakha would apply even in the case of an Israelite woman who became pregt from a priest or a Levite, as the son is exempt from redemption because he is also a priest or a Levite.,Rather, if the case is where the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite became pregt from a gentile, then is the son of the daughter of a priest exempt? But didn’t Rav Pappa say: Rabba tested us on the following matter: With regard to the daughter of a priest who became pregt from a gentile, what is the halakha? And we said to him: Isn’t this the case discussed by Rav Adda bar Ahava, who says: With regard to the daughter of a Levite who gave birth to a firstborn boy, her son is exempt from the obligation to give five sela coins? This ruling was interpreted as referring to one who became pregt from a gentile.,Rav Pappa continues: And Rabba said to me: How can these cases be compared? Granted, if the daughter of a Levite has a child from a gentile, he is considered a Levite with regard to redemption since his mother retains her sanctity. As it is taught in a baraita: In the case of a Levite woman who was captured, leading to a concern that one of her captors might have engaged in sexual intercourse with her, or even if a Levite woman definitely engaged in licentious sexual intercourse, one nevertheless gives her first tithe and she may eat it.,But with regard to the daughter of a priest, since if a gentile engages in intercourse with her she becomes like a non-priest and may no longer partake of teruma, her son from a gentile should be considered like an Israelite and be obligated in the redemption of a firstborn. If so, in what case does the mishna exempt the son of a daughter of a priest or a daughter of a Levite from redemption?,The Gemara notes: This works out well according to the opinion of Mar, son of Rav Yosef, citing in the name of Rava, who says that Rav Adda bar Ahava, who deems the son of a Levite woman exempt from the obligation of redemption, was referring to a case where she became pregt from an Israelite. This is because he can interpret the mishna as referring to the daughter of a priest or the daughter of a Levite who became pregt from an Israelite. But according to the opinion of Rav Pappa, who maintains that the son of a priest’s or Levite’s daughter who became pregt from an Israelite is subject to the obligation of redemption from a priest, with regard to what case does he interpret the mishna?,The Gemara answers: Actually, the mishna is not referring to the daughter of a priest but to a woman who became pregt from a priest. Therefore, her son is exempt from redemption, and yet she herself is an Israelite woman. And why does the mishna call her the daughter of a priest [kohenet]? Because her son is a priest. |
|
50. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 109b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, converts and •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 159 |
51. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 62b, 62a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud (2003) 105 62a. אורחא דמילתא כמה אמר רב חדש כאן וחדש בבית שנאמר (דברי הימים א כז, א) לכל דבר המחלקות הבאה והיוצאת חדש בחדש לכל חדשי השנה ור' יוחנן אמר חדש כאן ושנים בביתו שנאמר (מלכים א ה, כח) חדש יהיו בלבנון שנים חדשים בביתו,ורב נמי מ"ט לא אמר מההיא שאני בנין בית המקדש דאפשר ע"י אחרים ור' יוחנן מ"ט לא אמר מההיא שאני התם דאית ליה הרווחה,אמר רב אנחה שוברת חצי גופו של אדם שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, יא) ואתה בן אדם האנח בשברון מתנים ובמרירות תאנח ורבי יוחנן אמר אף כל גופו של אדם שנאמר (יחזקאל כא, יב) והיה כי יאמרו אליך על מה אתה נאנח ואמרת אל שמועה כי באה ונמס כל לב ורפו כל ידים וכהתה כל רוח וכל ברכים תלכנה מים,ורבי יוחנן נמי הכתיב בשברון מתנים ההיא דכי מתחלא ממתנים מתחלא ורב נמי הכתי' ונמס כל לב ורפו כל ידים וכהתה כל רוח שאני שמועה דבית המקדש דתקיפא טובא,ההוא ישראל ועובד כוכבים דהוו קאזלי באורחא בהדי הדדי לא אימצי עובד כוכבים לסגויי בהדי ישראל אדכריה חורבן בית המקדש נגיד ואיתנח ואפ"ה לא אימצי עובד כוכבים לסגויי בהדיה א"ל לאו אמריתו אנחה שוברת חצי גופו של אדם א"ל ה"מ מילתא חדתי אבל הא דשנן בה לא דאמרי אינשי דמלפי תכלי לא בהתה:,הטיילין בכל יום: מאי טיילין אמר רבא בני פירקי א"ל אביי מאן דכתיב בהו (תהלים קכז, ב) שוא לכם משכימי קום מאחרי שבת אוכלי לחם העצבים כן יתן לידידו שנא ואמר רב יצחק אלו נשותיהן של ת"ח שמנדדות שינה מעיניהם בעוה"ז ובאות לחיי העוה"ב ואת אמרת בני פירקי,אלא אמר אביי כדרב דאמר רב כגון רב שמואל בר שילת דאכיל מדידיה ושתי מדידיה וגני בטולא דאפדניה ולא חליף פריסתקא דמלכא אבביה כי אתא רבין אמר כגון מפנקי דמערבא,ר' אבהו הוה קאי בי באני הוו סמכי ליה תרי עבדי איפחית בי באני מתותיה איתרמי לי' עמודא סליק ואסקינהו ר' יוחנן הוה קסליק בדרגא הוו סמכי ליה רב אמי ורב אסי איפחתא דרגא תותיה סליק ואסקינהו אמרי ליה רבנן וכי מאחר דהכי למה ליה למיסמכיה אמר להו א"כ מה אניח לעת זקנה:,והפועלים שתים בשבת: והתניא הפועלים אחת בשבת א"ר יוסי ברבי חנינא לא קשיא כאן בעושין מלאכה בעירן כאן בעושין מלאכה בעיר אחרת תניא נמי הכי הפועלים שתים בשבת במה דברים אמורים בעושין מלאכה בעירן אבל בעושין מלאכה בעיר אחרת אחת בשבת:,החמרים אחת בשבת: אמר ליה רבה בר רב חנן לאביי איכפל תנא לאשמועינן טייל ופועל אמר ליה לא | 62a. The Gemara explains its query: Although a man can legally make any agreement with his wife to limit her conjugal rights, how much is an acceptable manner for this matter? Rav said: The husband may spend a month here, in the study hall, and then must spend a month at home. The allusion to this is as it is stated with regard to reserve units serving in King David’s army: “In any matter of the courses, which came in and went out month by month throughout all the months of the year” (I Chronicles 27:1). And Rabbi Yoḥa said: He may spend one month here, in the study hall, and then two months in his home, as it is stated with regard to workers who worked in the construction of the Temple: “A month they were in Lebanon, and two months at home” (I Kings 5:28).,The Gemara asks: And what is the reason that Rav did not also say a proof from that source that Rabbi Yoḥa quoted? The Gemara answers: The construction of the Temple is different, since it is possible for this work to be performed by others, as there were many people involved in it, but with regard to Torah study, which cannot be performed by others, he is given permission to spend a month here and a month there. The Gemara further questions: And what is the reason that Rabbi Yoḥa did not say a proof from that source that Rav quoted? The Gemara answers: There, with regard to King David, it is different, since he gains profit from working for the king; since there is profit involved, his wife might be willing to forgo his staying with her. However, in general a woman wants her husband to spend most of his time at home, so with regard to Torah study, where there is no monetary profit, she will not waive her right for as long.,§ Apropos a dispute between Rav and Rabbi Yoḥa with regard to the construction of the Temple, the Gemara cites another dispute between them. Rav said: Groaning breaks half of a person’s body, as it is stated: “Groan, therefore, you son of man, with the breaking of your loins, groan so bitterly” (Ezekiel 21:11), which indicates that groaning breaks half of a one’s body, down to his loins. And Rabbi Yoḥa said that groaning breaks even a person’s entire body, as it is stated: “And it shall be, when they say to you: Why are you groaning? That you shall say: Due to the tiding, for it comes, and every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall be faint, and all knees shall drip with water” (Ezekiel 21:12).,The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa also say that it breaks half of one’s body? Isn’t it written: “With the breaking of your loins,” implying that it does not break the entire body? The Gemara answers: This does not mean that the breakage only reaches the loins, but rather that when the sigh begins to affect a person, it begins from his loins. The Gemara asks: And why doesn’t Rav also say that it breaks the entire body? Isn’t it written: “And every heart shall melt, and all hands shall be slack, and every spirit shall be faint,” which indicates that groaning causes the entire body to break? The Gemara answers: The news with regard to the destruction of the Temple is different, as it is extremely crushing and causes great anguish, but in general a sigh causes only half of the body to break.,It is related that a certain Jew and a gentile were walking along the road together. The gentile could not keep up with the Jew, who was walking faster, and he therefore reminded him of the destruction of the Temple in order to make the Jew feel sorrowful and slow down. The Jew sighed and groaned, but even so the gentile could not keep up with him, as the Jew was still walking faster. The gentile said to him: Don’t you say that groaning breaks half of a person’s body? Why didn’t it affect you? He said to him: This applies only with regard to a new sorrowful affair, but this, from which we have suffered repeatedly and to which we have become accustomed, does not affect us as much, as people say: One who is used to being bereaved of her children does not panic [bahata] when one of them dies, and similarly, one who is used to a tragedy is not as devastated when being reminded of it.,§ The mishna said that men of leisure must engage in marital relations with their wives every day. The Gemara asks: What is meant by the term men of leisure? Rava said: These are students of Torah who go daily to review their lectures at a local study hall and return home each evening. Abaye said to him: Wives of Torah scholars are those about whom it is written: “It is vain for you to rise early and sit up late, you that eat the bread of toil, so He gives to His beloved in sleep” (Psalms 127:2), and Rabbi Yitzḥak said in explanation of this verse: These are the wives of Torah scholars who deprive their eyes of sleep in this world and reach the life of the World-to-Come. This indicates that Torah scholars exert themselves greatly in their studies and are not home in the evenings, and you say that the students reviewing their lectures are men of leisure, whose wives have conjugal rights for every night?,Rather, Abaye said: The mishna should be explained in accordance with the opinion of Rav, as Rav said: This is referring to a man such as Rabbi Shmuel bar Sheilat, who ate his own food, drank his own drinks, slept in the shade of his own house, and the king’s tax collector [peristaka] did not pass by his door, as they did not know that he was a man of means. A man like this, who has a steady income and no worries, is called a man of leisure. When Ravin came from Eretz Yisrael he said: For example, the wealthy, pampered men in the West, Eretz Yisrael, are called men of leisure. Due to the time they have available and the richness of their diet, they have the ability to satisfy their wives every night.,To illustrate this point, the Gemara relates two incidents demonstrating the health and strength of the inhabitants of Eretz Yisrael: Rabbi Abbahu was once standing in the bathhouse and two slaves were supporting his walking. The bathhouse collapsed under him and was destroyed. He found a pillar, stood on it and got out, and pulled them both up with him. Similarly, Rabbi Yoḥa was once going up stairs, and Rav Ami and Rav Asi were supporting him. The stair collapsed under him, but he went up and pulled them both up with him. The Sages said to him: Since it is clear that you are so strong, why do you need people to support you? He said to them: If so, if I were to expend all my strength now, what will I leave for myself in my old age?,§ The mishna said: The set interval for laborers to fulfill their conjugal obligations to their wives is twice a week. The Gemara asks: Isn’t it taught in a baraita: For laborers, once a week? Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: This is not difficult: Here, the case is where they work in their own city. There, the case is where they work in another city. This is also taught in the Tosefta (5:6): For laborers, twice a week. In what case is this statement said? It is when they work in their own city, but when they work in another city, the set interval for their conjugal obligations is once a week.,§ The mishna said: The set interval for donkey drivers is once a week, and for other professions it is even less frequent. Rabba bar Rav Ḥa said to Abaye: Did the tanna go to all that trouble just to teach us the halakha for a man of leisure and for a laborer? According to the set intervals given for conjugal obligations, it seems that the halakha that one who vowed to prohibit his wife from conjugal relations for longer than a week must divorce her is referring only to a man of leisure or a laborer, whose set interval for conjugal relations is less than that period. However, for other people, whose set interval is once a month or even less frequent, there should be no need to divorce the wife, since the vow does not deprive her of conjugal rights for longer than she would have been deprived anyway. He said to him: No, |
|
52. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 17b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 164 17b. למר למעוטי כספים למר למעוטי פרדות,ת"ר (דברים טו, יד) אשר ברכך ה' אלהיך יכול נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו ת"ל (דברים טו, יד) הענק תעניק מכל מקום אם כן מה ת"ל אשר ברכך הכל לפי ברכה תן לו,ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר דברים ככתבן נתברך בית בגללו מעניקים לו לא נתברך בית בגללו אין מעניקים לו א"כ מה ת"ל הענק תעניק דברה תורה כלשון בני אדם :,תנו רבנן עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת אמה עבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אמר מר עבד עברי עובד את הבן ואינו עובד את הבת מנהני מילי,דתנו רבנן (דברים טו, יב) ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש אתה אומר לך ולא ליורש או אינו אלא לך ולא לבן כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ב) שש שנים יעבד הרי לבן אמור הא מה אני מקיים ועבדך שש שנים לך ולא ליורש,מה ראית לרבות את הבן ולהוציא את האח מרבה אני את הבן שכן קם תחת אביו ליעדה ולשדה אחוזה,אדרבה מרבה אני את האח שכן קם תחת אחיו ליבום כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן הא יש בן אין יבום,אלא טעמא דאיכא הא פירכא הא לאו הכי אח עדיף ותיפוק לי דהכא תרתי והכא חדא,שדה אחוזה נמי מהאי פירכא הוא דקא נפקא ליה לתנא כלום יש יבום אלא במקום שאין בן :,אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת : מנהני מילי אמר רבי פדא דאמר קרא (דברים טו, יז) ואף לאמתך תעשה כן הקישה הכתוב לנרצע מה נרצע אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת אף אמה העבריה אינה עובדת לא את הבן ולא את הבת והאי לאמתך תעשה כן להכי הוא דאתא הא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק,אתה אומר להעניק או אינו אלא לרציעה כשהוא אומר (שמות כא, ה) ואם אמר יאמר העבד ולא אמה העבריה הרי רציעה אמור,הא מה אני מקיים ואף לאמתך תעשה כן להעניק א"כ נכתוב קרא לאמתך כן מאי תעשה שמעת מינה תרתי,: הנרצע והנמכר לעובד כוכבים אינו עובד לא את הבן ולא את הבת : נרצע דכתיב (שמות כא, ו) ורצע אדוניו את אזנו במרצע ועבדו לעולם ולא את הבן ואת הבת נמכר לעובד כוכבים מנין אמר חזקיה אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, נ) וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו,אמר רבא דבר תורה עובד כוכבים יורש את אביו שנאמר וחשב עם קונהו ולא עם יורשי קונהו מכלל דאית ליה יורשים גר את העובד כוכבים אינו מדברי תורה אלא מדברי סופרים,דתנן גר ועובד כוכבים שירשו את אביהם עובד כוכבים גר יכול לומר לעובד כוכבים טול אתה עבודת כוכבים ואני מעות טול אתה יין נסך ואני פירות משבאו לרשות גר אסור,ואי סלקא דעתך דאורייתא כי לא באו לרשותו נמי כי שקיל חילופי עבודת כוכבים הוא דקא שקיל,אלא מדרבנן גזירה הוא דעבוד רבנן שמא יחזור לסורו תניא נמי הכי במה דברים אמורים כשירשו אבל כשנשתתפו אסור,עובד כוכבים את הגר וגר את הגר אינו לא מדברי תורה ולא מדברי סופרים דתנן לוה מעות מן הגר שנתגיירו בניו עמו לא יחזיר לבניו ואם החזיר אין רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו,והתניא רוח חכמים נוחה הימנו לא קשיא כאן שהורתו ולידתו שלא בקדושה | 17b. The Gemara answers: According to one Master, Rabbi Shimon, this term serves to exclude money. According to the other Master, Rabbi Eliezer, it serves to exclude mules.,The Sages taught with regard to the verse: “And you shall grant severance to him out of your flock, and out of your threshing floor, and out of your winepress, of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you” (Deuteronomy 15:14). One might have thought that if the house is blessed due to him, then the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house is not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift. Therefore, the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ha’anek ta’anik],” with the doubled form of the verb used for emphasis, to indicate that you must grant him a severance gift in any case. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “of that with which the Lord your God has blessed you”? This teaches that all that one gives him as a severance gift should be in accordance with the blessing one possesses.,Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: The meaning of the statements of the Torah is as they are written, i.e., as indicated by a straightforward reading of the verse. Therefore, if the house was blessed due to him, the master grants him a severance gift, and if the house was not blessed due to him, he does not grant him a severance gift at all. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “You shall grant severance [ha’anek ta’anik],” with the doubled form of the verb? The Torah spoke in the language of people, i.e., the emphasis of the doubled verb is merely stylistic, but does not serve to teach a novel halakha.,§ The Sages taught: A Hebrew slave serves the son of his deceased master but does not serve the daughter. A Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter, but only the master. A pierced slave and a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Master said above: A Hebrew slave serves the son but does not serve the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived?,As the Sages taught, with regard to a verse that deals with a Hebrew slave: “And he shall serve you six years” (Deuteronomy 15:12). This indicates that he serves you and not an heir, i.e., if the master dies his slave does not serve one who inherits his estate. Do you say: You and not an heir, or perhaps is it even: You and not a son? The Gemara answers: When it says: “Six years he shall labor” (Exodus 21:2), which does not indicate any exclusion, the inclusion of a son is thereby stated. How then do I uphold the other verse: “And he shall serve you six years”? The expression “serve you” emphasizes that he serves only you but he does not serve an heir other than a son.,The Gemara asks: What did you see that led you to include the son who inherits a Hebrew slave and to exclude the brother from inheriting his brother’s slave? The Gemara answers: I include the son, as he stands in place of his father to designate her. Just as a father can designate a Hebrew maidservant as a wife for himself, so too can he betroth her on behalf of his son. And similarly, he replaces his father with regard to an ancestral field (see Leviticus 27:16–21). If one redeems a field consecrated by his father, it is considered as though the father himself had redeemed it, which means that the field returns to the family in the Jubilee Year. If someone else redeems the field, including a brother, it does not return to the family.,The Gemara asks: On the contrary, I should include the brother, as he stands in his brother’s place with regard to levirate marriage. The Gemara responds: This is insufficient proof, as is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? If there is a son, there is no levirate marriage. This indicates that a son replaces the deceased before a brother, even with regard to levirate marriage.,The Gemara asks: Rather, the reason for this halakha is specifically that there is this refutation that a levirate marriage applies only when there is no son. Does that not indicate that without this consideration I would say that a brother is preferable to a son? But let me derive that a son has a greater claim of standing in place of his father than a brother from the fact that here, with regard to the preference of a son, there are two cases: Designation of a Hebrew maidservant and an ancestral field, and here, in the case of a brother, there is only one: Levirate marriage.,The Gemara answers: With regard to an ancestral field too, the tanna derives the halakha from this same refutation. The tanna learns from the case of levirate marriage that only the son, not the brother, takes the place of his father for the redemption of the field, employing the same reasoning mentioned above: Is there levirate marriage other than in a case when there is no son? Therefore, without this consideration there is only one supporting example for each claim.,§ The baraita taught that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the brother nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is this matter derived? Rabbi Padda said: As the verse states with regard to a pierced Hebrew slave: “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise” (Deuteronomy 15:17). The verse juxtaposes a Hebrew maidservant to a pierced slave: Just as a pierced slave serves neither the son nor the daughter, so too a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara asks: And does this verse: “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” come to teach this matter? The tanna requires it for that which is taught in a baraita, that the verse: “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise,” is a command to grant her a severance gift.,Do you say that this comparison obligates one to grant a severance gift to a Hebrew maidservant, or is it teaching only that the halakha of piercing a Hebrew slave’s ear with an awl, which is stated immediately beforehand, applies to a Hebrew maidservant as well? The Gemara explains: When it says with regard to piercing: “But if the slave shall say” (Exodus 21:5), which indicates that a Hebrew slave can issue this declaration but a Hebrew maidservant cannot, the halakha of piercing is thereby stated and accounted for.,How do I realize the meaning of the verse: “And also to your maidservant you shall do likewise”? This obligates a master to grant a severance gift to a freed Hebrew maidservant. If so, one cannot derive from this verse that a Hebrew maidservant serves neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara answers: If so, that it comes only to compare her to a pierced Hebrew slave, let the verse write merely: To your maidservant likewise. What is the meaning of the additional phrase: “You shall do”? Draw two conclusions from this: A Hebrew maidservant does not serve the son, and she is granted severance gifts.,§ The baraita further teaches that a pierced Hebrew slave and one sold to a gentile serve neither the son nor the daughter. The Gemara explains: The halakha of a pierced slave is as it is written: “And his master shall pierce his ear with an awl, and he shall serve him forever” (Exodus 21:6), which indicates that he serves this master, but not the son or the daughter. The Gemara asks: From where is it derived that the same applies to a Hebrew slave sold to a gentile? Ḥizkiyya says that the verse states with regard to the emancipating of a slave who was sold to a gentile: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser” (Leviticus 25:50), which teaches that this applies only to his purchaser but not to the heirs of his purchaser.,Rava says: By Torah law a gentile inherits the property of his father, as it is stated with regard to one sold to a gentile: “And he shall reckon with his purchaser,” but not with his purchaser’s heirs. One can derive from here by inference that ordinarily a gentile has heirs. By contrast, by Torah law a convert does not inherit the property of his father or any other gentile, as once he converts he is considered a new person with no ties to his previous family. Rather, a convert inherits the property of his father by rabbinic law.,As we learned in a mishna (Demai 6:10): With regard to a convert and a gentile who inherited property from their gentile father, the convert can say to the gentile: You take the objects of idol worship and I will take money; you take wine used for a libation to idolatry and I will take produce. Provided that these objects have not entered the domain of the convert, he may divide everything with his brother so that his brother takes as an inheritance the items that the convert is prohibited from using as a Jew. But once they have come into the convert’s possession, it is prohibited for him to exchange these objects with his brother, as he would thereby be benefiting from idolatry.,And if it would enter your mind that a convert inherits property from his father by Torah law, it should be prohibited when these objects have not yet come into his possession as well, as when he takes money or produce and gives the idols to the gentile, he takes an item that has been exchanged for objects of idol worship. Since he receives half the inheritance at the moment when his father dies, he has a share in these items as well.,Rather, a convert inherits property from his father by rabbinic law, as this is a decree that the Sages instituted lest he return to his previous wayward path [suro]. The Sages were concerned that due to his concern over losing his inheritance, a convert might return to his gentile lifestyle. In any event, as he does not inherit his father’s property by Torah law, the idols are not considered his property. This halakha is also taught in a baraita: In what case is this statement said? He may do this when they inherited. But when the convert and the gentile formed a partnership, it is prohibited for him to divide the property so that the gentile takes the idols, as the convert benefits from them indirectly.,With regard to the same issue it is taught: By Torah law and by rabbinic law a gentile does not inherit property from his father who is a convert, nor does a convert inherit property from his father who is a convert. As we learned in a mishna (Shevi’it 10:9): If one borrowed money from a convert whose sons converted with him, and therefore when they converted there were no longer any legal ties between the sons and the father, he does not return it to the creditor’s sons, as they are not considered his heirs. And if he does return it, the Sages are not pleased with him.,The Gemara asks: But isn’t it taught in a baraita that the Sages are pleased with him? The Gemara answers: This is not difficult. Here, it is referring to a convert whose conception and birth were not in sanctity of the Jewish people, i.e., his father was a gentile when he was born and afterward the son converted. In this case there are no legal ties between the father and the son, and therefore one who owes money to the father is not required to pay the son. |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 58b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 158 58b. אביו דומיא דאמו ואמו דומיא דאביו לא משכחת לה אלא באחווה,ורבי עקיבא מוטב לאוקמיה באשת אביו דאיקרי ערות אביו לאפוקי אחות אביו דשאר אביו איקרי ערות אביו לא איקרי,ת"ש (שמות ו, כ) ויקח עמרם את יוכבד דודתו מאי לאו דודתו מן האם,לא דודתו מן האב,ת"ש (בראשית כ, יב) וגם אמנה אחותי בת אבי היא אך לא בת אמי מכלל דבת האם אסורה,ותסברא אחותו הואי בת אחיו הואי וכיון דהכי הוא לא שנא מן האב ולא שנא מן האם שריא אלא התם הכי קאמר ליה קורבא דאחות אית לי בהדה מאבא ולא מאמא,ת"ש מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו שנאמר (תהלים פט, ג) כי אמרתי עולם חסד יבנה הא לאו הכי אסירא,כיון דאשתרי אשתרי,אמר רב הונא כותי מותר בבתו וא"ת מפני מה לא נשא אדם את בתו כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום עולם חסד יבנה,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רב הונא כותי אסור בבתו תדע שלא נשא אדם את בתו ולא היא התם היינו טעמא כדי שישא קין את אחותו משום דעולם חסד יבנה,אמר רב חסדא עבד מותר באמו ומותר בבתו יצא מכלל כותי ולכלל ישראל לא בא,כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' אלעזר אמר ר' חנינא בן נח שייחד שפחה לעבדו ובא עליה נהרג עליה,מאימת אמר רב נחמן מדקראו לה רביתא דפלניא מאימת התרתה אמר רב הונא משפרעה ראשה בשוק,א"ר אלעזר א"ר חנינא בן נח שבא על אשתו שלא כדרכה חייב שנאמר (בראשית ב, כד) ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה,אמר רבא מי איכא מידי דישראל לא מיחייב וכותי מיחייב,אלא אמר רבא בן נח שבא על אשת חבירו שלא כדרכה פטור מאי טעמא באשתו ולא באשת חבירו ודבק ולא שלא כדרכה,א"ר חנינא עובד כוכבים שהכה את ישראל חייב מיתה שנאמר (שמות ב, יב) ויפן כה וכה וירא כי אין איש [ויך את המצרי] וגו',וא"ר חנינא הסוטר לועו של ישראל כאילו סוטר לועו של שכינה שנאמר (משלי כ, כה) מוקש אדם ילע קודש:,מגביה עבדו שבת סימן: אמר ריש לקיש המגביה ידו על חבירו אע"פ שלא הכהו נקרא רשע שנאמר (שמות ב, יג) ויאמר לרשע למה תכה רעך למה הכית לא נאמר אלא למה תכה אף על פי שלא הכהו נקרא רשע,(אמר) זעירי א"ר חנינא נקרא חוטא שנאמר (שמואל א ב, טז) ואם לא לקחתי בחזקה וכתיב (שמואל א ב, יז) ותהי חטאת הנערים גדולה מאד,רב הונא אמר תיקצץ ידו שנאמר (איוב לח, טו) וזרוע רמה תשבר רב הונא קץ ידא,ר"א אומר אין לו תקנה אלא קבורה: שנאמר (איוב כב, ח) ואיש זרוע לו הארץ,וא"ר אלעזר לא נתנה קרקע אלא לבעלי זרועות שנאמר ואיש זרוע לו הארץ,ואר"ל מאי דכתיב (משלי יב, יא) עובד אדמתו ישבע לחם אם עושה אדם עצמו כעבד לאדמה ישבע לחם ואם לאו לא ישבע לחם,ואר"ל עובד כוכבים ששבת חייב מיתה שנא' (בראשית ח, כב) ויום ולילה לא ישבותו ואמר מר אזהרה שלהן זו היא מיתתן אמר רבינא אפי' שני בשבת,וליחשבה גבי ז' מצות כי קא חשיב שב ואל תעשה קום עשה לא קא חשיב | 58b. that the term “his father” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to the term “his mother,” and “his mother” should be interpreted in a way that is similar to “his father.” You find such an interpretation only with regard to sisterhood, i.e., “his father” is referring to his father’s sister, and “his mother” is referring to his mother’s sister.,And Rabbi Akiva holds that it is preferable to interpret the term “his father” as referring to his father’s wife, who is referred to as his father’s nakedness in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness” (Leviticus 18:8), to the exclusion of his father’s sister, who is referred to as his father’s kin in the verse: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s sister; she is your father’s kin” (Leviticus 18:12), and who is not referred to as his father’s nakedness.,Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Akiva from the verse: “And Amram took Jochebed his aunt as a wife” (Exodus 6:20). What, was she not his maternal aunt? Presumably, Jochebed was the sister of Kohath, Amram’s father, from both of Kohath’s parents, and not from his father alone. Evidently, a descendant of Noah may marry his father’s sister.,The Gemara rejects this proof: No, she was his paternal aunt, Kohath’s half sister. Since she was not Kohath’s sister from his mother’s side, she was not forbidden to Amram.,Come and hear a proof for the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer from what Abraham said to Abimelech with regard to Sarah: “And moreover, she is my sister, the daughter of my father, but not the daughter of my mother; and so she became my wife” (Genesis 20:12). By inference, the daughter of the mother of a descendant of Noah is forbidden to him.,The Gemara rejects this proof: But how can you understand that Sarah was Abraham’s sister? She was his brother’s daughter. By tradition, it is known that Sarah was Haran’s daughter Iscah. And since that was so, there is no difference whether they were paternal relatives, and there is no difference whether they were maternal relatives; in any event she was permitted to him, even according to the halakha of Jews. Rather, this is what Abraham was saying to Abimelech there: She is related to me like a sister, as the daughter of my brother is like a sister, and our relationship is from the side of my father but not from the side of my mother.,Come and hear a proof from a baraita: For what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? So that Cain would marry his sister and they would procreate immediately, as it is stated: “For I have said: The world shall be built on kindness [ḥesed]” (Psalms 89:3). This verse alludes to the fact that at the beginning of the world’s existence it was permitted for men to marry their sisters, which was later forbidden in the verse: “And if a man shall take his sister…it is a shameful thing [ḥesed]” (Leviticus 20:17). The Gemara infers: If it had not been so, if God had not specially permitted Cain to marry his sister, she would have been forbidden to him. This is difficult according to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva, who deems it permitted for a gentile to marry his sister.,The Gemara rejects this proof: Once it was permitted for Cain to marry his sister, it was permitted for all descendants of Noah to do so, and it was forbidden only to Jews.,Rav Huna says: A gentile is permitted to marry his daughter. And if you say, for what reason did Adam not marry his daughter? It was so that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”,And there are those who say that Rav Huna did not say this; rather, Rav Huna says: A gentile is prohibited from marrying his daughter. Know that this is the halakha, as Adam did not marry his daughter. The Gemara rejects this statement: But that is not so, as there, this is the reason Adam did not marry his daughter: So that Cain would marry his sister, because it is stated: “The world shall be built on kindness.”,§ Rav Ḥisda says: A Canaanite slave is permitted to marry his mother, and he is permitted to marry his daughter. This is because he has left the category of a gentile by immersing in a ritual bath for the purpose of becoming a slave to a Jew, and consequently all his previous family relationships are disregarded according to halakha; but he has not entered the category of a Jew, as evidenced by the fact that he is not obligated to observe all of the mitzvot of male Jews. Therefore, the decree of the Sages prohibiting the maternal relatives of converts does not apply to him.,When Rav Dimi came from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: In the case of a descendant of Noah who designated a maidservant as a mate for his slave, and then he himself engaged in intercourse with her, he is executed for adultery on her account.,The Gemara asks: From when is she considered the slave’s mate? Rav Naḥman says: From the time that she is called so-and-so’s girl. The Gemara asks: From when is she released from her relationship with the slave? Rav Huna says: From the time that she exposes her head in the marketplace. Since married women would cover their hair, even among the gentiles, by exposing her hair she proves that she no longer wishes to remain with him.,Rabbi Elazar says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with his wife in an atypical manner, i.e., anal intercourse, is liable for engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as it is stated: “And shall cleave to his wife” (Genesis 2:24), an expression that indicates natural intercourse, but not intercourse in an atypical manner.,Rava says: Is there any action for which a Jew is not deemed liable, but a gentile is deemed liable for performing it? A Jew is not liable for engaging in anal intercourse with his wife.,Rather, Rava says that the verse is to be understood as follows: A descendant of Noah who engages in intercourse with the wife of another man in an atypical manner is exempt. What is the reason? The verse states: “And shall cleave to his wife,” but not to the wife of another. With regard to this prohibition, the verse states: “And shall cleave,” indicating vaginal intercourse, and not intercourse in an atypical manner.,Rabbi Ḥanina says: A gentile who struck a Jew is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated when Moses saw an Egyptian striking a Hebrew: “And he turned this way and that way, and when he saw that there was no man, he struck the Egyptian and hid him in the sand” (Exodus 2:12).,And Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who slaps the cheek of a Jew is considered as though he slapped the cheek of the Divine Presence; as it is stated: “It is a snare [mokesh] for a man to rashly say [yala]: Holy” (Proverbs 20:25). The verse is interpreted homiletically to mean: One who strikes [nokesh] a Jew is considered as though he hurt the cheek [lo’a] of the Holy One.,The Gemara states a mnemonic for the upcoming statements of Reish Lakish: Raises, his slave, Shabbat. Reish Lakish says: One who raises his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately does not strike him, is called wicked, as it is stated: “And two men of the Hebrews were struggling with each other, and he said to the wicked one: Why should you strike your friend?” (Exodus 2:13). The phrase: Why did you strike, is not stated, but rather: “Why should you strike,” indicating that one who raised his hand to strike another, even if he ultimately did not strike him, is called wicked.,Ze’eiri says that Rabbi Ḥanina says: One who raises his hand to strike another is called a sinner; as it is stated: “And the priest’s lad would come…and would say to him, but you shall give now, and if not, I will take by force” (I Samuel 2:15–16), and it is written with regard to this behavior: “And the sin of the youths was very great” (I Samuel 2:17).,Rav Huna says: His hand should be cut off, as it is stated: “And the high arm shall be broken” (Job 38:15). If one habitually lifts his arm to strike others, it is better that it be broken. The Gemara relates that Rav Huna cut off the hand of a person who would habitually hit others.,Rabbi Elazar says: Such a violent person has no remedy but burial, as it is stated: “And as a mighty man [ve’ish zero’a], who has the earth” (Job 22:8). The expression ish zero’a literally means: A man of the arm, and the verse is interpreted homiletically to mean that one who habitually strikes others deserves to be buried.,And Rabbi Elazar states a different interpretation of that verse: The land is given only to mighty men who can protect themselves from all enemies; as it is stated: “And as a mighty man, who has the earth.”,And in connection with that statement, the Gemara notes that Reish Lakish says: What is the meaning of that which is written: “One who works [oved] his land shall have plenty of bread” (Proverbs 12:11)? If a person makes himself like a slave [ke’eved] to the land, devoting his efforts to it, he will have plenty of bread, but if not, he will not have plenty of bread.,And Reish Lakish says: A gentile who observed Shabbat is liable to receive the death penalty, as it is stated: “And day and night shall not cease” (Genesis 8:23), which literally means: And day and night they shall not rest. This is interpreted homiletically to mean that the descendants of Noah may not take a day of rest. And the Master said (57a) that their prohibition is their death penalty, i.e., the punishment for any prohibition with regard to descendants of Noah is execution. Ravina says: If a descendant of Noah observes a day of rest on any day of the week, even one not set aside for religious worship, e.g., on a Monday, he is liable.,The Gemara challenges this: But let the tanna count this prohibition among the seven Noahide mitzvot. The Gemara explains: When the tanna counts the seven mitzvot, he counts only those that require one to sit and refrain from action, i.e., those that include a prohibition against performing a certain action. He does not count mitzvot that require one to arise and take action. |
|
54. Anon., Apostolic Constitutions, 8.47.67 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, biblical law Found in books: Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 131 |
55. Justinian, Digest, 49.14.13, 50.16.128-50.16.153 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, roman law •augustan legislation, summary of marriage law provisions Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 106, 107; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 130 |
56. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, 8.16.1, 9.24.1-9.24.2, 9.25.2 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •augustan legislation, summary of marriage law provisions •abduction marriage, roman law Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 106; Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 130 |
57. Anon., Syro-Roman Lawbook, 81 Tagged with subjects: •abduction marriage, roman law Found in books: Monnickendam, Jewish Law and Early Christian Identity: Betrothal, Marriage, and Infidelity in the Writings of Ephrem the Syrian (2020) 130 |
59. Anon., 4Q272, 1ii.3-7 Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 158 |
60. Anon., 4Q266, 7.14-7.16 Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 158 |
61. Anon., 4Q271, 3 Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, foundation of •marriage laws, on divorce and remarriage Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 111, 118 |
63. Varro, Vaticana (Fragmenta), 158, 178, 214-216, 218, 168 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 106 |
64. Ulpian, Frag., 17.1 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 38 |
65. Mishnah, Malachi, 8 Tagged with subjects: •levirate marriage laws, converts and •levirate marriage laws, exemption of converts from Found in books: Lavee, The Rabbinic Conversion of Judaism The Unique Perspective of the Bavli on Conversion and the Construction of Jewish Identity (2017) 159 |
66. Paulus Julius, Digesta, 4.8.4 Tagged with subjects: •augustan legislation, summary of marriage law provisions Found in books: Huebner and Laes, Aulus Gellius and Roman Reading Culture: Text, Presence and Imperial Knowledge in the 'Noctes Atticae' (2019) 106 |
67. Anon., 4Qd, 0 Tagged with subjects: •marriage laws, on polygamy Found in books: Shemesh, Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis (2009) 158 |