| 1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, a b c d\n0 0 0 0 None\n1 3 3 3 None\n2 . . \n3 2 2 2 None\n4 20.1 20.1 20 1 \n5 5 5 5 None\n6 1 1 1 None\n7 35.2 35.2 35 2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 122, 123, 124 |
| 2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, -, 0, 4, 46, 47, 48, 49, 5, 50, 6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57 |
3. Hebrew Bible, Job, a b c d\n0 40.14 40.14 40 14 \n1 4 4 4 None\n2 0 0 0 None\n3 . . \n4 1 1 1 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 223| 40.14. "וְגַם־אֲנִי אוֹדֶךָּ כִּי־תוֹשִׁעַ לְךָ יְמִינֶךָ׃", | 40.14. "Then will I also confess unto thee That thine own right hand can save thee.", |
|
| 4. Hebrew Bible, Joel, a b c d\n0 2 2 2 None\n1 2.12 2.12 2 12 \n2 2.13 2.13 2 13 \n3 1 1 1 None\n4 - None\n5 3 3 3 None\n6 . . (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 244, 245 |
| 5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, a b c d\n0 2 2 2 None\n1 4 4 4 None\n2 4.27 4.27 4 27 \n3 1 1 1 None\n4 7 7 7 None\n5 4.28 4.28 4 28 \n6 . . \n7 9 9 9 None\n8 4.21 4.21 4 21 \n9 4.24 4.24 4 24 \n10 4.15 4.15 4 15 \n11 26.31 26.31 26 31 \n12 - None\n13 5.1 5.1 5 1 \n14 4.23 4.23 4 23 \n15 6 6 6 None\n16 4.13 4.13 4 13 \n17 8 8 8 None\n18 5.6 5.6 5 6 \n19 4.26 4.26 4 26 \n20 19.17 19.17 19 17 \n21 4.14 4.14 4 14 \n22 4.10 4.10 4 10 \n23 21.7 21.7 21 7 \n24 5 5 5 None\n25 4.12 4.12 4 12 \n26 4.16 4.16 4 16 \n27 4.20 4.20 4 20 \n28 3 3 3 None\n29 19.18 19.18 19 18 \n30 21.14 21.14 21 14 \n31 4.22 4.22 4 22 \n32 4.11 4.11 4 11 \n33 4.9 4.9 4 9 \n34 4.4 4.4 4 4 \n35 4.2 4.2 4 2 \n36 None\n37 None\n38 4.3 4.3 4 3 \n39 5 5 5 None\n40 4.18 4.18 4 18 \n41 4.8 4.8 4 8 \n42 4.19 4.19 4 19 \n43 4.7 4.7 4 7 \n44 4.6 4.6 4 6 \n45 None\n46 4.25 4.25 4 25 \n47 4.17 4.17 4 17 \n48 4.5 4.5 4 5 \n49 19.19 19.19 19 19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 234, 236, 237, 238, 243, 244 |
6. Hebrew Bible, Micah, a b c d\n0 7.2 7.2 7 2 \n1 . . \n2 2 2 2 None\n3 7 7 7 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 218, 219, 220| 7.2. "תִּתֵּן אֱמֶת לְיַעֲקֹב חֶסֶד לְאַבְרָהָם אֲשֶׁר־נִשְׁבַּעְתָּ לַאֲבֹתֵינוּ מִימֵי קֶדֶם׃", 7.2. "אָבַד חָסִיד מִן־הָאָרֶץ וְיָשָׁר בָּאָדָם אָיִן כֻּלָּם לְדָמִים יֶאֱרֹבוּ אִישׁ אֶת־אָחִיהוּ יָצוּדוּ חֵרֶם׃", | 7.2. "The godly man is perished out of the earth, And the upright among men is no more; They all lie in wait for blood; They hunt every man his brother with a net.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, a b c d\n0 44.4 44.4 44 4 \n1 4 4 4 None\n2 . . (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 223| 44.4. "כִּי לֹא בְחַרְבָּם יָרְשׁוּ אָרֶץ וּזְרוֹעָם לֹא־הוֹשִׁיעָה לָּמוֹ כִּי־יְמִינְךָ וּזְרוֹעֲךָ וְאוֹר פָּנֶיךָ כִּי רְצִיתָם׃", | 44.4. "For not by their own sword did they get the land in possession, Neither did their own arm save them; but Thy right hand, and Thine arm, and the light of Thy countece, because Thou wast favourable unto them.", |
|
| 8. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, a b c d\n0 . . \n1 1 1 1 None\n2 8 8 8 None\n3 5 5 5 None\n4 2 2 2 None\n5 15.8 15.8 15 8 \n6 15.29 15.29 15 29 \n7 9 9 9 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 225 |
| 9. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 3 3 3 None\n2 0 0 0 None\n3 5 5 5 None\n4 . . \n5 30.15 30.15 30 15 \n6 31.2 31.2 31 2 \n7 2 2 2 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 221, 241 |
| 10. Hebrew Bible, Nahum, a b c d\n0 2 2 2 None\n1 1.2 1.2 1 2 \n2 1 1 1 None\n3 . . (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 239, 240, 241, 242 |
| 11. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, a b c d\n0 5 5 5 None\n1 3 3 3 None\n2 30.4 30.4 30 4 \n3 32.35 32.35 32 35 \n4 . . \n5 0 0 0 None\n6 2 2 2 None\n7 4 4 4 None\n8 30.5 30.5 30 5 \n9 22.9 22.9 22 9 \n10 9 9 9 None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 241, 242, 244 |
12. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, a b c d\n0 2.22 2.22 2 22 \n1 2 2 2 None\n2 . . (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 229, 230, 231| 2.22. "חִדְלוּ לָכֶם מִן־הָאָדָם אֲשֶׁר נְשָׁמָה בְּאַפּוֹ כִּי־בַמֶּה נֶחְשָׁב הוּא׃", | 2.22. "Cease ye from man, in whose nostrils is a breath; For how little is he to be accounted!", |
|
| 13. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, a b c d\n0 3 3 3 None\n1 2 2 2 None\n2 . . \n3 4 4 4 None\n4 17.21 17.21 17 21 \n5 2.3 2.3 2 3 \n6 - None\n7 1 1 1 None\n8 7 7 7 None\n9 17.22 17.22 17 22 \n10 32.44 32.44 32 44 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39, 234, 237, 238, 249, 250 |
| 14. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, a b c d\n0 . . \n1 25.26 25.26 25 26 \n2 5 5 5 None\n3 3 3 3 None\n4 2 2 2 None\n5 25.33 25.33 25 33 \n6 25.31 25.31 25 31 \n7 6 6 6 None\n8 1 1 1 None (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 9, 221, 222, 223, 224 |
| 15. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, a b c d\n0 5 5 5 None\n1 1 1 1 None\n2 4 4 4 None\n3 . . \n4 45.11 45.11 45 11 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 232, 233 |
| 16. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, a b c d\n0 9 9 9 None\n1 . . \n2 2 2 2 None\n3 9.2 9.2 9 2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 237, 238 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, a b c d\n0 8 8 8 None\n1 6.27-7.2 6.27 6 27 \n2 5 5 5 None\n3 . . \n4 8.23 8.23 8 23 \n5 - None\n6 5.7 5.7 5 7 \n7 6 6 6 None\n8 6.27 6.27 6 27 \n9 1 1 1 None\n10 2.18 2.18 2 18 \n11 5.12 5.12 5 12 \n12 9.4 9.4 9 4 \n13 2 2 2 None\n14 5.11 5.11 5 11 \n15 6.17 6.17 6 17 \n16 5.8 5.8 5 8 \n17 9.5 9.5 9 5 \n18 7.25 7.25 7 25 \n19 7 7 7 None\n20 5.17 5.17 5 17 \n21 5.18 5.18 5 18 \n22 5.16 5.16 5 16 \n23 3 3 3 None\n24 4 4 4 None\n25 5.9 5.9 5 9 \n26 5.10 5.10 5 10 \n27 9 9 9 None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 229, 230, 231, 238 |
| 18. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q397, , , -, 1, 12-15, 2, 3, 5, 6, 6-13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan nan |
| 19. Anon., Jubilees, 8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •non-pentateuchal scripture, appeal to •non-pentateuchal scripture, appeal to, rabbinic rejection of Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17, 125, 130, 213, 237, 251 |
| 20. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Documenta, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 11.5 11.5 11 5 \n2 . . \n3 11.10 11.10 11 10 \n4 - None\n5 11.4 11.4 11 4 \n6 11.3 11.3 11 3 \n7 11.6 11.6 11 6 \n8 11.2 11.2 11 2 \n9 4 4 4 None\n10 11.1 11.1 11 1 \n11 11.9 11.9 11 9 \n12 11.8 11.8 11 8 \n13 11.12 11.12 11 12 \n14 11.11 11.11 11 11 \n15 11.7 11.7 11 7 \n16 11.13 11.13 11 13 \n17 11.14 11.14 11 14 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 242, 243 |
| 21. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Communityb, a b c d\n0 4.9 4.9 4 9 \n1 . . \n2 9 9 9 None\n3 4 4 4 None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 231 |
| 22. Dead Sea Scrolls, Miscellaneous Rules, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 213 |
| 23. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Documenta, a b c d\n0 11.10 11.10 11 10 \n1 1 1 1 None\n2 11.5 11.5 11 5 \n3 . . \n4 - None\n5 11.4 11.4 11 4 \n6 11.3 11.3 11 3 \n7 11.6 11.6 11 6 \n8 11.2 11.2 11 2 \n9 4 4 4 None\n10 11.1 11.1 11 1 \n11 11.9 11.9 11 9 \n12 11.8 11.8 11 8 \n13 11.12 11.12 11 12 \n14 11.11 11.11 11 11 \n15 11.7 11.7 11 7 \n16 11.14 11.14 11 14 \n17 11.13 11.13 11 13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 242, 243 |
| 24. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, a b c d\n0 7 7 7 None\n1 6.19 6.19 6 19 \n2 10.17 10.17 10 17 \n3 8 8 8 None\n4 2 2 2 None\n5 None\n6 None\n7 1 1 1 None\n8 11.21 11.21 11 21 \n9 None\n10 14.19 14.19 14 19 \n11 9 9 9 None\n12 - None\n13 . . \n14 7 7 7 None\n15 10 10 10 None\n16 11 11 11 None\n17 0 0 0 None\n18 5 5 5 None\n19 9.8 9.8 9 8 \n20 11.20 11.20 11 20 \n21 2.2 2.2 2 2 \n22 9.1 9.1 9 1 \n23 16.15 16.15 16 15 \n24 9.4 9.4 9 4 \n25 14.20 14.20 14 20 \n26 9.9 9.9 9 9 \n27 9.10 9.10 9 10 \n28 9.2 9.2 9 2 \n29 16.14 16.14 16 14 \n30 16.13 16.13 16 13 \n31 11.19 11.19 11 19 \n32 9.6 9.6 9 6 \n33 4 4 4 None\n34 9.7 9.7 9 7 \n35 11.18 11.18 11 18 \n36 6 6 6 None\n37 9.3 9.3 9 3 \n38 9.5 9.5 9 5 \n39 14.21 14.21 14 21 \n40 14.18 14.18 14 18 \n41 5.3 5.3 5 3 \n42 5.2 5.2 5 2 \n43 3 3 3 None\n44 14.22 14.22 14 22 \n45 10.18 10.18 10 18 \n46 10.19 10.19 10 19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17, 125, 129, 130, 213, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228, 229, 232, 236, 239, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244, 245, 248 |
| 25. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, a b c d\n0 7 7 7 None\n1 64.8 64.8 64 8 \n2 64.7 64.7 64 7 \n3 . . \n4 6 6 6 None\n5 4 4 4 None\n6 - None\n7 8 8 8 None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 220 |
| 26. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, a b c d\n0 - None\n1 9 9 9 None\n2 1 1 1 None\n3 8 8 8 None\n4 18.19 18.19 18 19 \n5 2 2 2 None\n6 4.229 4.229 4 229 \n7 . . \n8 4 4 4 None\n9 18.18 18.18 18 18 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 226 |
| 27. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, a b c d\n0 8 8 8 None\n1 7.8 7.8 7 8 \n2 - None\n3 7.5 7.5 7 5 \n4 7.4 7.4 7 4 \n5 7.2 7.2 7 2 \n6 7.3 7.3 7 3 \n7 7.7 7.7 7 7 \n8 7.6 7.6 7 6 \n9 7 7 7 None\n10 . . \n11 2 2 2 None (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 218 |
| 28. Mishnah, Shabbat, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 . . \n2 1.1 1.1 1 1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 209 |
| 29. New Testament, Romans, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 . . \n2 12.19 12.19 12 19 \n3 2 2 2 None\n4 9 9 9 None (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 241 |
| 30. New Testament, John, a b c d\n0 . . \n1 1 1 1 None\n2 5.1 5.1 5 1 \n3 5 5 5 None (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 213 |
| 31. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, a b c d\n0 4 4 4 None\n1 1.38 1.38 1 38 \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 7 7 7 None\n4 - None\n5 1.37 1.37 1 37 \n6 1.40 1.40 1 40 \n7 1.42 1.42 1 42 \n8 1.41 1.41 1 41 \n9 1 1 1 None\n10 1.39 1.39 1 39 \n11 . . \n12 1.43 1.43 1 43 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 5, 57 |
| 32. Tosefta, Shabbat, a b c d\n0 1 1 1 None\n1 7 7 7 None\n2 17.9 17.9 17 9 \n3 9 9 9 None\n4 . . (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 122 |
33. Anon., Genesis Rabba, a b c d\n0 55.3 55.3 55 3 \n1 . . \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 5 5 5 None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 240, 241| 55.3. דָּבָר אַחֵר, ה' צַדִּיק יִבְחָן, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, וַיְהִי אַחַר הַדְּבָרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת אַבְרָהָם. רַבִּי אָבוּן פָּתַח (קהלת ח, ד): בַּאֲשֶׁר דְּבַר מֶלֶךְ שִׁלְטוֹן וּמִי יֹאמַר לוֹ מַה תַּעֲשֶׂה, אָמַר רַבִּי אָבִין לְרַב שֶׁהָיָה מְצַוֶּה לְתַלְמִידוֹ וְאוֹמֵר לוֹ (דברים טז, יט): לֹא תַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט, וְהוּא מַטֶּה מִשְׁפָּט. (דברים טז, יט): לֹא תַכִּיר פָּנִים, וְהוּא מַכִּיר פָּנִים. (דברים טז, יט): לֹא תִקַּח שֹׁחַד, וְהוּא לוֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד. לֹא תַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית, וְהוּא מַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית. אָמַר לוֹ תַּלְמִידוֹ רַבִּי אַתָּה אוֹמֵר לִי לֹא תַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית וְאַתְּ מַלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית, לָךְ שְׁרֵי וְלִי אֲסִירָא. אָמַר לוֹ אֲנִי אוֹמֵר לְךָ אַל תַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, אֲבָל תַּלְוֶה בְּרִבִּית לְעוֹבֵד כּוֹכָבִים, דִּכְתִיב (דברים כג, כא): לַנָּכְרִי תַשִׁיךְ וּלְאָחִיךָ לֹא תַשִּׁיךְ. כָּךְ אָמְרוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְנֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים כָּתַבְתָּ בְּתוֹרָתְךָ (ויקרא יט, יח): לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר, וְאַתְּ נוֹקֵם וְנוֹטֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (נחום א, ב): נֹקֵם ה' וּבַעַל חֵמָה, נוֹקֵם הוּא לְצָרָיו וְנוֹטֵר הוּא לְאֹיְבָיו. אָמַר לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא אֲנִי כָּתַבְתִּי בַּתּוֹרָה: לֹא תִקֹּם וְלֹא תִטֹּר אֶת בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ, אֲבָל נוֹקֵם וְנוֹטֵר אֲנִי לְעוֹבְדֵי כּוֹכָבִים, (במדבר לא, ב): נְקֹם נִקְמַת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, כְּתִיב (דברים ו, טז): לֹא תְנַסּוּ אֶת ה', וְהָאֱלֹהִים נִסָּה אֶת אַבְרָהָם. | 55.3. "Another opinion: “The Lord tests the righteous.” – This is Abraham – “Sometime after these things, God tested Abraham.” R. Avin expounded: (Ecclesiastes 8:4) “Since a king's word is supreme, who can say to him: ‘What are you doing?’” – R. Avin said: [This may be compared] to a teacher who commands his student, saying to him: (Deuteronomy 16:19) “You shall not judge unfairly,” but [the teacher himself] judges unfairly; (Deuteronomy 16:19) “Do not take a bribe,” but [the teacher himself] takes a bribe; Do not lend on interest, but [the teacher himself] lends on interest. His student said to him: Rabbi, you said to me: Do not lend on interest, but you lend on interest? [Is it] permitted to you but forbidden to me? [The teacher] said to him: I said to you: Do not lend on interest to a Jew, but you may lend on interest to an idol worshipper, as it is written: (Deuteronomy 23:21) “You may lend on interest to a foreigner, but you may not lend on interest to your brother [Israelite].” Thus Israel said before The Holy One Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, you wrote in your Torah: (Leviticus 19:18) “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge,” but you take vengeance and bear a grudge, as it is said: (Nahum 1:2) “The Lord is vengeful and fierce in wrath. The Lord takes vengeance on His enemies.” The Holy One Blessed be He said to them: I wrote in the Torah: (Leviticus 19:18) “You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your countrymen,” but I take vengeance against idol worshippers – (Numbers 31:2) “Avenge the Israelite people on the Midianites.” It is written: (Deuteronomy 6:16) “Do not test the Lord” – [but] “God tested Abraham.”", |
|
| 34. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 123, 124, 125 |
| 35. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 219 |
| 36. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 122, 129 |
| 37. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, a b c d\n0 4 4 4 None\n1 34.16 34.16 34 16 \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 . . \n4 1 1 1 None\n5 6 6 6 None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 123, 125 |
| 38. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39 |
| 39. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 209 |
40. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39| 10b. מלאכת מחשבת אסרה תורה ומלאכת מחשבת לא כתיבא:,חגיגות: מיכתב כתיבן לא צריכא לכדאמר ליה רב פפא לאביי ממאי דהאי וחגותם אותו חג לה' זביחה דלמא חוגו חגא קאמר רחמנא,אלא מעתה דכתיב (שמות ה, א) ויחוגו לי במדבר הכי נמי דחוגו חגא הוא וכי תימא הכי נמי והכתיב (שמות י, כה) ויאמר משה גם אתה תתן בידינו זבחים ועולות,דלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא אכלו ושתו וחוגו חגא קמאי לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (שמות כג, יח) ולא ילין חלב חגי עד בקר ואי סלקא דעתך דחוגא הוא תרבא לחגא אית ליה,ודלמא הכי קאמר רחמנא חלב הבא בזמן חג לא ילין,אלא מעתה הבא בזמן חג הוא דלא ילין הא דכל השנה כולה ילין (ויקרא ו, ב) כל הלילה עד הבקר כתיב,דלמא אי מההוא הוה אמינא ההוא לעשה כתב רחמנא האי ללאו,ללאו כתב קרא אחרינא (דברים טז, ד) ולא ילין מן הבשר אשר תזבח בערב ביום הראשון לבקר ודלמא לעבור עליו בשני לאוין ועשה,אלא אתיא מדבר מדבר כתיב הכא ויחוגו לי במדבר וכתיב התם (עמוס ה, כה) הזבחים ומנחה הגשתם לי במדבר מה להלן זבחים אף כאן זבחים,ומאי כהררין התלויין בשערה דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן:,מעילות: מיכתב כתיבן אמר רמי בר חמא לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן השליח שעשה שליחותו בעל הבית מעל לא עשה שליחותו שליח מעל,וכי עשה שליחותו אמאי מעל וכי זה חוטא וזה מתחייב היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,אמר רבא ומאי קושיא דלמא שאני מעילה דילפא חטא חטא מתרומה מה התם שלוחו של אדם כמותו אף כאן שלוחו של אדם כמותו,אלא אמר רבא לא נצרכא אלא לכדתניא נזכר בעל הבית ולא נזכר שליח שליח מעל שליח עניא מאי קא עביד היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,אמר רב אשי מאי קושיא דלמא מידי דהוה אמוציא מעות הקדש לחולין,אלא אמר רב אשי לא נצרכא אלא לכדתנן נטל אבן או קורה של הקדש הרי זה לא מעל נתנה לחבירו הוא מעל וחבירו לא מעל מכדי מישקל שקלה מה לי הוא ומה לי חבירו היינו כהררין התלויין בשערה,ומאי קושיא דלמא כדשמואל דאמר שמואל הכא | 10b. The Gemara answers: b The Torah prohibited /b only planned, b creative labor /b on Shabbat. An act of labor that is not intended, or whose result is unintended, or whose consequence is destructive, is not included in this category. Therefore, one who performs labor in this manner is exempt. b And /b limitation of the prohibition against b creative labor is not written /b anywhere in the Torah with regard to the laws of Shabbat. Admittedly, this principle is written in connection with the Tabernacle, and there is an established exegetical link between the building of the Tabernacle and Shabbat. Nevertheless, as this fundamental principle concerning the i halakhot /i of Shabbat does not appear explicitly, it is compared to mountains suspended by a hair.,§ The mishna taught that the i halakhot /i of b Festival peace /b -offerings are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But b they are written /b in the Torah. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to say this b in accordance with that which Rav Pappa said to Abaye: From where /b is it derived b that this /b verse: b “And you shall celebrate it as a Festival [ i veḥagotem /i ] to the Lord” /b (Leviticus 23:41), is referring to b an animal offering? Perhaps the Merciful One is /b simply b saying: Celebrate a Festival. /b ,Abaye responded: b However, if that is so, /b consider b that it is written: /b “Let My people go, b that they may hold a feast [ i veyaḥogu /i ] to Me in the wilderness” /b (Exodus 5:1). b So too, /b the meaning of this verse b is that /b they will merely b celebrate a Festival, /b and not bring an offering. b And if you would say that is /b indeed b so, /b that this means that they should celebrate a Festival, b but isn’t it written: “And Moses said: You must also give into our hand sacrifices and burnt- /b offerings, that we may sacrifice to the Lord our God” (Exodus 10:25)? This shows that the command is referring to offerings.,The Gemara raises a difficulty. But b perhaps this is what the Merciful One said: /b Slaughter animals so that you can b eat, drink, and celebrate a Festival before Me, /b but no offerings are necessary. The Gemara answers: This b cannot enter your mind, as it is written: “The fat of My Festival feast [ i ḥagi /i ] shall not remain all night until the morning” /b (Exodus 23:18). b And if it enters your mind /b to say b that it is /b referring to a regular b Festival feast /b and not an offering, b does a Festival feast have /b forbidden b fats? /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps this is what the Merciful One states /b in the Torah: The b fats /b of gift offerings b that are brought during a Festival may not remain all night. /b If so, the phrase “My Festival feast” is not referring to a type of offering at all, but to a particular time.,The Gemara answers: b However, if that is so, /b this verse indicates that it is only those fats b that are brought during a Festival that may not remain overnight. /b It may be inferred from here b that /b fats which are brought b throughout the year may remain all night. /b But b it is written /b about burnt-offerings: “On its firewood upon the altar b all night into the morning” /b (Leviticus 6:2). This shows that burnt-offerings must burn upon the altar all night.,The Gemara further asks: b Perhaps if /b this i halakha /i was derived b from that /b verse, b I would say that /b verse serves as the source b of a positive mitzva. /b Therefore, b the Merciful One writes this /b verse: “Shall not remain all night,” b as a prohibition /b as well.,The Gemara responds. With regard b to the prohibition /b against leaving over an offering on a Festival, b another verse was written: “Neither shall any of the flesh, which you sacrifice the first day at evening, remain all night until the morning” /b (Deuteronomy 16:4). The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b the verse: “Shall not remain all night” comes to teach that one who does so b violates two prohibitions and a positive mitzva. /b , b Rather, /b the Gemara rejects this explanation in favor of the claim that the source for a Festival peace-offering b comes /b from a verbal analogy between the term b “wilderness” /b stated here and the term: b “wilderness” /b stated elsewhere. b It is written here: “They shall make an offering to Me in the wilderness” /b (Exodus 5:1), b and it is written there: “Did you bring to Me sacrifices and offerings /b forty years b in the wilderness, /b house of Israel?” (Amos 5:25). b Just as there /b it is referring to actual b animal offerings, so too here, /b it is referring to b animal offerings, /b not merely the celebration of a Festival.,The Gemara asks: b And /b in light of this verbal analogy, in b what /b way is this i halakha /i b like mountains suspended by a hair? /b The Gemara answers: The textual evidence is not that strong, as generally b one does not derive Torah matters from texts of the tradition, /b i.e., Prophets and Writings. Since the prophets were not permitted to introduce new i halakhot /i , as the Torah is the only authoritative source in that regard, this verbal analogy does not carry the same weight as a i halakha /i derived from the Torah itself.,§ The mishna taught that the details of the i halakhot /i of b misuse /b of consecrated property are like mountains suspended by a hair. The Gemara asks: But b they are written /b in the Torah (Leviticus 5:14–16). b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b This statement b is necessary only for that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Me’ila /i 20a): With regard to b an agent who performs his agency, /b e.g., when a homeowner sends someone to buy an object with consecrated money and the agent does as he was instructed, b the homeowner has misused /b consecrated property and must bring an offering for the actions of the agent performed on his behalf. However, if the agent b did not perform his agency, /b but in some way acted on his own account, b the agent has misused /b consecrated property, and he is the one obligated to bring the offering.,The Gemara explains: b And when he performed his agency, why /b is the owner considered to have b misused /b consecrated property? b And is it /b possible b that this one sins and that one is rendered liable? /b Since this i halakha /i is counterintuitive, it is not apparent from the verses. b This is /b what the mishna was referring to when it said that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b , b Rava said: And what is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b the transgression of b misuse /b of consecrated property b is different, as it is derived /b through a verbal analogy from the parallel term b “sin” /b (Leviticus 5:6) and b “sin” /b (Numbers 18:9), b from /b the case of b i teruma /i : Just as there, /b with regard to i teruma /i , the legal status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b and therefore the agent may separate i teruma /i on behalf of the owner of the produce, b so too here, /b with regard to misuse of consecrated property, the legal status of b a person’s agent is like /b that of b himself, /b which means that when the agent properly performs his agency the owner is liable., b Rather, Rava said: /b The mishna’s statement with regard to mountains b is necessary only for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If, after he sent an agent to use a consecrated object, b the homeowner remembered /b that it was a consecrated item b and the agent did not remember, the agent has misused /b consecrated property despite the fact that he was merely performing his agency. This is because one is liable for the misuse of consecrated property only if he acted unwittingly. In this instance, b what did the poor agent do? /b He simply performed his agency on behalf of the owner, and yet because the owner remembered about the consecrated object, the agent is liable. b This is /b what the mishna is referring to when it says that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b , b Rav Ashi said: /b And b what is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b this b is just as it is with /b regard to b one who spends consecrated money for non-sacred /b purposes. Although this individual did not know that the money was consecrated, he is nevertheless obligated to bring an offering. Here too, once the owner canceled the agency upon realizing the money was consecrated, the agent unwittingly misused consecrated property, and therefore he is liable., b Rather, Rav Ashi said: /b The mishna b is necessary only for that which we learned /b in a mishna ( i Me’ila /i 19b): If one b picked up a consecrated stone or beam, he has not misused /b consecrated property merely by this action. However, if he b gave it to another, he has misused /b consecrated property b and the other /b person b has not misused /b consecrated property. The Gemara analyzes this case: b Since he picked it up, what /b difference b is /b there b to me /b if b he /b keeps it, b and what /b difference b is /b there b to me /b if he gives it to b another? /b What is the basis for the distinction between the two cases? Rather, b this is /b the case the mishna is referring to when it says that these i halakhot /i are b like mountains suspended by a hair. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty. b What is /b the logical b difficulty /b with this i halakha /i ? b Perhaps /b it should be explained b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Shmuel, as Shmuel said: Here, /b this mishna is not referring to an ordinary person who picked up a consecrated stone for himself. |
|
41. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39| 23a. וילפינן מופנה משני צדדין ולהכי אפניה רחמנא לבהמה משני צדדין כי היכי דלא נגמר מן מופנה מצד אחד,רב אחא בריה דרבא מתני לה משמיה דרבי אלעזר לקולא כל גזרה שוה שאינה מופנה כל עיקר למדין ומשיבין מופנה מצד אחד לרבי ישמעאל למדין ואין משיבין לרבנן למדין ומשיבין מופנה משני צדדין דברי הכל למדין ואין משיבין,ולרבנן מאי איכא בין מופנה מצד אחד לשאינה מופנה כל עיקר,נ"מ היכא דמשכחת לה מופנה מצד אחד ושאינה מופנה כל עיקר ולאו להאי אית ליה פירכא ולאו להאי אית ליה פירכא שבקינן שאינה מופנה כל עיקר וגמרינן ממופנה מצד אחד,והכא מאי פירכא איכא משום דאיכא למיפרך מה לאדם שכן מטמא מחיים,וכן א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן היינו טעמא דר"מ הואיל ונאמרה בו יצירה כאדם,א"ל רבי אמי אלא מעתה המפלת דמות הר אמו טמאה לידה שנאמר (עמוס ד:יג) כי הנה יוצר הרים ובורא רוח אמר ליה הר מי קא מפלת אבן היא דקא מפלת ההוא גוש איקרי,אלא מעתה המפלת רוח תהא אמו טמאה לידה הואיל ונאמרה בו בריאה כאדם דכתיב {עמוס ד } ובורא רוח וכי תימא לא מופנה מדהוה ליה למכתב יוצר הרים ורוח וכתיב ובורא רוח ש"מ לאפנויי,א"ל דנין דברי תורה מדברי תורה ואין דנין דברי תורה מדברי קבלה,(אמר) רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן היינו טעמא דר"מ הואיל ועיניהם דומות כשל אדם,אלא מעתה המפלת דמות נחש תהא אמו טמאה לידה הואיל וגלגל עינו עגולה כשל אדם וכי תימא הכי נמי ליתני נחש,אי תנא נחש הוה אמינא בנחש הוא דפליגי רבנן עליה דר"מ דלא כתיב ביה יצירה אבל בהמה וחיה לא פליגי דכתיבא ביה יצירה,והא גבי מומין קתני לה את שגלגל עינו עגול כשל אדם לא קשיא הא באוכמא הא בציריא,רבי ינאי אמר היינו טעמא דר"מ הואיל ועיניהם הולכות לפניהם כשל אדם והרי עוף דאין עיניו הולכות לפניו וקאמר ר"מ דטמא אמר אביי בקריא וקיפופא ובשאר עופות לא,מיתיבי ר' חנינא בן (אנטיגנוס) אומר נראין דברי ר"מ בבהמה וחיה ודברי חכמים בעופות,מאי עופות אילימא בקריא וקיפופא מ"ש בהמה וחיה דעיניהן הולכות לפניהן כשל אדם קריא וקיפופא נמי,אלא פשיטא בשאר עופות מכלל דר"מ פליג בשאר עופות,חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר נראין דברי ר"מ בבהמה וחיה והוא הדין לקריא וקיפופא ודברי חכמים בשאר עופות שאף ר"מ לא נחלק עמהם אלא בקריא וקיפופא אבל בשאר עופות מודי להו,והתניא א"ר אלעזר בר' צדוק המפלת מין בהמה וחיה לדברי ר"מ ולד ולדברי חכמים אינו ולד ובעופות תיבדק,למאן תיבדק לאו לדברי ר"מ דאמר קריא וקיפופא אין שאר עופות לא,אמר רב אחא בריה דרב איקא לא תיבדק לרבנן דאמרי קריא וקיפופא אין שאר עופות לא,ומ"ש קריא וקיפופא מבהמה וחיה הואיל ויש להן לסתות כאדם,בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מר' זירא לר"מ דאמר בהמה במעי אשה ולד מעליא הוא קבל בה אביה קידושין מהו למאי נפקא מינה לאיתסורי באחותה,למימרא דחיי והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא אמרה ר"מ אלא הואיל ובמינו מתקיים אמר רב אחא בר יעקב עד כאן הביאו רבי ירמיה לר' זירא לידי גיחוך ולא גחיך,גופא אמר רב יהודה אמר רב לא אמרה רבי מאיר אלא הואיל ובמינו מתקיים אמר רב ירמיה מדפתי | 23a. b and derive /b the i halakha /i from the analogy that is b free on both sides. And /b it is b for this /b reason that b the Merciful One rendered /b the verbal analogy between b animal /b and man b free on both sides, so that one would not derive /b the i halakha /i b from /b the verbal analogy between sea monster and man, which is b free on /b only b one side. /b , b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, teaches in the name of Rabbi Elazar /b a more b lenient /b version of the aforementioned principle of exegesis of verbal analogy: With regard to b any verbal analogy that is not free at all, one can derive /b i halakhot /i from it, b but one can /b also b refute /b it logically. If the verbal analogy is b free on one side, according to Rabbi Yishmael one can derive /b i halakhot /i from it, b and one cannot refute /b it. b According to the Rabbis, one can derive /b i halakhot /i from it, b but one can /b also b refute /b it. If the verbal analogy is b free on both sides, everyone agrees /b that b one can derive /b i halakhot /i from it b and one cannot refute /b it.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if so, b according to the Rabbis, what /b difference b is there between /b a verbal analogy that is b free on one side and /b one b that is not free at all? /b In both cases, the Rabbis hold that one can derive i halakhot /i from such a verbal analogy but one can also refute it.,The Gemara answers: The b difference /b is in a case b where you find /b two mutually exclusive verbal analogies, one that is b free on one side and /b one b that is not free at all, and neither /b does b this one have /b a logical b refutation nor /b does b that one have /b a logical b refutation. /b In such a case, b we disregard /b the analogy b that is not free at all, and we derive /b the i halakha /i b from /b the one that is b free on one side. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And here, /b with regard to the verbal analogy between man and sea monster, which was rejected because it is free on only one side, b what /b logical b refutation is there /b on account of which this verbal analogy is rejected? The Gemara answers: The verbal analogy between man and sea monster is rejected b because it can be refuted /b as follows: b What /b is unique b about man? /b Man is unique b in that /b a person can b become impure while he is alive, /b unlike an animal, which can become impure only after it dies, or a sea monster, which cannot become impure at all., b And likewise, Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Meir, /b that a woman who discharges an item similar to a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or a bird is impure: It is b because formation is stated with regard to /b the creation of these animals, b just as /b it is stated with regard to the creation of b man. /b , b Rabbi Ami said to him: If that is so, /b then in the case of a woman b who discharges /b an item that has b the shape of a mountain, its mother /b should be b impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth, as it is stated /b with regard to the creation of mountains: b “For He Who forms the mountains and creates the wind” /b (Amos 4:13). Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba b said to him: Does she discharge a mountain? /b The discharged item cannot possibly be that large. b It is /b an item with the form of b a stone that she discharges, /b and b that is called a clod, /b not a mountain.,Rabbi Ami further inquired: b If that is so, /b in the case of a woman b who discharges /b an item having b an amorphous form [ i ruaḥ /i ], its mother should be impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth, since creation is stated with regard to it, just as /b it is stated with regard to b man, as it is written: “And creates the wind [ i ruaḥ /i ].” And if you would say /b that no verbal analogy can be drawn here, because the verse b is not free, /b i.e., it is not superfluous, as it is necessary to recount the creation of the wind, that is not so. Rabbi Ami explains: b From /b the fact b that /b the verse b could have written: Who forms the mountains and the wind, and /b instead b it is written: /b “Who forms the mountains b and creates the wind,” conclude from it /b that the superfluous word “creates” serves b to render it free /b for drawing a verbal analogy between i ruaḥ /i and man.,Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba b said to /b Rabbi Ami: b One derives matters /b that are stated in the b Torah from matters /b that are stated in the b Torah, /b i.e., from verses in the Torah, b but one does not derive matters /b that are stated in the b Torah from the words of the tradition, /b i.e., verses in the Prophets or the Writings, such as the verse in Amos.,§ b Rabba bar bar Ḥana /b said that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Meir: Since the eyes of /b these animals b are similar to those of a human, /b a woman who discharges an item of that type is impure.,The Gemara objects: b If that is so, /b then in the case of a woman b who discharges /b an item that has b the form of a snake, its mother should /b likewise b be impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth, since the pupil of /b a snake b is round, like /b that b of a human. And if you would say /b that b indeed, /b this is the i halakha /i , then b let /b the mishna b teach /b this case of a woman who discharges an item that has the form of b a snake /b among the other cases where the woman discharges an item of an unusual form.,The Gemara explains: b If /b the mishna had b taught /b the case of b a snake, I would say /b that it b is /b only b in /b the case of a woman who discharges an item having the form of b a snake that the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir /b and rule that the woman is not impure, b as /b a term of b formation is not written with regard to /b the creation of the snake. b But /b with regard to a woman who discharges an item having the form of b a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, they do not disagree /b with Rabbi Meir, b as /b the concept of b formation is written with regard to them. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b blemishes /b that render the slaughter of a firstborn animal permitted, b it is taught /b in a mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 40a) that an animal b whose pupil is round like /b that b of a human /b is considered blemished. Evidently, the eyes of animals are dissimilar to those of humans. The Gemara answers that it is b not difficult; this /b statement, that the eyes of animals are similar to those of humans, is referring b to /b the b pupil, /b and b that /b statement, that the eyes of animals are not similar to those of humans, is referring b to /b the entire eyeball in the b socket. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yannai said: This is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Meir: /b It is b because the eyes of /b these animals b are fixed in the front of /b their heads b like /b those b of a human, /b unlike the eyes of birds and snakes, a woman who discharges an item of that kind is impure. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b there is the case of a woman who discharges an item similar to b a bird, whose eyes are not fixed in the front of /b its head, b and /b nevertheless b Rabbi Meir says that /b the woman b is impure. /b This apparently contradicts Rabbi Yannai’s explanation. b Abaye said: /b Rabbi Meir is referring b to /b the b little owl [ i bekarya /i ] and /b the b great owl [ i vekifofa /i ], /b whose eyes are fixed in the front of their heads, b but in /b the case of a woman who discharges any of the b other /b species of b birds, /b Rabbi Meir does b not /b deem her impure.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this answer from a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The statement of Rabbi Meir seems /b correct b in /b the case of a woman who discharges the form of b a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, and the statement of the Rabbis /b seems correct b in /b the case of b birds. /b ,The Gemara asks: To b what birds /b is Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus referring? b If we say /b he is referring b to /b the b little owl and /b the b great owl, what is the difference /b between this case and the cases of b a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, /b with regard to which Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus accepts the opinion of Rabbi Meir? If the key factor is b that their eyes are fixed in the front of /b their heads b like /b those b of a human, /b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus should accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir in the case of b a little owl or a great owl as well, /b as their eyes are also fixed in the front of their heads., b Rather, /b it is b obvious /b that when Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says that he does not accept the opinion of Rabbi Meir, he is referring b to /b the b other /b species of b birds. From the fact /b that it is necessary for Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus to reject Rabbi Meir’s opinion in those cases, it may be concluded that b Rabbi Meir /b himself b disagrees /b with the Rabbis b with regard to /b the b other /b species of b birds /b as well, despite the fact that their eyes are not fixed in the front of their heads.,The Gemara explains that the i baraita /i b is incomplete, and this /b is what b it is teaching: Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: The statement of Rabbi Meir seems /b correct b in /b the case of b a domesticated animal or an undomesticated animal, and the same is true with regard to a little owl or a great owl. And the statement of the Rabbis /b appears correct even to Rabbi Meir b with regard to /b the b other /b species of b birds. /b The reason is b that even Rabbi Meir /b agrees that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of one of the other species of birds, she is not impure, i.e., he b disagrees with them only with regard to a little owl or a great owl, but he concedes to /b their opinion b with regard to /b the b other /b species of b birds. /b ,The Gemara cites proof for Abaye’s claim that Rabbi Meir differentiates between an owl and other species of birds, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: /b In the case of a woman b who discharges /b an item that has the form of b a type of domesticated animal or undomesticated animal, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir /b it has the halakhic status of a full-fledged b offspring, and according to the statement of the Rabbis, /b it does b not /b have the status of a full-fledged b offspring. In /b the case of a woman who discharges an item that has the form of b birds, it must be examined. /b ,The Gemara asks: b According to whom must it be examined? /b Is this b not /b referring b to the statement of Rabbi Meir, who said /b that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of b a little owl or a great owl, yes, /b she is impure, but if she discharges an item that has the form of b other birds, /b she is b not /b impure? Consequently, the item must be examined to determine what type of bird it resembles., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, said: No, /b this i baraita /i does not prove that Rabbi Meir differentiates between owls and other species of birds, as perhaps the statement that the discharged item b must be examined /b applies b according to the Rabbis, as they say /b that if a woman discharges an item that has the form of b a little owl or a great owl, yes, /b she is impure, but if a woman discharges an item that has the form of b other birds, /b she is b not /b impure.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the Rabbis hold that a woman who discharges an item similar to a land animal is not impure, why would they hold that if she discharges an item that has the form of owls she is impure? b What is the difference /b between b a little owl and a great owl /b on the one hand, and b a domesticated animal and an undomesticated animal /b on the other? The Gemara answers: b Since /b owls b have cheeks like /b those of b a human, /b therefore a woman who discharges an item similar to an owl is impure, whereas if she discharges an item that has the form of a land animal she is pure, despite the fact that their eyes are fixed in the front of their heads.,§ b Rabbi Yirmeya asked Rabbi Zeira: According to Rabbi Meir, who said /b that b an animal in the womb of a woman is /b considered b a full-fledged offspring, what is /b the i halakha /i in a case where it is a female, and b her father accepted betrothal for her, /b i.e., he married her off by accepting betrothal money from a man, or a document of betrothal? Is such a betrothal valid? Rabbi Yirmeya elaborated: b What /b practical b difference is /b there whether it is valid? The difference is b with regard to /b whether it is b prohibited /b for the man b to /b marry b her sister. /b If the betrothal is valid, it is prohibited for the husband to marry her sister, as one may not marry his wife’s sister.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that /b such an offspring b can live? /b This factor is important, as a man is prohibited from marrying his wife’s sister only during his wife’s lifetime. b But doesn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: Rabbi Meir said /b that a woman who discharges an item that has the form of an animal is impure b only since /b there are other animals b of its type /b that can b live, /b i.e., there are animals similar to the discharged item that do survive, but not that creature itself. b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov says: Rabbi Yirmeya tried this hard to cause Rabbi Zeira to laugh, but he did not laugh. /b In other words, Rabbi Yirmeya was not asking his question seriously.,The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself. Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: Rabbi Meir said /b that a woman who discharges an item that has the form of an animal is impure b only since /b there are animals b of its type /b that can b live. Rav Yirmeya of Difti says: /b |
|
42. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 39| 36a. דמדרינן ליה ברבים הניחא למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למאן דאמר יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר,דמדרינן ליה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא אפילו למאן דאמר נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה,והני מילי לדבר הרשות אבל לדבר מצוה יש לו הפרה כי ההוא מקרי דרדקי דאדריה רב אחא על דעת רבים דהוה פשע בינוקי ואהדריה רבינא דלא אישתכח דדייק כוותיה:,והעדים חותמין על הגט מפני תיקון העולם: מפני תיקון העולם דאורייתא הוא דכתיב (ירמיהו לב, מד) וכתוב בספר וחתום,אמר רבה לא צריכא לרבי אלעזר דאמר עדי מסירה כרתי תקינו רבנן עדי חתימה מפני תיקון העולם דזמנין דמייתי סהדי אי נמי זימנין דאזלי למדינת הים,רב יוסף אמר אפי' תימא לר' מאיר התקינו שיהא עדים מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,כדתניא בראשונה היה כותב אני פלוני חתמתי עד אם כתב ידו יוצא ממקום אחר כשר ואם לאו פסול,אמר רבן גמליאל תקנה גדולה התקינו שיהיו מפרשין שמותיהן בגיטין מפני תיקון העולם,ובסימנא לא והא רב צייר כורא ורבי חנינא צייר חרותא רב חסדא סמך ורב הושעיא עין רבה בר רב הונא צייר מכותא שאני רבנן דבקיאין סימנייהו,מעיקרא במאי אפקעינהו בדיסקי:,הלל התקין פרוסבול וכו': תנן התם פרוסבול אינו משמט זה אחד מן הדברים שהתקין הלל הזקן שראה את העם שנמנעו מלהלוות זה את זה ועברו על מה שכתוב בתורה (דברים טו, ט) השמר לך פן יהיה דבר עם לבבך בליעל וגו' עמד והתקין פרוסבול,וזה הוא גופו של פרוסבול מוסרני לכם פלוני דיינין שבמקום פלוני שכל חוב שיש לי אצל פלוני שאגבנו כל זמן שארצה והדיינים חותמים למטה או העדים,ומי איכא מידי דמדאורייתא משמטא שביעית והתקין הלל דלא משמטא אמר אביי בשביעית בזמן הזה ורבי היא,דתניא רבי אומר (דברים טו, ב) וזה דבר השמיטה שמוט בשתי שמיטות הכתוב מדבר אחת שמיטת קרקע ואחת שמיטת כספים בזמן שאתה משמט קרקע אתה משמט כספים בזמן שאי אתה משמט קרקע אי אתה משמט כספים | 36a. The Gemara answers b that we administer the vow /b to the priest b in public. /b The Gemara asks: b This works out well according to the one who says /b that b a vow that was taken in public has no /b possibility of b nullification /b by a halakhic authority, b but according to the one who says it has /b the possibility of b nullification, what can be said? /b ,The Gemara answers b that we administer the vow to /b the priest based b on the consent of the public, /b making it a type of vow that cannot be dissolved without their consent. b As Ameimar said, /b the b i halakha /i /b is as follows: b Even according to the one who says /b that b a vow that was taken in public has /b the possibility of b nullification, /b if it was taken based b on the consent of the public, /b it b has no /b possibility of b nullification. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And this matter applies /b only to when the nullification of a vow is in order to enable one b to /b perform b an optional matter, but to /b enable one to perform b a matter of a mitzva, it has /b the possibility of b nullification. /b This is b like /b the incident involving b a certain teacher of children, /b upon b whom Rav Aḥa administered a vow /b based b on the consent of the public /b to cease teaching, b as he was negligent with regard to the children /b by hitting them too much. b And Ravina /b had his vow nullified and b reinstated him, as they did not find /b another teacher b who was as meticulous as he /b was.,§ The mishna taught: b And the witnesses sign the bill of divorce for the betterment of the world. /b The Gemara asks: Is the reason that the witnesses sign the bill of divorce b for the betterment of the world? It is by Torah law /b that they must sign, b as it is written: “And subscribe the deeds, and sign /b them, and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44)., b Rabba said: No, /b it is b necessary according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, who says: Witnesses of the transmission /b of the bill of divorce b effect /b the divorce, and not the witnesses who sign the bill of divorce, and by Torah law it does not need to be signed. Nevertheless, b the Sages instituted signatory witnesses for the betterment of the world, as sometimes /b it occurs b that the witnesses /b who witnessed the transmission of the bill of divorce b die, or sometimes /b it occurs b that they go overseas, /b and the validity of the bill of divorce may be contested. Since they are not present, there are no witnesses who can ratify the bill of divorce. Once the Sages instituted that the witnesses’ signatures appear on the bill of divorce, then the bill of divorce can be ratified by authenticating their signatures., b Rav Yosef said: You /b can b even say /b that it is b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, /b that signatory witnesses on the bill of divorce effect the divorce, and the mishna should be understood as follows: b They instituted that the witnesses must specify their /b full b names on bills of divorce /b and not merely sign the document, b for the betterment of the world. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 9:13): b At first, /b the witness b would write /b only: b I, so-and-so, signed /b as b a witness, /b but they did not state their full names. Therefore, the only way to identify the witness was to see if an identical signature could be found on a different document that had been ratified in court. Therefore, b if /b another copy of a witness’s b signature is produced from elsewhere, /b i.e., another court document, it is b valid, but if not, /b then the bill of divorce is b invalid /b even though it is possible that he was a valid witness, and as a result of this women were left unable to remarry., b Rabban Gamliel said: They instituted a great ordice that /b the witnesses b must specify their /b full b names on bills of divorce, /b stating that they are so-and-so, son of so-and-so, and other identifying features, b for the betterment of the world. /b This made it possible to easily clarify who the witnesses were and to ratify the bill of divorce by finding acquaintances of the witnesses who recognized their signatures.,The Gemara asks: b But /b is it b not /b sufficient to sign b with /b a pictorial b mark? But Rav drew a fish /b instead of a signature, b and Rabbi Ḥanina drew a palm branch /b [ b i ḥaruta /i /b ]; b Rav Ḥisda /b drew the letter b i samekh /i , and Rav Hoshaya /b drew the letter b i ayin /i ; /b and b Rabba bar Rav Huna drew a sail /b [ b i makota /i /b ]. None of these Sages would sign their actual names. The Gemara answers: b The Sages are different, as /b everyone is b well versed in their /b pictorial b marks. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Initially, with what did they publicize /b these marks, as they could not use them in place of signatures before people were well versed in them? The Gemara answers: They initially used their marks b in letters, /b where there is no legal requirement to sign their names. Once it became known that they would use these marks as their signatures, they were able to use them as signatures even on legal documents.,§ The mishna taught that b Hillel /b the Elder b instituted a document that prevents the Sabbatical /b Year b from abrogating an outstanding debt [ i prosbol /i ]. We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Shevi’it /i 10:3): If one writes b a i prosbol /i , /b the Sabbatical Year b does not abrogate /b debt. b This is one of the matters that Hillel the Elder instituted because he saw that /b the people of b the nation were refraining from lending to one another /b around the time of the Sabbatical Year, as they were concerned that the debtor would not repay the loan, b and they violated that which is written in the Torah: “Beware that there be not a base thought in your heart, /b saying: The seventh year, the year of release, is at hand; and your eye be evil against your needy brother, and you give him nothing” (Deuteronomy 15:9). b He arose and instituted /b the b i prosbol /i /b so that it would also be possible to collect those debts in order to ensure that people would continue to give loans., b And this is the essence of the /b text of the b i prosbol /i : I transfer to you, so-and-so /b the b judges, who are in such and such a place, /b so b that I will collect any debt that I am owed by so-and-so whenever I wish, /b as the court now has the right to collect the debts. b And the judges or the witnesses sign below, /b and this is sufficient. The creditor will then be able to collect the debt on behalf of the court, and the court can give it to him.,The Gemara asks about the i prosbol /i itself: b But is there anything /b like this, b where by Torah law the Sabbatical /b Year b cancels /b the debt b but Hillel instituted that it does not cancel /b the debt? b Abaye said: /b The i baraita /i is referring b to the Sabbatical /b Year b in the present, /b and b it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b The verse states in the context of the cancellation of debts: b “And this is the manner of the abrogation: He shall abrogate” /b (Deuteronomy 15:2). b The verse speaks of two /b types of b abrogation: One /b is b the release of land and one /b is the b abrogation of monetary /b debts. Since the two are equated, one can learn the following: b At a time when you release land, /b when the Jubilee Year is practiced, b you abrogate monetary /b debts; b at a time when you do not release land, /b such as the present time, when the Jubilee Year is no longer practiced, b you /b also b do not abrogate monetary /b debts. |
|
| 43. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 124 |
| 44. Ctesias, Fragments, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 242, 243 |
45. Anon., 4 Ezra, a b c d\n0 14.33 14.33 14 33 \n1 14.34 14.34 14 34 \n2 14.36 14.36 14 36 \n3 14.35 14.35 14 35 \n4 14.23 14.23 14 23 \n5 14.24 14.24 14 24 \n6 8 8 8 None\n7 14.22 14.22 14 22 \n8 14.25 14.25 14 25 \n9 14.27 14.27 14 27 \n10 14.26 14.26 14 26 \n11 14.41 14.41 14 41 \n12 14.30 14.30 14 30 \n13 14.31 14.31 14 31 \n14 14.32 14.32 14 32 \n15 14.37 14.37 14 37 \n16 14.39 14.39 14 39 \n17 14.28 14.28 14 28 \n18 14.29 14.29 14 29 \n19 4 4 4 None\n20 14.38 14.38 14 38 \n21 14.45 14.45 14 45 \n22 14.46 14.46 14 46 \n23 14.44 14.44 14 44 \n24 2 2 2 None\n25 - None\n26 14.47 14.47 14 47 \n27 14.48 14.48 14 48 \n28 14.40 14.40 14 40 \n29 14.42 14.42 14 42 \n30 14.43 14.43 14 43 \n31 . . \n32 1 1 1 None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 57 | 14.33. And now you are here, and your brethren are farther in the interior. |
|
| 47. Anon., Isocrates, 0, 2, 20 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 121 |
| 48. Anon., Lexicon Artis Grammaticae (E Cod. Coislin. 345), a b c d\n0 4 4 4 None\n1 34.16 34.16 34 16 \n2 3 3 3 None\n3 . . \n4 1 1 1 None\n5 6 6 6 None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 123, 125 |
| 49. Cratinus, F, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 229, 231 |
| 50. Crawford, Roman Statutes (Ed. M. Crawford), None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 221, 238 |
| 51. Curtius Rufus, Fgh 688 F16, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 217, 224 |
| 52. Cyril of Scythopolis, V. Cyr., a b c d\n0 1.5 1.5 1 5 \n1 1 1 1 None\n2 5 5 5 None\n3 . . Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 244 |
| 53. Council of Ancyra, Can., None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 232 |
| 54. Council of Trullo, Can., None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17, 213 |
| 55. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q264A (Halakha B), None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 17, 121, 125, 129, 130 |
| 56. Anon., Soferim, 1, 11 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 236 |
| 57. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q217 (Papjubileesb?), 3, 36, 37, 6, 7, - Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 226, 249, 250 |
| 58. Anon., Midrash Hagadol, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Jassen (2014), Scripture and Law in the Dead Sea Scrolls, 122, 123 |
