Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

Filtering options: (leave empty for all results)
By author:     
By work:        
By subject:
By additional keyword:       



Results for
Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.


graph

graph

All subjects (including unvalidated):
subject book bibliographic info
pahlavi Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 89, 139, 142, 158, 279, 280, 281, 285, 291, 292, 303, 316, 324, 325, 326, 330, 331, 334, 365, 366, 367
Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 38, 43
Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 38, 43
pahlavi, literature Scopello, The Gospel of Judas in Context: Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Gospel of Judas (2008) 281
pahlavi, texts Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 406, 415, 430
pahlavi, texts, zoroastrianism Hayes, The Literature of the Sages: A Re-Visioning (2022) 406, 430, 433
pahlavi, videvdad, the composition Nikolsky and Ilan, Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia (2014) 227, 257

List of validated texts:
2 validated results for "pahlavi"
1. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 19b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
 Tagged with subjects: • Pahlavi

 Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 38; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 38

19b תניא כוותיה דרב עדים שאין יודעין לחתום מקרעין להן נייר חלק וממלאים את הקרעים דיו,אמר רבן שמעון בן גמליאל בד"א בגיטי נשים אבל בשחרורי עבדים ושאר כל השטרות אם יודעין לקרות ולחתום חותמין ואם לאו אין חותמין,קרייה מאן דכר שמה חסורי מיחסרא והכי קתני עדים שאין יודעין לקרות קורין לפניהם וחותמים ושאין יודעין לחתום כו\ אמר ר"ש בן גמליאל במה דברים אמורים בגיטי נשים אבל שחרורי עבדים ושאר כל השטרות אם יודעין לקרות ולחתום חותמין ואם לאו אין חותמין,א"ר אלעזר מ"ט דרבן שמעון בן גמליאל שלא יהו בנות ישראל עגונות,אמר רבא הלכה כרשב"ג ורב גמדא משמיה דרבא אמר אין הלכה ואלא כמאן כרבנן,והא ההוא דעבד עובדא בשאר שטרות ונגדיה רב כהנא תרגמא אקריאה,רב יהודה מיצטער קרי וחתים א"ל עולא לא צריכת דהא ר\ אלעזר מרא דארץ ישראל קרו קמיה וחתים ורב נחמן קרו קמיה ספרי דייני וחתים ודווקא רב נחמן וספרי דייני דאית להו אימתא אבל רב נחמן וספרי אחריני ספרי דייני ואיניש אחרינא לא,רב פפא כי הוה אתי לקמיה שטרא פרסאה דעביד בערכאות של כותים מקרי להו לשני כותים זה שלא בפני זה במסיח לפי תומו ומגבי ביה ממשעבדי,אמר רב אשי אמר לי רב הונא בר נתן הכי אמר אמימר האי שטרא פרסאה דחתימי עליה סהדי ישראל מגבינן ביה ממשעבדי,והא לא ידעי למיקרי בדידעי והא בעינן כתב שאינו יכול להזדייף וליכא בדאפיצן והא בעינן צריך לחזור מענינו של שטר בשיטה אחרונה וליכא בדמהדר,ואלא מאי קמ"ל דכל לשון כשר תנינא גט שכתבו עברית ועדיו יונית יונית ועדיו עברית כשר,אי מההיא הוה אמינא הני מילי בגיטין אבל בשאר שטרות לא קמ"ל,אמר שמואל נתן לה נייר חלק ואמר לה ה"ז גיטיך מגורשת חיישינן שמא במי מילין כתבו,מיתיבי הרי זה גיטך ונטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאור או לכל דבר האבד וחזר ואמר שטר פסים הוא שטר אמנה הוא מגורשת ולא כל הימנו לאוסרה,טעמא דאיכא כתב הא ליכא כתב לא כי קאמר שמואל דבדקינן ליה במיא דנרא אי פליט פליט ואי לא פליט לאו כלום הוא,וכי פליט מאי הוי השתא הוא דפליט שמואל נמי חיישינן קאמר,אמר רבינא אמר לי אמימר הכי אמר מרימר משמיה דרב דימי הני בי תרי דיהיב גיטא קמייהו צריכי למיקרייה מיתיבי ה"ז גיטך ונטלתו וזרקתו לים או לאור או לכל דבר האבד וחזר ואמר שטר פסים הוא שטר אמנה הוא מגורשת ולא כל הימנו לאוסרה ואי אמרת צריכי למיקרייה בתר דקריוה מי מצי אמר לה הכי,לא צריכא דבתר דקריוה עייליה לבי ידיה ואפקיה מהו דתימא חלופי חלפיה קמ"ל,ההוא גברא דזרק לה גיטא לדביתהו לביני דני אשתכח מזוזתא אמר רב נחמן מזוזתא ביני דני לא שכיחא,וה"מ דאשתכח חדא אבל ב\ ג\ מדהא הואי הא נמי הואי וגיטא אימור עכברים שקלוה,ההוא גברא דעל לבי כנישתא שקל ספר תורה יהיב לה לדביתהו ואמר לה הא גיטך אמר רב יוסף למאי ליחוש לה אי משום מי מילין אין מי מילין על גבי מי מילין
19b It is taught in a baraita in accordance with the opinion of Rav: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to sign, one tears a blank piece of paper for them, and they fill in the gaps with ink.,Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if they do not know how to read and sign they do not sign.,The Gemara asks: With regard to reading, who mentioned anything about it? Why does Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel mention the need for witnesses to be able to read when the discussion is about a witness who does not know how to sign? The Gemara answers: The baraita is incomplete, and this is what it is teaching: In the case of witnesses who do not know how to read, one reads the document in their presence and they sign. And in the case where they do not know how to sign, then one tears paper in the form of a stencil and they fill in the gaps with ink. With regard to this, Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: In what case is this statement said? For bills of divorce. However, for bills of manumission and for all other documents, if the witnesses know how to read and how to sign, then they sign, and if not they do not sign.,Rabbi Elazar says: What is the reason of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who permitted this only for bills of divorce? He holds that there is reason to be lenient with bills of divorce, so that the daughters of Israel should not be deserted. Requiring literate witnesses for bills of divorce could lead to a scenario in which a husband wishes to travel and wants to give his wife a bill of divorce in case he shall not return, but if he does not find literate witnesses he may leave without divorcing her, leaving her unable to remarry.Rava says: The halakha is in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rav Gamda said in the name of Rava: The halakha is not in accordance with Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. The Gemara asks: Rather, in accordance with whose opinion is the halakha? Is it in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, and it is permitted to do this for any document?But wasn’t there a certain person who performed an action, and allowed witnesses to trace their names in a case of other documents that were not bills of divorce, and Rav Kahana ordered that he be flogged for doing so? The Gemara answers: Rav Gamda interpreted the statement of Rava only with regard to reading, meaning that the halakha is in accordance with the Rabbis and not Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel only with regard to the question of whether other documents may be read to the witnesses, but not with regard to whether they may sign other documents by means of a stencil.It is told that Rav Yehuda was nearly blind in his old age. He could barely read and he took great pains to read and sign documents as a witness or a judge. Ulla said to him: It is not necessary for you to do this, as the court scribes would read in the presence of Rabbi Elazar the master, i.e. the halakhic authority of Eretz Yisrael, and he would sign; and the court scribes would read documents before Rav Naḥman and he would sign; and you may do the same. The Gemara notes: And this was done specifically in a case like that of Rav Naḥman and the court scribes, as they had fear of him because he was a great man and a judge to whom they were subservient. Therefore, there was no concern that they would not read it correctly. However, for Rav Naḥman and other scribes, or the court scribes and another person, no; the document may not be read to the witness, as the scribes may read it incorrectly to him.The Gemara recounts the behavior of another amora who had documents read to him: When documents that were written in Persian and that were produced in gentile courts came before Rav Pappa, who did not know how to read Persian, he would have it be read by two gentiles, each one not in the presence of the other and in a way that each one would speak offhandedly, without knowing that they were giving testimony. Once he clarified what was written in the document he would collect payment with it even from liened property that had been sold, as he held that such a document is entirely valid with regard to monetary law.Rav Ashi said that Rav Huna bar Natan said to me that so said Ameimar: With regard to this Persian document, on which Jews are signed as witnesses, the court is able to collect payment with it, even from liened property that had been sold.The Gemara asks: But they don’t know how to read, as most Jews did not read Persian. The Gemara answers: Ameimar’s statement applies when they know how to read Persian. The Gemara questions how the court can rely upon such a document: But don’t we require all legal documents to be written in a writing that cannot be forged; and it is not so in documents produced by Persians, as the Persians were not particular about this when writing their legal documents. The Gemara answers: His statement applies in a case where the paper of the documents was processed with gall. Consequently, it is not possible to forge the writing. But we require a document to recap the essential topic of the document in its last line; and it is not so in the case of Persian documents. The Gemara answers: Ameimar’s statement applies in a case where the document recapped the essential topic of the document in the final line.The Gemara asks: But if Ameimar’s statement applies only when all these conditions are met, then what is he teaching us, that a document that is properly written in any language is valid? We already learned in a mishna (87b): In the case of a bill of divorce that he wrote in Hebrew and its witnesses signed in Greek, or one that he wrote in Greek and its witnesses signed in Hebrew, it is valid. If this is written in the mishna, Ameimar’s statement would not simply repeat it.The Gemara answers: This cannot serve as a clear proof, because if the only source for this halakha were from that mishna then I would say: This statement applies only for bills of divorce, where the Sages were lenient so that a woman would not be unable to remarry. However, for other documents, no. Consequently, Ameimar teaches us that other types of documents are valid if they are written in other languages as well.§ Shmuel says: If a man gave his wife a blank piece of paper and said to her: This is hereby your bill of divorce, then she is divorced. Why? We are concerned that perhaps he wrote it with gall water, rendering it a valid bill of divorce, and the writing was subsequently absorbed into the paper so that it was no longer visible.The Gemara raises an objection based on what was taught in a baraita (Tosefta 8:2): If a husband said to his wife: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it; and he later said: It wasn’t actually a bill of divorce, rather it is a document of appeasement shetar passim, a symbolic promissory note meant only for display so that the person holding it will be considered to be wealthy; or he said: It is a document of trust, which is a false promissory note given by one person to another, trusting that he will not make use of it until there has been an actual loan; then she is divorced. And he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married.The Gemara makes an inference from the baraita: The reason she is divorced is because this bill of divorce has writing, and there is no way to ascertain what was written, but if it did not have writing, then no, there is no concern that perhaps it was a valid bill of divorce written with gall water. This runs counter to the statement of Shmuel. The Gemara answers: When Shmuel said that the woman was divorced with a blank piece of paper, it was in a case where we check the paper with a colored liquid maya denara. If the paper expels the writing, then it expels it and it is a valid bill of divorce. And if it does not expel it, then the document is nothing and she is not divorced.The Gemara asks: And if the paper expels the writing, what of it? It is possible that only now it expels the writing and the letters become visible, but from the beginning there was no legible writing and therefore the document should be considered invalid. The Gemara answers that even Shmuel said only: We are concerned, and he does not hold that it is a valid bill of divorce. Rather, the court takes into account the possibility that what he gave her in the beginning was a valid bill of divorce, and the halakha is that it is uncertain if she is divorced.Ravina said: Ameimar said to me that so said Mareimar in the name of Rav Dimi: These two witnesses who testify that the bill of divorce was given in their presence are required to read it. The Gemara raises an objection to this based on what was taught in a baraita: If a man says to a woman: This is hereby your bill of divorce, and instead of opening it and looking at it she took it and threw it into the sea, or into a fire, or into anything that destroys it, and he later said: It wasn’t actually a bill of divorce, but rather, it is a document of appeasement, or it is a document of trust; then she is divorced, and he does not have the power to make her forbidden to everyone else as a married woman by saying that it was not a bill of divorce and they are still married. And if you say that the witnesses need to read the bill of divorce, then is the husband able to say this to her after they read it?,The Gemara answers: No, it is necessary for Rav Dimi to teach his halakha in a case where after they read it, the husband placed it under his arm, and later took it out, and gave it to the woman without it being read again. Lest you say that he switched it with another document, and what he gave her was not a bill of divorce but a document of appeasement or trust as he claims, Rav Dimi teaches us that the court need not be concerned that he switched it.The Gemara tells: There was a certain man who threw what he claimed was a bill of divorce to his wife, into her courtyard, among the barrels, and in the end a mezuza was found there. The question is: Is there a concern that he threw her a bill of divorce, and the bill of divorce was destroyed, and the mezuza happened to be in the same location? Or perhaps he threw her the mezuza and only claimed that it was a bill of divorce. Rav Naḥman said: A mezuza is infrequently placed among the barrels, and it can be assumed that he threw the mezuza and not a bill of divorce.The Gemara comments: And this statement applies only when one mezuza was found. However, if two or three mezuzot were found, then the assumption is that as this, the other mezuza, was there, this mezuza was also there before the husband came, and as to the bill of divorce, say that the mice later took it, and the woman was already divorced from the moment it reached her courtyard.It is told: There was a certain man who entered the synagogue, took a Torah scroll, and gave it to his wife. And he said to her: This is your bill of divorce. Rav Yosef said: For what is there to be concerned for it? If you say that there should be a concern due to gall water, that perhaps he wrote a bill of divorce on the outside of the Torah scroll’s parchment with gall water, and this writing is now invisible, gall water is not permanent when applied on top of gall water. Since parchment for the Torah scroll is processed with gall water, it is not possible to write something with gall water that will remain permanently on the parchment itself. Therefore, there is no concern that he wrote a bill of divorce on the parchment.
2. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 75a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
 Tagged with subjects: • Pahlavi

 Found in books: Secunda, The Iranian Talmud: Reading the Bavli in Its Sasanian Context (2014) 43; Secunda, The Talmud's Red Fence: Menstrual Impurity and Difference in Babylonian Judaism and its Sasanian Context (2020), 43

75a שכן יריעה שנפל בה דרנא קורעין בה ותופרין אותה,אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב המותח חוט של תפירה בשבת חייב חטאת והלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה והיודע לחשב תקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב אסור לספר הימנו,מגושתא רב ושמואל חד אמר חרשי וחד אמר גדופי תסתיים דרב דאמר גדופי דאמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב הלומד דבר אחד מן המגוש חייב מיתה דאי ס"ד חרשי הכתיב (דברים יח, ט) לא תלמד לעשות אבל אתה למד להבין ולהורות תסתיים,אר"ש בן פזי א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום בר קפרא כל היודע לחשב בתקופות ומזלות ואינו חושב עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו ה, יב) ואת פועל ה\ לא יביטו ומעשה ידיו לא ראו א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן מנין שמצוה על האדם לחשב תקופות ומזלות שנאמר (דברים ד, ו) ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים איזו חכמה ובינה שהיא לעיני העמים הוי אומר זה חישוב תקופות ומזלות:הצד צבי וכו\: ת"ר הצד חלזון והפוצעו אינו חייב אלא אחת רבי יהודה אומר חייב שתים שהיה ר\ יהודה אומר פציעה בכלל דישה אמרו לו אין פציעה בכלל דישה אמר רבא מ"ט דרבנן קסברי אין דישה אלא לגדולי קרקע וליחייב נמי משום נטילת נשמה אמר רבי יוחנן שפצעו מת,רבא אמר אפילו תימא שפצעו חי מתעסק הוא אצל נטילת נשמה והא אביי ורבא דאמרי תרווייהו מודה ר"ש בפסיק רישא ולא ימות שאני הכא דכמה דאית ביה נשמה טפי ניחא ליה כי היכי דליציל ציבעיה:השוחטו: שוחט משום מאי חייב רב אמר משום צובע ושמואל אמר משום נטילת נשמה
75a As, when a curtain had a worm which made a tear in it, they would tear the curtain further to lengthen the tear, and that enabled them to then sew it in a manner that obscured the tear.Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who tightens the thread of a stitch on Shabbat is liable to bring a sin-offering. If two parts of a garment that were sewn together begin to separate, and one pulls the thread to reattach them, it is tantamount to having sewn them. The Gemara cites additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra in the name of Rav. And one who learns even one matter from a magosh, a Persian priest, is liable to receive the death penalty. And one who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, and does not do so, one may not speak with him because his actions are improper.The Gemara proceeds to discuss the additional halakhot cited by Rav Zutra bar Toviya. With regard to the magosh, Rav and Shmuel disagreed. One said that they are sorcerers, while the other said they are heretics. The Gemara adds: Conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics, as Rav Zutra bar Toviya said that Rav said: One who learns one matter from the magosh is liable to receive the death penalty. As, if it should enter your mind that they are sorcerers, wasn’t it written: “When you come into the land which the Lord your God gives you, you shall not learn to do after the abominations of those nations. There shall not be found among you any one that makes his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, one that uses divination, a soothsayer, or an enchanter, or a sorcerer” (Deuteronomy 18:9–10)? And the Sages inferred: You shall not learn to do, but you may learn to understand and to teach the topic of sorcery. Apparently, merely learning about sorcery does not violate a prohibition. Only acting upon that learning is prohibited. Rav, who prohibited learning even a single matter from a magosh, must hold that they are heretics, not merely sorcerers. The Gemara states: Indeed, conclude that Rav is the one who said that they are heretics.Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi said that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said in the name of bar Kappara: Anyone who knows how to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations and does not do so, the verse says about him: “They do not take notice of the work of God, and they do not see His handiwork” (Isaiah 5:12). And Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: From where is it derived that there is a mitzva incumbent upon a person to calculate astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations? As it was stated: “And you shall guard and perform, for it is your wisdom and understanding in the eyes of the nations” (Deuteronomy 4:6). What wisdom and understanding is there in the Torah that is in the eyes of the nations, i.e. appreciated and recognized by all? You must say: This is the calculation of astronomical seasons and the movement of constellations, as the calculation of experts is witnessed by all.We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: One who traps a deer or any other living creature. The Sages taught in a Tosefta: One who traps a ḥilazon and breaks its shell to remove its blood for the dye is liable to bring only one sin-offering. He is not liable for breaking the shell. Rabbi Yehuda says: He is liable to bring two, for performing the prohibited labors of trapping and for threshing, as Rabbi Yehuda would say: The breaking of a ḥilazon is included in the primary category of threshing, as its objective is to extract the matter that he desires from the shell that he does not. The Rabbis said to him: Breaking the shell is not included in the primary category of threshing. Rava said: What is the rationale for the opinion of the Rabbis? They hold: Threshing applies only to produce that grows from the ground. One who extracts other materials from their covering is exempt. The Gemara asks: Even if extracting blood is not considered threshing, let him be liable for taking a life as well. Rabbi Yoḥa said: This is referring to a case where he broke its shell after it was dead.,Rava said: Even if you say that he broke it when it was alive, he is exempt. Since he had no intention of killing the ḥilazon, he is considered as one who is acting unawares with regard to taking a life. The Gemara raises a difficulty: Didn’t Abaye and Rava both say that Rabbi Shimon, who rules that an unintentional act is permitted, agrees that in a case of: Cut off its head and will it not die, one is liable? One who performs an action that will inevitably result in a prohibited labor cannot claim that he did not intend for his action to lead to that result. Lack of intention is only a valid claim when the result is merely possible, not inevitable. Since one who extracts blood from a ḥilazon inevitably takes its life, how can Rava claim that his action is unintentional? The Gemara answers: Here it is different, as the longer the ḥilazon lives, the better it is for the trapper, so that its dye will become clear. Dye extracted from a live ḥilazon is a higher quality than that which is extracted from a dead one. Rabbi Shimon agrees that one who performs an action with inevitable consequences is liable only in a case where the consequences are not contrary to his interests. Since he prefers that the ḥilazon remain alive as long as possible, he is not liable for the inevitable consequences.We learned in the mishna, among those liable for performing primary categories of labor: And one who slaughters an animal on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: As there was no slaughter necessary for construction of the Tabernacle, one who slaughters an animal, due to what prohibited labor is he liable? Rav said: He is liable due to dyeing, as in the course of the slaughter the hide is dyed with blood. And Shmuel said: He is liable due to taking a life.



Please note: the results are produced through a computerized process which may frequently lead to errors, both in incorrect tagging and in other issues. Please use with caution.
Due to load times, full text fetching is currently attempted for validated results only.
Full texts for Hebrew Bible and rabbinic texts is kindly supplied by Sefaria; for Greek and Latin texts, by Perseus Scaife, for the Quran, by Tanzil.net

For a list of book indices included, see here.