1. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 31.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51| 31.4. "הָיִיתִי בַיּוֹם אֲכָלַנִי חֹרֶב וְקֶרַח בַּלָּיְלָה וַתִּדַּד שְׁנָתִי מֵעֵינָי׃", 31.4. "וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה הַשָּׂדֶה אֶל־צֹאנוֹ׃", | 31.4. "And Jacob sent and called Rachel and Leah to the field unto his flock,", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.2, 21.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period •persians, portrayals of, in the babylonian talmud, as references to the achaemenid, parthian, or sasanian empire Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 150| 21.2. "כִּי תִקְנֶה עֶבֶד עִבְרִי שֵׁשׁ שָׁנִים יַעֲבֹד וּבַשְּׁבִעִת יֵצֵא לַחָפְשִׁי חִנָּם׃", 21.2. "וְכִי־יַכֶּה אִישׁ אֶת־עַבְדּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־אֲמָתוֹ בַּשֵּׁבֶט וּמֵת תַּחַת יָדוֹ נָקֹם יִנָּקֵם׃", | 21.2. "If thou buy a Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve; and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.", 21.10. "If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 8.10, 27.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 228; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 119| 27.26. "אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָקִים אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה־הַזֹּאת לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃", | 8.10. "And thou shalt eat and be satisfied, and bless the LORD thy God for the good land which He hath given thee.", 27.26. "Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.1, 2.21-2.22, 3.10-3.15, 5.13, 6.1-6.2, 6.10, 8.7, 8.9, 8.11, 8.17, 9.10, 9.13-9.14, 9.20-9.32, 10.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire/rule •persian empire/period Found in books: Johnson Dupertuis and Shea (2018), Reading and Teaching Ancient Fiction : Jewish, Christian, and Greco-Roman Narratives 109, 120, 121; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 192| 1.1. "בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת־פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃", 1.1. "וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה׃", 2.21. "בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וּמָרְדֳּכַי יֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ קָצַף בִּגְתָן וָתֶרֶשׁ שְׁנֵי־סָרִיסֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשֹּׁמְרֵי הַסַּף וַיְבַקְשׁוּ לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ׃", 2.22. "וַיִּוָּדַע הַדָּבָר לְמָרְדֳּכַי וַיַּגֵּד לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר לַמֶּלֶךְ בְּשֵׁם מָרְדֳּכָי׃", 3.11. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָמָן הַכֶּסֶף נָתוּן לָךְ וְהָעָם לַעֲשׂוֹת בּוֹ כַּטּוֹב בְּעֵינֶיךָ׃", 3.12. "וַיִּקָּרְאוּ סֹפְרֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּחֹדֶשׁ הָרִאשׁוֹן בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר יוֹם בּוֹ וַיִּכָּתֵב כְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה הָמָן אֶל אֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנֵי־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְאֶל־הַפַּחוֹת אֲשֶׁר עַל־מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְאֶל־שָׂרֵי עַם וָעָם מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה כִּכְתָבָהּ וְעַם וָעָם כִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ בְּשֵׁם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ נִכְתָּב וְנֶחְתָּם בְּטַבַּעַת הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 3.13. "וְנִשְׁלוֹחַ סְפָרִים בְּיַד הָרָצִים אֶל־כָּל־מְדִינוֹת הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהַשְׁמִיד לַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת־כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים מִנַּעַר וְעַד־זָקֵן טַף וְנָשִׁים בְּיוֹם אֶחָד בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ שְׁנֵים־עָשָׂר הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז׃", 3.14. "פַּתְשֶׁגֶן הַכְּתָב לְהִנָּתֵן דָּת בְּכָל־מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה גָּלוּי לְכָל־הָעַמִּים לִהְיוֹת עֲתִדִים לַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 3.15. "הָרָצִים יָצְאוּ דְחוּפִים בִּדְבַר הַמֶּלֶךְ וְהַדָּת נִתְּנָה בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה וְהַמֶּלֶךְ וְהָמָן יָשְׁבוּ לִשְׁתּוֹת וְהָעִיר שׁוּשָׁן נָבוֹכָה׃", 5.13. "וְכָל־זֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁוֶה לִי בְּכָל־עֵת אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי רֹאֶה אֶת־מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי יוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 6.1. "בַּלַּיְלָה הַהוּא נָדְדָה שְׁנַת הַמֶּלֶךְ וַיֹּאמֶר לְהָבִיא אֶת־סֵפֶר הַזִּכְרֹנוֹת דִּבְרֵי הַיָּמִים וַיִּהְיוּ נִקְרָאִים לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 6.1. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהָמָן מַהֵר קַח אֶת־הַלְּבוּשׁ וְאֶת־הַסּוּס כַּאֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ וַעֲשֵׂה־כֵן לְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הַיּוֹשֵׁב בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ אַל־תַּפֵּל דָּבָר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר דִּבַּרְתָּ׃", 6.2. "וַיִּמָּצֵא כָתוּב אֲשֶׁר הִגִּיד מָרְדֳּכַי עַל־בִּגְתָנָא וָתֶרֶשׁ שְׁנֵי סָרִיסֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ מִשֹּׁמְרֵי הַסַּף אֲשֶׁר בִּקְשׁוּ לִשְׁלֹחַ יָד בַּמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃", 8.7. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרֹשׁ לְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וּלְמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי הִנֵּה בֵית־הָמָן נָתַתִּי לְאֶסְתֵּר וְאֹתוֹ תָּלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ עַל אֲשֶׁר־שָׁלַח יָדוֹ ביהודיים [בַּיְּהוּדִים׃]", 8.9. "וַיִּקָּרְאוּ סֹפְרֵי־הַמֶּלֶךְ בָּעֵת־הַהִיא בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁלִישִׁי הוּא־חֹדֶשׁ סִיוָן בִּשְׁלוֹשָׁה וְעֶשְׂרִים בּוֹ וַיִּכָּתֵב כְּכָל־אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה מָרְדֳּכַי אֶל־הַיְּהוּדִים וְאֶל הָאֲחַשְׁדַּרְפְּנִים־וְהַפַּחוֹת וְשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת אֲשֶׁר מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה כִּכְתָבָהּ וְעַם וָעָם כִּלְשֹׁנוֹ וְאֶל־הַיְּהוּדִים כִּכְתָבָם וְכִלְשׁוֹנָם׃", 8.11. "אֲשֶׁר נָתַן הַמֶּלֶךְ לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּכָל־עִיר־וָעִיר לְהִקָּהֵל וְלַעֲמֹד עַל־נַפְשָׁם לְהַשְׁמִיד וְלַהֲרֹג וּלְאַבֵּד אֶת־כָּל־חֵיל עַם וּמְדִינָה הַצָּרִים אֹתָם טַף וְנָשִׁים וּשְׁלָלָם לָבוֹז׃", 8.17. "וּבְכָל־מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וּבְכָל־עִיר וָעִיר מְקוֹם אֲשֶׁר דְּבַר־הַמֶּלֶךְ וְדָתוֹ מַגִּיעַ שִׂמְחָה וְשָׂשׂוֹן לַיְּהוּדִים מִשְׁתֶּה וְיוֹם טוֹב וְרַבִּים מֵעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ מִתְיַהֲדִים כִּי־נָפַל פַּחַד־הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם׃", 9.13. "וַתֹּאמֶר אֶסְתֵּר אִם־עַל־הַמֶּלֶךְ טוֹב יִנָּתֵן גַּם־מָחָר לַיְּהוּדִים אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשָׁן לַעֲשׂוֹת כְּדָת הַיּוֹם וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי־הָמָן יִתְלוּ עַל־הָעֵץ׃", 9.14. "וַיֹּאמֶר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְהֵעָשׂוֹת כֵּן וַתִּנָּתֵן דָּת בְּשׁוּשָׁן וְאֵת עֲשֶׂרֶת בְּנֵי־הָמָן תָּלוּ׃", 9.21. "לְקַיֵּם עֲלֵיהֶם לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת יוֹם אַרְבָּעָה עָשָׂר לְחֹדֶשׁ אֲדָר וְאֵת יוֹם־חֲמִשָּׁה עָשָׂר בּוֹ בְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה׃", 9.22. "כַּיָּמִים אֲשֶׁר־נָחוּ בָהֶם הַיְּהוּדִים מֵאוֹיְבֵיהֶם וְהַחֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר נֶהְפַּךְ לָהֶם מִיָּגוֹן לְשִׂמְחָה וּמֵאֵבֶל לְיוֹם טוֹב לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם יְמֵי מִשְׁתֶּה וְשִׂמְחָה וּמִשְׁלוֹחַ מָנוֹת אִישׁ לְרֵעֵהוּ וּמַתָּנוֹת לָאֶבְיוֹנִים׃", 9.23. "וְקִבֵּל הַיְּהוּדִים אֵת אֲשֶׁר־הֵחֵלּוּ לַעֲשׂוֹת וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר־כָּתַב מָרְדֳּכַי אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 9.24. "כִּי הָמָן בֶּן־הַמְּדָתָא הָאֲגָגִי צֹרֵר כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים חָשַׁב עַל־הַיְּהוּדִים לְאַבְּדָם וְהִפִּיל פּוּר הוּא הַגּוֹרָל לְהֻמָּם וּלְאַבְּדָם׃", 9.25. "וּבְבֹאָהּ לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אָמַר עִם־הַסֵּפֶר יָשׁוּב מַחֲשַׁבְתּוֹ הָרָעָה אֲשֶׁר־חָשַׁב עַל־הַיְּהוּדִים עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וְתָלוּ אֹתוֹ וְאֶת־בָּנָיו עַל־הָעֵץ׃", 9.26. "עַל־כֵּן קָרְאוּ לַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה פוּרִים עַל־שֵׁם הַפּוּר עַל־כֵּן עַל־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הָאִגֶּרֶת הַזֹּאת וּמָה־רָאוּ עַל־כָּכָה וּמָה הִגִּיעַ אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 9.27. "קִיְּמוּ וקבל [וְקִבְּלוּ] הַיְּהוּדִים עֲלֵיהֶם וְעַל־זַרְעָם וְעַל כָּל־הַנִּלְוִים עֲלֵיהֶם וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר לִהְיוֹת עֹשִׂים אֵת שְׁנֵי הַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה כִּכְתָבָם וְכִזְמַנָּם בְּכָל־שָׁנָה וְשָׁנָה׃", 9.28. "וְהַיָּמִים הָאֵלֶּה נִזְכָּרִים וְנַעֲשִׂים בְּכָל־דּוֹר וָדוֹר מִשְׁפָּחָה וּמִשְׁפָּחָה מְדִינָה וּמְדִינָה וְעִיר וָעִיר וִימֵי הַפּוּרִים הָאֵלֶּה לֹא יַעַבְרוּ מִתּוֹךְ הַיְּהוּדִים וְזִכְרָם לֹא־יָסוּף מִזַּרְעָם׃", 9.29. "וַתִּכְתֹּב אֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה בַת־אֲבִיחַיִל וּמָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי אֶת־כָּל־תֹּקֶף לְקַיֵּם אֵת אִגֶּרֶת הַפּוּרִים הַזֹּאת הַשֵּׁנִית׃", 9.31. "לְקַיֵּם אֵת־יְמֵי הַפֻּרִים הָאֵלֶּה בִּזְמַנֵּיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר קִיַּם עֲלֵיהֶם מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי וְאֶסְתֵּר הַמַּלְכָּה וְכַאֲשֶׁר קִיְּמוּ עַל־נַפְשָׁם וְעַל־זַרְעָם דִּבְרֵי הַצֹּמוֹת וְזַעֲקָתָם׃", 9.32. "וּמַאֲמַר אֶסְתֵּר קִיַּם דִּבְרֵי הַפֻּרִים הָאֵלֶּה וְנִכְתָּב בַּסֵּפֶר׃", 10.3. "כִּי מָרְדֳּכַי הַיְּהוּדִי מִשְׁנֶה לַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ וְגָדוֹל לַיְּהוּדִים וְרָצוּי לְרֹב אֶחָיו דֹּרֵשׁ טוֹב לְעַמּוֹ וְדֹבֵר שָׁלוֹם לְכָל־זַרְעוֹ׃", | 1.1. "NOW IT came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus—this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India to Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces—", 2.21. "in those days, while Mordecai sat in the king’s gate, two of the king’s chamberlains, Bigthan and Teresh, of those that kept the door, were wroth, and sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus.", 2.22. "And the thing became known to Mordecai, who told it unto Esther the queen; and Esther told the king thereof in Mordecai’s name.", 3.10. "And the king took his ring from his hand, and gave it unto Haman the son of Hammedatha the Agagite, the Jews’enemy.", 3.11. "And the king said unto Haman: ‘The silver is given to thee, the people also, to do with them as it seemeth good to thee.’", 3.12. "Then were the king’s scribes called in the first month, on the thirteenth day thereof, and there was written, according to all that Haman commanded, unto the king’s satraps, and to the governors that were over every province, and to the princes of every people; to every province according to the writing thereof, and to every people after their language; in the name of king Ahasuerus was it written, and it was sealed with the king’s ring.", 3.13. "And letters were sent by posts into all the king’s provinces, to destroy, to slay, and to cause to perish, all Jews, both young and old, little children and women, in one day, even upon the thirteenth day of the twelfth month, which is the month Adar, and to take the spoil of them for a prey.", 3.14. "The copy of the writing, to be given out for a decree in every province, was to be published unto all peoples, that they should be ready against that day.", 3.15. "The posts went forth in haste by the king’s commandment, and the decree was given out in Shushan the castle; and the king and Haman sat down to drink; but the city of Shushan was perplexed.", 5.13. "Yet all this availeth me nothing, so long as I see Mordecai the Jew sitting at the king’s gate.’", 6.1. "On that night could not the king sleep; and he commanded to bring the book of records of the chronicles, and they were read before the king.", 6.2. "And it was found written, that Mordecai had told of Bigthana and Teresh, two of the king’s chamberlains, of those that kept the door, who had sought to lay hands on the king Ahasuerus.", 6.10. "Then the king said to Haman: ‘Make haste, and take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do even so to Mordecai the Jew, that sitteth at the king’s gate; let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken.’", 8.7. "Then the king Ahasuerus said unto Esther the queen and to Mordecai the Jew: ‘Behold, I have given Esther the house of Haman, and him they have hanged upon the gallows, because he laid his hand upon the Jews.", 8.9. "Then were the king’s scribes called at that time, in the third month, which is the month Sivan, on the three and twentieth day thereof; and it was written according to all that Mordecai commanded concerning the Jews, even to the satraps, and the governors and princes of the provinces which are from India unto Ethiopia, a hundred twenty and seven provinces, unto every province according to the writing thereof, and unto every people after their language, and to the Jews according to their writing, and according to their language.", 8.11. "that the king had granted the Jews that were in every city to gather themselves together, and to stand for their life, to destroy, and to slay, and to cause to perish, all the forces of the people and province that would assault them, their little ones and women, and to take the spoil of them for a prey,", 8.17. "And in every province, and in every city, whithersoever the king’s commandment and his decree came, the Jews had gladness and joy, a feast and a good day. And many from among the peoples of the land became Jews; for the fear of the Jews was fallen upon them.", 9.10. "the ten sons of Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Jews’enemy, slew they; but on the spoil they laid not their hand.", 9.13. "Then said Esther: ‘If it please the king, let it be granted to the Jews that are in Shushan to do to-morrow also according unto this day’s decree, and let Haman’s ten sons be hanged upon the gallows.’", 9.14. "And the king commanded it so to be done; and a decree was given out in Shushan; and they hanged Haman’s ten sons.", 9.20. "And Mordecai wrote these things, and sent letters unto all the Jews that were in all the provinces of the king Ahasuerus, both nigh and far,", 9.21. "to enjoin them that they should keep the fourteenth day of the month Adar, and the fifteenth day of the same, yearly,", 9.22. "the days wherein the Jews had rest from their enemies, and the month which was turned unto them from sorrow to gladness, and from mourning into a good day; that they should make them days of feasting and gladness, and of sending portions one to another, and gifts to the poor.", 9.23. "And the Jews took upon them to do as they had begun, and as Mordecai had written unto them;", 9.24. "because Haman the son of Hammedatha, the Agagite, the enemy of all the Jews, had devised against the Jews to destroy them, and had cast pur, that is, the lot, to discomfit them, and to destroy them;", 9.25. "but when ashe came before the king, he commanded by letters that his wicked device, which he had devised against the Jews, should return upon his own head; and that he and his sons should be hanged on the gallows.", 9.26. "Wherefore they called these days Purim, after the name of pur. Therefore because of all the words of this letter, and of that which they had seen concerning this matter, and that which had come unto them,", 9.27. "the Jews ordained, and took upon them, and upon their seed, and upon all such as joined themselves unto them, so as it should not fail, that they would keep these two days according to the writing thereof, and according to the appointed time thereof, every year;", 9.28. "and that these days should be remembered and kept throughout every generation, every family, every province, and every city; and that these days of Purim should not fail from among the Jews, nor the memorial of them perish from their seed.", 9.29. "Then Esther the queen, the daughter of Abihail, and Mordecai the Jew, wrote down all the acts of power, to confirm this second letter of Purim.", 9.30. "And he sent letters unto all the Jews, to the hundred twenty and seven provinces of the kingdom of Ahasuerus, with words of peace and truth,", 9.31. "to confirm these days of Purim in their appointed times, according as Mordecai the Jew and Esther the queen had enjoined them, and as they had ordained for themselves and for their seed, the matters of the fastings and their cry.", 9.32. "And the commandment of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim; and it was written in the book.", 10.3. "For Mordecai the Jew was next unto king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted of the multitude of his brethren; seeking the good of his people and speaking peace to all his seed.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 119| 15.1. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה וְאֶל־אַהֲרֹן לֵאמֹר׃", 15.1. "וְכָל־הַנֹּגֵעַ בְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה תַחְתָּיו יִטְמָא עַד־הָעָרֶב וְהַנּוֹשֵׂא אוֹתָם יְכַבֵּס בְּגָדָיו וְרָחַץ בַּמַּיִם וְטָמֵא עַד־הָעָרֶב׃", | 15.1. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses and to Aaron, saying:", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 5.9 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persians, portrayals of, in the babylonian talmud, as references to the achaemenid, parthian, or sasanian empire Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51| 5.9. "וַיִּתֵּן אֱלֹהִים חָכְמָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה וּתְבוּנָה הַרְבֵּה מְאֹד וְרֹחַב לֵב כַּחוֹל אֲשֶׁר עַל־שְׂפַת הַיָּם׃", | 5.9. "And God gave Solomon wisdom and understanding exceeding much, and largeness of heart, even as the sand that is on the sea-shore.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 29.1, 44.1 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 198| 29.1. "וְאֵלֶּה דִּבְרֵי הַסֵּפֶר אֲשֶׁר שָׁלַח יִרְמְיָה הַנָּבִיא מִירוּשָׁלִָם אֶל־יֶתֶר זִקְנֵי הַגּוֹלָה וְאֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים וְאֶל־הַנְּבִיאִים וְאֶל־כָּל־הָעָם אֲשֶׁר הֶגְלָה נְבוּכַדְנֶאצַּר מִירוּשָׁלִַם בָּבֶלָה׃", 29.1. "כִּי־כֹה אָמַר יְהוָה כִּי לְפִי מְלֹאת לְבָבֶל שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה אֶפְקֹד אֶתְכֶם וַהֲקִמֹתִי עֲלֵיכֶם אֶת־דְּבָרִי הַטּוֹב לְהָשִׁיב אֶתְכֶם אֶל־הַמָּקוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 44.1. "לֹא דֻכְּאוּ עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וְלֹא יָרְאוּ וְלֹא־הָלְכוּ בְתוֹרָתִי וּבְחֻקֹּתַי אֲשֶׁר־נָתַתִּי לִפְנֵיכֶם וְלִפְנֵי אֲבוֹתֵיכֶם׃", 44.1. "הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר הָיָה אֶל־יִרְמְיָהוּ אֶל כָּל־הַיְּהוּדִים הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּאֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם הַיֹּשְׁבִים בְּמִגְדֹּל וּבְתַחְפַּנְחֵס וּבְנֹף וּבְאֶרֶץ פַּתְרוֹס לֵאמֹר׃", | 29.1. "Now these are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem unto the residue of the elders of the captivity, and to the priests, and to the prophets, and to all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had carried away captive from Jerusalem to Babylon,", 44.1. "The word that came to Jeremiah concerning all the Jews that dwelt in the land of Egypt, that dwelt at Migdol, and at Tahpanhes, and at Noph, and in the country of Pathros, saying:", |
|
8. Homeric Hymns, To Apollo And The Muses, 393 (8th cent. BCE - 8th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 213 | 393. Received it, and he plagued so many men. |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Lamentations, 4.11 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 4.11. "כִּלָּה יְהוָה אֶת־חֲמָתוֹ שָׁפַךְ חֲרוֹן אַפּוֹ וַיַּצֶּת־אֵשׁ בְּצִיּוֹן וַתֹּאכַל יְסוֹדֹתֶיהָ׃", | 4.11. "The LORD hath accomplished His fury, He hath poured out His fierce anger; And He hath kindled a fire in Zion, Which hath devoured the foundations thereof.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 13.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persians, portrayals of, in the babylonian talmud, as references to the achaemenid, parthian, or sasanian empire Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51| 13.3. "אֲנִי צִוֵּיתִי לִמְקֻדָּשָׁי גַּם קָרָאתִי גִבּוֹרַי לְאַפִּי עַלִּיזֵי גַּאֲוָתִי׃", | 13.3. "I have commanded My consecrated ones, Yea, I have called My mighty ones for mine anger, Even My proudly exulting ones.", |
|
| 11. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 36 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 121 |
| 12. Hecataeus of Miletus, Fragments, None (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 214 |
| 13. Isocrates, Orations, 3.60, 4.138-4.153, 5.89, 5.91, 8.98, 12.106 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire •persian, empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 121 |
| 14. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 36 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 190 |
15. Hebrew Bible, 1 Chronicles, 9.1, 9.3-9.4 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 190| 9.1. "וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל הִתְיַחְשׂוּ וְהִנָּם כְּתוּבִים עַל־סֵפֶר מַלְכֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה הָגְלוּ לְבָבֶל בְּמַעֲלָם׃", 9.1. "וּמִן־הַכֹּהֲנִים יְדַעְיָה וִיהוֹיָרִיב וְיָכִין׃", 9.3. "וּמִן־בְּנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים רֹקְחֵי הַמִּרְקַחַת לַבְּשָׂמִים׃", 9.3. "וּבִירוּשָׁלִַם יָשְׁבוּ מִן־בְּנֵי יְהוּדָה וּמִן־בְּנֵי בִנְיָמִן וּמִן־בְּנֵי אֶפְרַיִם וּמְנַשֶּׁה׃", 9.4. "עוּתַי בֶּן־עַמִּיהוּד בֶּן־עָמְרִי בֶּן־אִמְרִי בֶן־בנימן־[בָּנִי] [מִן־] בְּנֵי־פֶרֶץ בֶּן־יְהוּדָה׃", 9.4. "וּבֶן־יְהוֹנָתָן מְרִיב בָּעַל וּמְרִי־בַעַל הוֹלִיד אֶת־מִיכָה׃", | 9.1. "So all Israel were reckoned by genealogies; and, behold, they are written in the book of the kings of Israel; and Judah was carried away captive to Babylon because of their transgression.", 9.3. "And in Jerusalem dwelt of the children of Judah, and of the children of Benjamin, and of the children of Ephraim and Manasseh:", 9.4. "Uthai the son of Ammihud, the son of Omri, the son of Imri, the son of Bani, of the children of Perez the son of Judah.", |
|
16. Aristophanes, Knights, 478 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 324| 478. καὶ πάνθ' ἃ Μήδοις καὶ βασιλεῖ ξυνόμνυτε, | |
|
17. Aristophanes, Acharnians, 100-125, 504-506, 61-62, 628-629, 63, 630-639, 64, 640-649, 65, 650-659, 66, 660-664, 67-88, 90-99, 89 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 324| 89. παρέθηκεν ἡμῖν: ὄνομα δ' ἦν αὐτῷ φέναξ. | |
|
| 18. Antiphon, Orations, 6.38, 6.42, 6.44 (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
19. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 3.9, 4.12-4.13, 4.20, 4.23, 5.1, 5.5, 5.11, 6.7-6.8, 6.14, 7.6, 7.12-7.13, 7.24, 7.26 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 5, 154, 190, 201, 318| 3.9. "וַיַּעֲמֹד יֵשׁוּעַ בָּנָיו וְאֶחָיו קַדְמִיאֵל וּבָנָיו בְּנֵי־יְהוּדָה כְּאֶחָד לְנַצֵּחַ עַל־עֹשֵׂה הַמְּלָאכָה בְּבֵית הָאֱלֹהִים בְּנֵי חֵנָדָד בְּנֵיהֶם וַאֲחֵיהֶם הַלְוִיִּם׃", 4.12. "יְדִיעַ לֶהֱוֵא לְמַלְכָּא דִּי יְהוּדָיֵא דִּי סְלִקוּ מִן־לְוָתָךְ עֲלֶינָא אֲתוֹ לִירוּשְׁלֶם קִרְיְתָא מָרָדְתָּא ובאישתא [וּבִישְׁתָּא] בָּנַיִן ושורי [וְשׁוּרַיָּא] אשכללו [שַׁכְלִילוּ] וְאֻשַּׁיָּא יַחִיטוּ׃", 4.13. "כְּעַן יְדִיעַ לֶהֱוֵא לְמַלְכָּא דִּי הֵן קִרְיְתָא דָךְ תִּתְבְּנֵא וְשׁוּרַיָּה יִשְׁתַּכְלְלוּן מִנְדָּה־בְלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ לָא יִנְתְּנוּן וְאַפְּתֹם מַלְכִים תְּהַנְזִק׃", 4.23. "אֱדַיִן מִן־דִּי פַּרְשֶׁגֶן נִשְׁתְּוָנָא דִּי ארתחששתא [אַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׂתְּ] מַלְכָּא קֱרִי קֳדָם־רְחוּם וְשִׁמְשַׁי סָפְרָא וּכְנָוָתְהוֹן אֲזַלוּ בִבְהִילוּ לִירוּשְׁלֶם עַל־יְהוּדָיֵא וּבַטִּלוּ הִמּוֹ בְּאֶדְרָע וְחָיִל׃", 5.1. "וְאַף שְׁמָהָתְהֹם שְׁאֵלְנָא לְּהֹם לְהוֹדָעוּתָךְ דִּי נִכְתֻּב שֻׁם־גֻּבְרַיָּא דִּי בְרָאשֵׁיהֹם׃", 5.1. "וְהִתְנַבִּי חַגַּי נביאה [נְבִיָּא] וּזְכַרְיָה בַר־עִדּוֹא נביאיא [נְבִיַּיָּא] עַל־יְהוּדָיֵא דִּי בִיהוּד וּבִירוּשְׁלֶם בְּשֻׁם אֱלָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל עֲלֵיהוֹן׃", 5.5. "וְעֵין אֱלָהֲהֹם הֲוָת עַל־שָׂבֵי יְהוּדָיֵא וְלָא־בַטִּלוּ הִמּוֹ עַד־טַעְמָא לְדָרְיָוֶשׁ יְהָךְ וֶאֱדַיִן יְתִיבוּן נִשְׁתְּוָנָא עַל־דְּנָה׃", 5.11. "וּכְנֵמָא פִתְגָמָא הֲתִיבוּנָא לְמֵמַר אֲנַחְנָא הִמּוֹ עַבְדוֹהִי דִי־אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא וְאַרְעָא וּבָנַיִן בַּיְתָא דִּי־הֲוָא בְנֵה מִקַּדְמַת דְּנָה שְׁנִין שַׂגִּיאָן וּמֶלֶךְ לְיִשְׂרָאֵל רַב בְּנָהִי וְשַׁכְלְלֵהּ׃", 6.7. "שְׁבֻקוּ לַעֲבִידַת בֵּית־אֱלָהָא דֵךְ פַּחַת יְהוּדָיֵא וּלְשָׂבֵי יְהוּדָיֵא בֵּית־אֱלָהָא דֵךְ יִבְנוֹן עַל־אַתְרֵהּ׃", 6.8. "וּמִנִּי שִׂים טְעֵם לְמָא דִי־תַעַבְדוּן עִם־שָׂבֵי יְהוּדָיֵא אִלֵּךְ לְמִבְנֵא בֵּית־אֱלָהָא דֵךְ וּמִנִּכְסֵי מַלְכָּא דִּי מִדַּת עֲבַר נַהֲרָה אָסְפַּרְנָא נִפְקְתָא תֶּהֱוֵא מִתְיַהֲבָא לְגֻבְרַיָּא אִלֵּךְ דִּי־לָא לְבַטָּלָא׃", 6.14. "וְשָׂבֵי יְהוּדָיֵא בָּנַיִן וּמַצְלְחִין בִּנְבוּאַת חַגַּי נביאה [נְבִיָּא] וּזְכַרְיָה בַּר־עִדּוֹא וּבְנוֹ וְשַׁכְלִלוּ מִן־טַעַם אֱלָהּ יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמִטְּעֵם כּוֹרֶשׁ וְדָרְיָוֶשׁ וְאַרְתַּחְשַׁשְׂתְּא מֶלֶךְ פָּרָס׃", 7.6. "הוּא עֶזְרָא עָלָה מִבָּבֶל וְהוּא־סֹפֵר מָהִיר בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר־נָתַן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַיִּתֶּן־לוֹ הַמֶּלֶךְ כְּיַד־יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיו עָלָיו כֹּל בַּקָּשָׁתוֹ׃", 7.12. "אַרְתַּחְשַׁסְתְּא מֶלֶךְ מַלְכַיָּא לְעֶזְרָא כָהֲנָא סָפַר דָּתָא דִּי־אֱלָהּ שְׁמַיָּא גְּמִיר וּכְעֶנֶת׃", 7.13. "מִנִּי שִׂים טְעֵם דִּי כָל־מִתְנַדַּב בְּמַלְכוּתִי מִן־עַמָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכָהֲנוֹהִי וְלֵוָיֵא לִמְהָךְ לִירוּשְׁלֶם עִמָּךְ יְהָךְ׃", 7.24. "וּלְכֹם מְהוֹדְעִין דִּי כָל־כָּהֲנַיָּא וְלֵוָיֵא זַמָּרַיָּא תָרָעַיָּא נְתִינַיָּא וּפָלְחֵי בֵּית אֱלָהָא דְנָה מִנְדָּה בְלוֹ וַהֲלָךְ לָא שַׁלִּיט לְמִרְמֵא עֲלֵיהֹם׃", 7.26. "וְכָל־דִּי־לָא לֶהֱוֵא עָבֵד דָּתָא דִי־אֱלָהָךְ וְדָתָא דִּי מַלְכָּא אָסְפַּרְנָא דִּינָה לֶהֱוֵא מִתְעֲבֵד מִנֵּהּ הֵן לְמוֹת הֵן לשרשו [לִשְׁרֹשִׁי] הֵן־לַעֲנָשׁ נִכְסִין וְלֶאֱסוּרִין׃", | 3.9. "Then stood Jeshua with his sons and his brethren, and Kadmiel and his sons, the sons of Judah, together, to have the oversight of the workmen in the house of God; the sons of Henadad also, with their sons and their brethren the Levites.", 4.12. "be it known unto the king, that the Jews that came up from thee are come to us unto Jerusalem; they are building the rebellious and the bad city, and have finished the walls, and are digging out the foundations.", 4.13. "Be it known now unto the king, that, if this city be builded, and the walls finished, they will not pay tribute, impost, or toll, and so thou wilt endamage the revenue of the kings.", 4.20. "There have been mighty kings also over Jerusalem, who have ruled over all the country beyond the River; and tribute, impost, and toll, was paid unto them.", 4.23. "Then when the copy of king Artaxerxes’letter was read before Rehum, and Shimshai the scribe, and their companions, they went in haste to Jerusalem unto the Jews, and made them to cease by force and power.", 5.1. "Now the prophets, Haggai the prophet, and Zechariah the son of Iddo, prophesied unto the Jews that were in Judah and Jerusalem; in the name of the God of Israel prophesied they unto them.", 5.5. "But the eye of their God was upon the elders of the Jews, and they did not make them cease, till the matter should come to Darius, and then answer should be returned by letter concerning it.", 5.11. "And thus they returned us answer, saying: We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth, and build the house that was builded these many years ago, which a great king of Israel builded and finished.", 6.7. "let the work of this house of God alone; let the governor of the Jews and the elders of the Jews build this house of God in its place.", 6.8. "Moreover I make a decree concerning what ye shall do to these elders of the Jews for the building of this house of God; that of the king’s goods, even of the tribute beyond the River, expenses be given with all diligence unto these men, that they be not hindered.", 6.14. "And the elders of the Jews builded and prospered, through the prophesying of Haggai the prophet and Zechariah the son of Iddo. And they builded and finished it, according to the commandment of the God of Israel, and according to the decree of Cyrus, and Darius, and Artaxerxes king of Persia.", 7.6. "this Ezra went up from Babylon; and he was a ready scribe in the Law of Moses, which the LORD, the God of Israel, had given; and the king granted him all his request, according to the hand of the LORD his God upon him.", 7.12. "’Artaxerxes, king of kings, unto Ezra the priest, the scribe of the Law of the God of heaven, and so forth. And now", 7.13. "I make a decree, that all they of the people of Israel, and their priests and the Levites, in my realm, that are minded of their own free will to go with thee to Jerusalem, go.", 7.24. "Also we announce to you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, the singers, porters, Nethinim, or servants of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose tribute, impost, or toll, upon them.", 7.26. "And whosoever will not do the law of thy God, and the law of the king, let judgment be executed upon him with all diligence, whether it be unto death, or to banishment, or to confiscation of goods, or to imprisonment.’ .", |
|
20. Xenophon, The Education of Cyrus, 1.1.1-1.1.6, 2.1.5, 4.4.4-4.4.5, 8.8.11 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 67, 189; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 20, 126| 1.1.1. ἔννοιά ποθʼ ἡμῖν ἐγένετο ὅσαι δημοκρατίαι κατελύθησαν ὑπὸ τῶν ἄλλως πως βουλομένων πολιτεύεσθαι μᾶλλον ἢ ἐν δημοκρατίᾳ, ὅσαι τʼ αὖ μοναρχίαι, ὅσαι τε ὀλιγαρχίαι ἀνῄρηνται ἤδη ὑπὸ δήμων, καὶ ὅσοι τυραννεῖν ἐπιχειρήσαντες οἱ μὲν αὐτῶν καὶ ταχὺ πάμπαν κατελύθησαν, οἱ δὲ κἂν ὁποσονοῦν χρόνον ἄρχοντες διαγένωνται, θαυμάζονται ὡς σοφοί τε καὶ εὐτυχεῖς ἄνδρες γεγενημένοι. πολλοὺς δʼ ἐδοκοῦμεν καταμεμαθηκέναι καὶ ἐν ἰδίοις οἴκοις τοὺς μὲν ἔχοντας καὶ πλείονας οἰκέτας, τοὺς δὲ καὶ πάνυ ὀλίγους, καὶ ὅμως οὐδὲ τοῖς ὀλίγοις τούτοις πάνυ τι δυναμένους χρῆσθαι πειθομένοις τοὺς δεσπότας. 1.1.2. ἔτι δὲ πρὸς τούτοις ἐνενοοῦμεν ὅτι ἄρχοντες μέν εἰσι καὶ οἱ βουκόλοι τῶν βοῶν καὶ οἱ ἱπποφορβοὶ τῶν ἵππων, καὶ πάντες δὲ οἱ καλούμενοι νομεῖς ὧν ἂν ἐπιστατῶσι ζῴων εἰκότως ἂν ἄρχοντες τούτων νομίζοιντο· πάσας τοίνυν ταύτας τὰς ἀγέλας ἐδοκοῦμεν ὁρᾶν μᾶλλον ἐθελούσας πείθεσθαι τοῖς νομεῦσιν ἢ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους τοῖς ἄρχουσι. πορεύονταί τε γὰρ αἱ ἀγέλαι ᾗ ἂν αὐτὰς εὐθύνωσιν οἱ νομεῖς, νέμονταί τε χωρία ἐφʼ ὁποῖα ἂν αὐτὰς ἐπάγωσιν, ἀπέχονταί τε ὧν ἂν αὐτὰς ἀπείργωσι· καὶ τοῖς καρποῖς τοίνυν τοῖς γιγνομένοις ἐξ αὐτῶν ἐῶσι τοὺς νομέας χρῆσθαι οὕτως ὅπως ἂν αὐτοὶ βούλωνται. ἔτι τοίνυν οὐδεμίαν πώποτε ἀγέλην ᾐσθήμεθα συστᾶσαν ἐπὶ τὸν νομέα οὔτε ὡς μὴ πείθεσθαι οὔτε ὡς μὴ ἐπιτρέπειν τῷ καρπῷ χρῆσθαι, ἀλλὰ καὶ χαλεπώτεραί εἰσιν αἱ ἀγέλαι πᾶσι τοῖς ἀλλοφύλοις ἢ τοῖς ἄρχουσί τε καὶ ὠφελουμένοις ἀπʼ αὐτῶν· ἄνθρωποι δὲ ἐπʼ οὐδένας μᾶλλον συνίστανται ἢ ἐπὶ τούτους οὓς ἂν αἴσθωνται ἄρχειν αὑτῶν ἐπιχειροῦντας. 1.1.3. ὅτε μὲν δὴ ταῦτα ἐνεθυμούμεθα, οὕτως ἐγιγνώσκομεν περὶ αὐτῶν, ὡς ἀνθρώπῳ πεφυκότι πάντων τῶν ἄλλων ῥᾷον εἴη ζῴων ἢ ἀνθρώπων ἄρχειν. ἐπειδὴ δὲ ἐνενοήσαμεν ὅτι Κῦρος ἐγένετο Πέρσης, ὃς παμπόλλους μὲν ἀνθρώπους ἐκτήσατο πειθομένους αὑτῷ, παμπόλλας δὲ πόλεις, πάμπολλα δὲ ἔθνη, ἐκ τούτου δὴ ἠναγκαζόμεθα μετανοεῖν μὴ οὔτε τῶν ἀδυνάτων οὔτε τῶν χαλεπῶν ἔργων ᾖ τὸ ἀνθρώπων ἄρχειν, ἤν τις ἐπισταμένως τοῦτο πράττῃ. Κύρῳ γοῦν ἴσμεν ἐθελήσαντας πείθεσθαι τοὺς μὲν ἀπέχοντας παμπόλλων ἡμερῶν ὁδόν, τοὺς δὲ καὶ μηνῶν, τοὺς δὲ οὐδʼ ἑωρακότας πώποτʼ αὐτόν, τοὺς δὲ καὶ εὖ εἰδότας ὅτι οὐδʼ ἂν ἴδοιεν, καὶ ὅμως ἤθελον αὐτῷ ὑπακούειν. 1.1.4. καὶ γάρ τοι τοσοῦτον διήνεγκε τῶν ἄλλων βασιλέων, καὶ τῶν πατρίους ἀρχὰς παρειληφότων καὶ τῶν διʼ ἑαυτῶν κτησαμένων, ὥσθʼ ὁ μὲν Σκύθης καίπερ παμπόλλων ὄντων Σκυθῶν ἄλλου μὲν οὐδενὸς δύναιτʼ ἂν ἔθνους ἐπάρξαι, ἀγαπῴη δʼ ἂν εἰ τοῦ ἑαυτοῦ ἔθνους ἄρχων διαγένοιτο, καὶ ὁ Θρᾷξ Θρᾳκῶν καὶ ὁ Ἰλλυριὸς Ἰλλυριῶν, καὶ τἆλλα δὲ ὡσαύτως ἔθνη ἀκούομεν τὰ γοῦν ἐν τῇ Εὐρώπῃ ἔτι καὶ νῦν αὐτόνομα εἶναι λέγεται καὶ λελύσθαι ἀπʼ ἀλλήλων· Κῦρος δὲ παραλαβὼν ὡσαύτως οὕτω καὶ τὰ ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ ἔθνη αὐτόνομα ὄντα ὁρμηθεὶς σὺν ὀλίγῃ Περσῶν στρατιᾷ ἑκόντων μὲν ἡγήσατο Μήδων, ἑκόντων δὲ Ὑρκανίων, κατεστρέψατο δὲ Σύρους, Ἀσσυρίους, Ἀραβίους, Καππαδόκας, Φρύγας ἀμφοτέρους, Λυδούς, Κᾶρας, Φοίνικας, Βαβυλωνίους, ἦρξε δὲ Βακτρίων καὶ Ἰνδῶν καὶ Κιλίκων, ὡσαύτως δὲ Σακῶν καὶ Παφλαγόνων καὶ Μαγαδιδῶν, καὶ ἄλλων δὲ παμπόλλων ἐθνῶν, ὧν οὐδʼ ἂν τὰ ὀνόματα ἔχοι τις εἰπεῖν, ἐπῆρξε δὲ καὶ Ἑλλήνων τῶν ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ, καταβὰς δʼ ἐπὶ θάλατταν καὶ Κυπρίων καὶ Αἰγυπτίων. 1.1.5. καὶ τοίνυν τούτων τῶν ἐθνῶν ἦρξεν οὔτε αὐτῷ ὁμογλώττων ὄντων οὔτε ἀλλήλοις, καὶ ὅμως ἐδυνάσθη ἐφικέσθαι μὲν ἐπὶ τοσαύτην γῆν τῷ ἀφʼ ἑαυτοῦ φόβῳ, ὥστε καταπλῆξαι πάντας καὶ μηδένα ἐπιχειρεῖν αὐτῷ, ἐδυνάσθη δὲ ἐπιθυμίαν ἐμβαλεῖν τοσαύτην τοῦ πάντας αὐτῷ χαρίζεσθαι ὥστε ἀεὶ τῇ αὐτοῦ γνώμῃ ἀξιοῦν κυβερνᾶσθαι, ἀνηρτήσατο δὲ τοσαῦτα φῦλα ὅσα καὶ διελθεῖν ἔργον ἐστίν, ὅποι ἂν ἄρξηταί τις πορεύεσθαι ἀπὸ τῶν βασιλείων, ἤν τε πρὸς ἕω ἤν τε πρὸς ἑσπέραν ἤν τε πρὸς ἄρκτον ἤν τε πρὸς μεσημβρίαν. 1.1.6. ἡμεῖς μὲν δὴ ὡς ἄξιον ὄντα θαυμάζεσθαι τοῦτον τὸν ἄνδρα ἐσκεψάμεθα τίς ποτʼ ὢν γενεὰν καὶ ποίαν τινὰ φύσιν ἔχων καὶ ποίᾳ τινὶ παιδευθεὶς παιδείᾳ τοσοῦτον διήνεγκεν εἰς τὸ ἄρχειν ἀνθρώπων. ὅσα οὖν καὶ ἐπυθόμεθα καὶ ᾐσθῆσθαι δοκοῦμεν περὶ αὐτοῦ, ταῦτα πειρασόμεθα διηγήσασθαι. 2.1.5. Κροῖσος μὲν ὁ Λυδὸς ἄγειν λέγεται μυρίους μὲν ἱππέας, πελταστὰς δὲ καὶ τοξότας πλείους ἢ τετρακισμυρίους. Ἀρτακάμαν δὲ τὸν τῆς μεγάλης Φρυγίας ἄρχοντα λέγουσιν ἱππέας μὲν εἰς ὀκτακισχιλίους ἄγειν, λογχοφόρους δὲ σὺν πελτασταῖς οὐ μείους τετρακισμυρίων, Ἀρίβαιον δὲ τὸν τῶν Καππαδοκῶν βασιλέα ἱππέας μὲν ἑξακισχιλίους, τοξότας δὲ καὶ πελταστὰς οὐ μείους τρισμυρίων, τὸν Ἀράβιον δὲ Ἄραγδον ἱππέας τε εἰς μυρίους καὶ ἅρματα εἰς ἑκατὸν καὶ σφενδονητῶν πάμπολύ τι χρῆμα. τοὺς μέντοι Ἕλληνας τοὺς ἐν τῇ Ἀσίᾳ οἰκοῦντας οὐδέν πω σαφὲς λέγεται εἰ ἕπονται. τοὺς δὲ ἀπὸ Φρυγίας τῆς πρὸς Ἑλλησπόντῳ συμβαλεῖν φασι Γάβαιδον ἔχοντα εἰς Καΰστρου πεδίον ἑξακισχιλίους μὲν ἱππέας, πελταστὰς δὲ εἰς μυρίους. Κᾶρας μέντοι καὶ Κίλικας καὶ Παφλαγόνας παρακληθέντας οὔ φασιν ἕπεσθαι. ὁ δὲ Ἀσσύριος ὁ Βαβυλῶνά τε ἔχων καὶ τὴν ἄλλην Ἀσσυρίαν ἐγὼ μὲν οἶμαι ἱππέας μὲν ἄξει οὐκ ἐλάττους δισμυρίων, ἅρματα δʼ εὖ οἶδʼ οὐ μεῖον διακοσίων, πεζοὺς δὲ οἶμαι παμπόλλους· εἰώθει γοῦν ὁπότε δεῦρʼ ἐμβάλλοι. 4.4.4. ἐκ δὲ τούτου ἐπυνθάνετο ἤδη αὐτῶν καὶ ὁπόσην ὁδὸν διήλασαν καὶ εἰ οἰκοῖτο ἡ χώρα. οἱ δʼ ἔλεγον ὅτι καὶ πολλὴν διελάσειαν καὶ πᾶσα οἰκοῖτο καὶ μεστὴ εἴη καὶ οἰῶν καὶ αἰγῶν καὶ βοῶν καὶ ἵππων καὶ σίτου καὶ πάντων ἀγαθῶν. 4.4.5. δυοῖν ἄν, ἔφη, ἐπιμελητέον ἡμῖν εἴη, ὅπως τε κρείττους ἐσόμεθα τῶν ταῦτα ἐχόντων καὶ ὅπως αὐτοὶ μενοῦσιν· οἰκουμένη μὲν γὰρ χώρα πολλοῦ ἄξιον κτῆμα· ἐρήμη δʼ ἀνθρώπων οὖσα ἐρήμη καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν γίγνεται. 8.8.11. ἀλλὰ μὴν κἀκεῖνο ἦν αὐτοῖς ἐπιχώριον τὸ μεταξὺ πορευομένους μήτε ἐσθίειν μήτε πίνειν μήτε τῶν διὰ ταῦτα ἀναγκαίων μηδὲν ποιοῦντας φανεροὺς εἶναι· νῦν δʼ αὖ τὸ μὲν τούτων ἀπέχεσθαι ἔτι διαμένει, τὰς μέντοι πορείας οὕτω βραχείας ποιοῦνται ὡς μηδένʼ ἂν ἔτι θαυμάσαι τὸ ἀπέχεσθαι τῶν ἀναγκαίων. | 1.1.1. The thought once occurred to us how many Preface: the instability of government republics have been overthrown by people who preferred to live under any form of government other than a republican, and again, how many monarchies and how many oligarchies in times past have been abolished by the people. We reflected, moreover, how many of those individuals who have aspired to absolute power have either been deposed once for all and that right quickly; or if they have continued in power, no matter for how short a time, they are objects of wonder as having proved to be wise and happy men. Then, too, we had observed, we thought, that even in private homes some people who had rather more than the usual number of servants and some also who had only a very few were nevertheless, though nominally masters, quite unable to assert their authority over even those few. 1.1.2. And in addition to this, we reflected that Animals more tractable than men cowherds are the rulers of their cattle, that grooms are the rulers of their horses, and that all who are called herdsmen might properly be regarded as the rulers of the animals over which they are placed in charge. Now we noticed, as we thought, that all these herds obeyed their keepers more readily than men obey their rulers. For the herds go wherever their keeper directs them and graze in those places to which he leads them and keep out of those from which he excludes them. They allow their keeper, moreover, to enjoy, just as he will, the profits that accrue from them. And then again, we have never known of a herd conspiring against its keeper, either to refuse obedience to him or to deny him the privilege of enjoying the profits that accrue. At the same time, herds are more intractable to strangers than to their rulers and those who derive profit from them. Men, however, conspire against none sooner than against those whom they see attempting to rule over them. 1.1.3. Thus, as we meditated on this analogy, we were inclined to conclude that for man, as he is constituted, it is easier to rule over any and all other creatures than to rule over men. But when we reflected that Cyrus a king of men there was one Cyrus , the Persian, who reduced to obedience a vast number of men and cities and nations, we were then compelled to change our opinion and decide that to rule men might be a task neither impossible nor even difficult, if one should only go about it in an intelligent manner. At all events, we know that people obeyed Cyrus willingly, although some of them were distant from him a journey of many days, and others of many months; others, although they had never seen him, and still others who knew well that they never should see him. Nevertheless they were all willing to be his subjects. 1.1.4. But all this is not so surprising after all, so very different was he from all other kings, both those who have inherited their thrones from their fathers and those who have gained their crowns by their own efforts; the Scythian king, for instance, would never be able to extend his rule over any other nation besides his own, although the Scythians are very numerous, but he would be well content if he could maintain himself in power over his own people; so the Thracian king with his Thracians, the Illyrian with his Illyrians, and so also all other nations, we are told. Those in Europe , at any rate, are said to be free and independent of one another even to this day. But Cyrus , finding the nations in Asia also independent in exactly the same way, started out with a little band of Persians and became the leader of the Medes by their full consent and of the Hyrcanians The extent of his kingdom by theirs; he then conquered Syria , Assyria, Arabia , Cappadocia , both Phrygias, Lydia , Caria , Phoenicia , and Babylonia ; he ruled also over Bactria , India , and Cilicia ; and he was likewise king of the Sacians, Paphlagonians, Magadidae, and very many other nations, of which one could not even tell the names; he brought under his sway the Asiatic Greeks also; and, descending to the sea, he added both Cyprus and Egypt to his empire. 1.1.5. He ruled over these nations, even though they The secret of his power did not speak the same language as he, nor one nation the same as another; for all that, he was able to cover so vast a region with the fear which he inspired, that he struck all men with terror and no one tried to withstand him; and he was able to awaken in all so lively a desire to please him, that they always wished to be guided by his will. Moreover, the tribes that he brought into subjection to himself were so many that it is a difficult matter even to travel to them all, in whatever direction one begin one’s journey from the palace, whether toward the east or the west, toward the north or the south. 1.1.6. Believing this man to be deserving of all admiration, we have therefore investigated who he was in his origin, what natural endowments he possessed, and what sort of education he had enjoyed, that he so greatly excelled in governing men. Accordingly, what we have found out or think we know concerning him we shall now endeavour to present. 2.1.5. 4.4.4. Then he enquired of them further how far they had ridden and whether the country was inhabited. And they replied, first, that they had ridden a long way, and second, that all the country was inhabited and that it was full of sheep and goats, cattle and horses, grain and all sorts of produce. 4.4.5. There are two things, said he, that it were What to do with these prisoners well for us to look out for: that we make ourselves masters of those who own this property, and that they stay where they are. For an inhabited country is a very valuable possession, but a land destitute of people becomes likewise destitute of produce. 8.8.11. Again, this also was a native custom of theirs, neither to eat nor drink while on a march, nor yet to be seen doing any of the necessary consequences of eating or drinking. Even yet that same abstinence prevails, but they make their journeys so short that no one would be surprised at their ability to resist those calls of nature. |
|
| 21. Xenophon, Hellenica, 1.1.4-1.1.6, 1.1.24-1.1.26, 3.1.3, 3.1.10 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of •persian, empire •taxes, in persian empire Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 156; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 67; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 138 |
22. Xenophon, The Persian Expedition, 1.2.6-1.2.19, 1.9.7, 3.2.25, 5.1.2, 5.6.24 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of •empire, persian Found in books: Blum and Biggs (2019), The Epic Journey in Greek and Roman Literature, 108; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 67| 1.2.6. τοῦτον διαβὰς ἐξελαύνει διὰ Φρυγίας σταθμὸν ἕνα παρασάγγας ὀκτὼ εἰς Κολοσσάς, πόλιν οἰκουμένην καὶ εὐδαίμονα καὶ μεγάλην. ἐνταῦθα ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας ἑπτά· καὶ ἧκε Μένων ὁ Θετταλὸς ὁπλίτας ἔχων χιλίους καὶ πελταστὰς πεντακοσίους, Δόλοπας καὶ Αἰνιᾶνας καὶ Ὀλυνθίους. 1.2.7. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς τρεῖς παρασάγγας εἴκοσιν εἰς Κελαινάς, τῆς Φρυγίας πόλιν οἰκουμένην, μεγάλην καὶ εὐδαίμονα. ἐνταῦθα Κύρῳ βασίλεια ἦν καὶ παράδεισος μέγας ἀγρίων θηρίων πλήρης, ἃ ἐκεῖνος ἐθήρευεν ἀπὸ ἵππου, ὁπότε γυμνάσαι βούλοιτο ἑαυτόν τε καὶ τοὺς ἵππους. διὰ μέσου δὲ τοῦ παραδείσου ῥεῖ ὁ Μαίανδρος ποταμός· αἱ δὲ πηγαὶ αὐτοῦ εἰσιν ἐκ τῶν βασιλείων· ῥεῖ δὲ καὶ διὰ τῆς Κελαινῶν πόλεως. 1.2.8. ἔστι δὲ καὶ μεγάλου βασιλέως βασίλεια ἐν Κελαιναῖς ἐρυμνὰ ἐπὶ ταῖς πηγαῖς τοῦ Μαρσύου ποταμοῦ ὑπὸ τῇ ἀκροπόλει· ῥεῖ δὲ καὶ οὗτος διὰ τῆς πόλεως καὶ ἐμβάλλει εἰς τὸν Μαίανδρον· τοῦ δὲ Μαρσύου τὸ εὖρός ἐστιν εἴκοσι καὶ πέντε ποδῶν. ἐνταῦθα λέγεται Ἀπόλλων ἐκδεῖραι Μαρσύαν νικήσας ἐρίζοντά οἱ περὶ σοφίας, καὶ τὸ δέρμα κρεμάσαι ἐν τῷ ἄντρῳ ὅθεν αἱ πηγαί· διὰ δὲ τοῦτο ὁ ποταμὸς καλεῖται Μαρσύας. 1.2.9. ἐνταῦθα Ξέρξης, ὅτε ἐκ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἡττηθεὶς τῇ μάχῃ ἀπεχώρει, λέγεται οἰκοδομῆσαι ταῦτά τε τὰ βασίλεια καὶ τὴν Κελαινῶν ἀκρόπολιν. ἐνταῦθα ἔμεινε Κῦρος ἡμέρας τριάκοντα· καὶ ἧκε Κλέαρχος ὁ Λακεδαιμόνιος φυγὰς ἔχων ὁπλίτας χιλίους καὶ πελταστὰς Θρᾷκας ὀκτακοσίους καὶ τοξότας Κρῆτας διακοσίους. ἅμα δὲ καὶ Σῶσις παρῆν ὁ Συρακόσιος ἔχων ὁπλίτας τριακοσίους, καὶ Σοφαίνετος Ἀρκάδας ἔχων ὁπλίτας χιλίους. καὶ ἐνταῦθα Κῦρος ἐξέτασιν καὶ ἀριθμὸν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐποίησεν ἐν τῷ παραδείσῳ, καὶ ἐγένοντο οἱ σύμπαντες ὁπλῖται μὲν μύριοι χίλιοι, πελτασταὶ δὲ ἀμφὶ τοὺς δισχιλίους. 1.2.10. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς δύο παρασάγγας δέκα εἰς Πέλτας, πόλιν οἰκουμένην. ἐνταῦθʼ ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας τρεῖς· ἐν αἷς Ξενίας ὁ Ἀρκὰς τὰ Λύκαια ἔθυσε καὶ ἀγῶνα ἔθηκε· τὰ δὲ ἆθλα ἦσαν στλεγγίδες χρυσαῖ· ἐθεώρει δὲ τὸν ἀγῶνα καὶ Κῦρος. 1.2.11. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς δύο παρασάγγας δώδεκα ἐς Κεράμων ἀγοράν, πόλιν οἰκουμένην, ἐσχάτην πρὸς τῇ Μυσίᾳ χώρᾳ. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς τρεῖς παρασάγγας τριάκοντα εἰς Καΰστρου πεδίον, πόλιν οἰκουμένην. ἐνταῦθʼ ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας πέντε· καὶ τοῖς στρατιώταις ὠφείλετο μισθὸς πλέον ἢ τριῶν μηνῶν, καὶ πολλάκις ἰόντες ἐπὶ τὰς θύρας ἀπῄτουν. ὁ δὲ ἐλπίδας λέγων διῆγε καὶ δῆλος ἦν ἀνιώμενος· οὐ γὰρ ἦν πρὸς τοῦ Κύρου τρόπου ἔχοντα μὴ ἀποδιδόναι. 1.2.12. ἐνταῦθα ἀφικνεῖται Ἐπύαξα ἡ Συεννέσιος γυνὴ τοῦ Κιλίκων βασιλέως παρὰ Κῦρον· καὶ ἐλέγετο Κύρῳ δοῦναι χρήματα πολλά. τῇ δʼ οὖν στρατιᾷ τότε ἀπέδωκε Κῦρος μισθὸν τεττάρων μηνῶν. εἶχε δὲ ἡ Κίλισσα φυλακὴν καὶ φύλακας περὶ αὑτὴν Κίλικας καὶ Ἀσπενδίους· ἐλέγετο δὲ καὶ συγγενέσθαι Κῦρον τῇ Κιλίσσῃ. 1.2.13. ἐντεῦθεν δὲ ἐλαύνει σταθμοὺς δύο παρασάγγας δέκα εἰς Θύμβριον, πόλιν οἰκουμένην. ἐνταῦθα ἦν παρὰ τὴν ὁδὸν κρήνη ἡ Μίδου καλουμένη τοῦ Φρυγῶν βασιλέως, ἐφʼ ᾗ λέγεται Μίδας τὸν Σάτυρον θηρεῦσαι οἴνῳ κεράσας αὐτήν. 1.2.14. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς δύο παρασάγγας δέκα εἰς Τυριάειον, πόλιν οἰκουμένην. ἐνταῦθα ἔμεινεν ἡμέρας τρεῖς. καὶ λέγεται δεηθῆναι ἡ Κίλισσα Κύρου ἐπιδεῖξαι τὸ στράτευμα αὐτῇ· βουλόμενος οὖν ἐπιδεῖξαι ἐξέτασιν ποιεῖται ἐν τῷ πεδίῳ τῶν Ἑλλήνων καὶ τῶν βαρβάρων. 1.2.15. ἐκέλευσε δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας ὡς νόμος αὐτοῖς εἰς μάχην οὕτω ταχθῆναι καὶ στῆναι, συντάξαι δʼ ἕκαστον τοὺς ἑαυτοῦ. ἐτάχθησαν οὖν ἐπὶ τεττάρων· εἶχε δὲ τὸ μὲν δεξιὸν Μένων καὶ οἱ σὺν αὐτῷ, τὸ δὲ εὐώνυμον Κλέαρχος καὶ οἱ ἐκείνου, τὸ δὲ μέσον οἱ ἄλλοι στρατηγοί. 1.2.16. ἐθεώρει οὖν ὁ Κῦρος πρῶτον μὲν τοὺς βαρβάρους· οἱ δὲ παρήλαυνον τεταγμένοι κατὰ ἴλας καὶ κατὰ τάξεις· εἶτα δὲ τοὺς Ἕλληνας, παρελαύνων ἐφʼ ἅρματος καὶ ἡ Κίλισσα ἐφʼ ἁρμαμάξης. εἶχον δὲ πάντες κράνη χαλκᾶ καὶ χιτῶνας φοινικοῦς καὶ κνημῖδας καὶ τὰς ἀσπίδας ἐκκεκαλυμμένας. 1.2.17. ἐπειδὴ δὲ πάντας παρήλασε, στήσας τὸ ἅρμα πρὸ τῆς φάλαγγος μέσης, πέμψας Πίγρητα τὸν ἑρμηνέα παρὰ τοὺς στρατηγοὺς τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐκέλευσε προβαλέσθαι τὰ ὅπλα καὶ ἐπιχωρῆσαι ὅλην τὴν φάλαγγα. οἱ δὲ ταῦτα προεῖπον τοῖς στρατιώταις· καὶ ἐπεὶ ἐσάλπιγξε, προβαλόμενοι τὰ ὅπλα ἐπῇσαν. ἐκ δὲ τούτου θᾶττον προϊόντων σὺν κραυγῇ ἀπὸ τοῦ αὐτομάτου δρόμος ἐγένετο τοῖς στρατιώταις ἐπὶ τὰς σκηνάς, 1.2.18. τῶν δὲ βαρβάρων φόβος πολύς, καὶ ἥ τε Κίλισσα ἔφυγεν ἐπὶ τῆς ἁρμαμάξης καὶ οἱ ἐκ τῆς ἀγορᾶς καταλιπόντες τὰ ὤνια ἔφυγον. οἱ δὲ Ἕλληνες σὺν γέλωτι ἐπὶ τὰς σκηνὰς ἦλθον. ἡ δὲ Κίλισσα ἰδοῦσα τὴν λαμπρότητα καὶ τὴν τάξιν τοῦ στρατεύματος ἐθαύμασε. Κῦρος δὲ ἥσθη τὸν ἐκ τῶν Ἑλλήνων εἰς τοὺς βαρβάρους φόβον ἰδών. 1.2.19. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει σταθμοὺς τρεῖς παρασάγγας εἴκοσιν εἰς Ἰκόνιον, τῆς Φρυγίας πόλιν ἐσχάτην. ἐνταῦθα ἔμεινε τρεῖς ἡμέρας. ἐντεῦθεν ἐξελαύνει διὰ τῆς Λυκαονίας σταθμοὺς πέντε παρασάγγας τριάκοντα. ταύτην τὴν χώραν ἐπέτρεψε διαρπάσαι τοῖς Ἕλλησιν ὡς πολεμίαν οὖσαν. 1.9.7. ἐπεὶ δὲ κατεπέμφθη ὑπὸ τοῦ πατρὸς σατράπης Λυδίας τε καὶ Φρυγίας τῆς μεγάλης καὶ Καππαδοκίας, στρατηγὸς δὲ καὶ πάντων ἀπεδείχθη οἷς καθήκει εἰς Καστωλοῦ πεδίον ἁθροίζεσθαι, πρῶτον μὲν ἐπέδειξεν αὑτόν, ὅτι περὶ πλείστου ποιοῖτο, εἴ τῳ σπείσαιτο καὶ εἴ τῳ συνθοῖτο καὶ εἴ τῳ ὑπόσχοιτό τι, μηδὲν ψεύδεσθαι. 3.2.25. ἀλλὰ γὰρ δέδοικα μή, ἂν ἅπαξ μάθωμεν ἀργοὶ ζῆν καὶ ἐν ἀφθόνοις βιοτεύειν, καὶ Μήδων δὲ καὶ Περσῶν καλαῖς καὶ μεγάλαις γυναιξὶ καὶ παρθένοις ὁμιλεῖν, μὴ ὥσπερ οἱ λωτοφάγοι ἐπιλαθώμεθα τῆς οἴκαδε ὁδοῦ. 5.1.2. ἐκ δὲ τούτου ξυνελθόντες ἐβουλεύοντο περὶ τῆς λοιπῆς πορείας· ἀνέστη δὲ πρῶτος Λέων Θούριος καὶ ἔλεξεν ὧδε. ἐγὼ μὲν τοίνυν, ἔφη, ὦ ἄνδρες, ἀπείρηκα ἤδη ξυσκευαζόμενος καὶ βαδίζων καὶ τρέχων καὶ τὰ ὅπλα φέρων καὶ ἐν τάξει ὢν καὶ φυλακὰς φυλάττων καὶ μαχόμενος, ἐπιθυμῶ δὲ ἤδη παυσάμενος τούτων τῶν πόνων, ἐπεὶ θάλατταν ἔχομεν, πλεῖν τὸ λοιπὸν καὶ ἐκταθεὶς ὥσπερ Ὀδυσσεὺς ἀφικέσθαι εἰς τὴν Ἑλλάδα. 5.6.24. ἡγήσομαι δὲ αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἔνθεν πολλὰ χρήματα λήψεσθε. ἔμπειρος δέ εἰμι τῆς Αἰολίδος καὶ τῆς Φρυγίας καὶ τῆς Τρῳάδος καὶ τῆς Φαρναβάζου ἀρχῆς πάσης, τὰ μὲν διὰ τὸ ἐκεῖθεν εἶναι, τὰ δὲ διὰ τὸ ξυνεστρατεῦσθαι ἐν αὐτῇ σὺν Κλεάρχῳ τε καὶ Δερκυλίδᾳ. | 3.2.25. I really fear, however, that if we once learn to live in idleness and luxury, and to consort with the tall and beautiful women and maidens of these Medes and Persians, we may, like the lotus-eaters, An allusion to Hom. Od. 9.94 ff. forget our homeward way. 5.1.2. After this they gathered together and proceeded to take counsel in regard to the remainder of their journey; and the first man to get up was Leon of Thurii, who spoke as follows: Well, I, for my part, gentlemen, he said, am tired by this time of packing up and walking and running and carrying my arms and being in line and standing guard and fighting, and what I long for now is to be rid of these toils, since we have the sea, and to sail the rest of the way, and so reach Greece stretched out on my back, like Odysseus. See Hom. Od. 5.75-118 . |
|
23. Herodotus, Histories, None (5th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 380; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 20 | 8.98. While Xerxes did thus, he sent a messenger to Persia with news of his present misfortune. Now there is nothing mortal that accomplishes a course more swiftly than do these messengers, by the Persians' skillful contrivance. It is said that as many days as there are in the whole journey, so many are the men and horses that stand along the road, each horse and man at the interval of a day's journey. These are stopped neither by snow nor rain nor heat nor darkness from accomplishing their appointed course with all speed. ,The first rider delivers his charge to the second, the second to the third, and thence it passes on from hand to hand, even as in the Greek torch-bearers' race in honor of Hephaestus. This riding-post is called in Persia, angareion. |
|
| 24. Hippocrates, On Airs, Waters, And Places, 12-13, 15-24, 14 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 179 |
25. Thucydides, The History of The Peloponnesian War, 1.2-1.20, 1.2.1, 1.13.6, 1.82.1, 1.89-1.117, 1.118.2, 2.7.1, 2.67.1, 3.104.2, 4.50.1-4.50.2, 6.85.1, 8.5, 8.5.5, 8.18, 8.37, 8.45-8.49, 8.46.1-8.46.3, 8.58.2, 118.2 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 145; Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 147; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 189, 213, 324; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 122; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 560, 562| 1.2.1. φαίνεται γὰρ ἡ νῦν Ἑλλὰς καλουμένη οὐ πάλαι βεβαίως οἰκουμένη, ἀλλὰ μεταναστάσεις τε οὖσαι τὰ πρότερα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἕκαστοι τὴν ἑαυτῶν ἀπολείποντες βιαζόμενοι ὑπό τινων αἰεὶ πλειόνων. 1.13.6. καὶ Ἴωσιν ὕστερον πολὺ γίγνεται ναυτικὸν ἐπὶ Κύρου Περσῶν πρώτου βασιλεύοντος καὶ Καμβύσου τοῦ υἱέος αὐτοῦ, τῆς τε καθ’ ἑαυτοὺς θαλάσσης Κύρῳ πολεμοῦντες ἐκράτησάν τινα χρόνον. καὶ Πολυκράτης Σάμου τυραννῶν ἐπὶ Καμβύσου ναυτικῷ ἰσχύων ἄλλας τε τῶν νήσων ὑπηκόους ἐποιήσατο καὶ Ῥήνειαν ἑλὼν ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Δηλίῳ. Φωκαῆς τε Μασσαλίαν οἰκίζοντες Καρχηδονίους ἐνίκων ναυμαχοῦντες: 1.82.1. ‘οὐ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀναισθήτως αὐτοὺς κελεύω τούς τε ξυμμάχους ἡμῶν ἐᾶν βλάπτειν καὶ ἐπιβουλεύοντας μὴ καταφωρᾶν, ἀλλὰ ὅπλα μὲν μήπω κινεῖν, πέμπειν δὲ καὶ αἰτιᾶσθαι μήτε πόλεμον ἄγαν δηλοῦντας μήθ’ ὡς ἐπιτρέψομεν, κἀν τούτῳ καὶ τὰ ἡμέτερ’ αὐτῶν ἐξαρτύεσθαι ξυμμάχων τε προσαγωγῇ καὶ Ἑλλήνων καὶ βαρβάρων, εἴ ποθέν τινα ἢ ναυτικοῦ ἢ χρημάτων δύναμιν προσληψόμεθα ʽἀνεπίφθονον δέ, ὅσοι ὥσπερ καὶ ἡμεῖς ὑπ’ Ἀθηναίων ἐπιβουλευόμεθα, μὴ Ἕλληνας μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ βαρβάρους προσλαβόντας διασωθῆναἰ, καὶ τὰ αὑτῶν ἅμα ἐκποριζώμεθα. 1.118.2. ταῦτα δὲ ξύμπαντα ὅσα ἔπραξαν οἱ Ἕλληνες πρός τε ἀλλήλους καὶ τὸν βάρβαρον ἐγένετο ἐν ἔτεσι πεντήκοντα μάλιστα μεταξὺ τῆς τε Ξέρξου ἀναχωρήσεως καὶ τῆς ἀρχῆς τοῦδε τοῦ πολέμου: ἐν οἷς οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τήν τε ἀρχὴν ἐγκρατεστέραν κατεστήσαντο καὶ αὐτοὶ ἐπὶ μέγα ἐχώρησαν δυνάμεως, οἱ δὲ Λακεδαιμόνιοι αἰσθόμενοι οὔτε ἐκώλυον εἰ μὴ ἐπὶ βραχύ, ἡσύχαζόν τε τὸ πλέον τοῦ χρόνου, ὄντες μὲν καὶ πρὸ τοῦ μὴ ταχεῖς ἰέναι ἐς τοὺς πολέμους, ἢν μὴ ἀναγκάζωνται, τὸ δέ τι καὶ πολέμοις οἰκείοις ἐξειργόμενοι, πρὶν δὴ ἡ δύναμις τῶν Ἀθηναίων σαφῶς ᾔρετο καὶ τῆς ξυμμαχίας αὐτῶν ἥπτοντο. τότε δὲ οὐκέτι ἀνασχετὸν ἐποιοῦντο, ἀλλ’ ἐπιχειρητέα ἐδόκει εἶναι πάσῃ προθυμίᾳ καὶ καθαιρετέα ἡ ἰσχύς, ἢν δύνωνται, ἀραμένοις τόνδε τὸν πόλεμον. 2.7.1. γεγενημένου δὲ τοῦ ἐν Πλαταιαῖς ἔργου καὶ λελυμένων λαμπρῶς τῶν σπονδῶν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι παρεσκευάζοντο ὡς πολεμήσοντες, παρεσκευάζοντο δὲ καὶ Λακεδαιμόνιοι καὶ οἱ ξύμμαχοι, πρεσβείας τε μέλλοντες πέμπειν παρὰ βασιλέα καὶ ἄλλοσε πρὸς τοὺς βαρβάρους, εἴ ποθέν τινα ὠφελίαν ἤλπιζον ἑκάτεροι προσλήψεσθαι, πόλεις τε ξυμμαχίδας ποιούμενοι ὅσαι ἦσαν ἐκτὸς τῆς ἑαυτῶν δυνάμεως. 2.67.1. καὶ τοῦ αὐτοῦ θέρους τελευτῶντος Ἀριστεὺς Κορίνθιος καὶ Λακεδαιμονίων πρέσβεις Ἀνήριστος καὶ Νικόλαος καὶ Πρατόδαμος καὶ Τεγεάτης Τιμαγόρας καὶ Ἀργεῖος ἰδίᾳ Πόλλις, πορευόμενοι ἐς τὴν Ἀσίαν ὡς βασιλέα, εἴ πως πείσειαν αὐτὸν χρήματά τε παρασχεῖν καὶ ξυμπολεμεῖν, ἀφικνοῦνται ὡς Σιτάλκην πρῶτον τὸν Τήρεω ἐς Θρᾴκην, βουλόμενοι πεῖσαί τε αὐτόν, εἰ δύναιντο, μεταστάντα τῆς Ἀθηναίων ξυμμαχίας στρατεῦσαι ἐπὶ τὴν Ποτείδαιαν, οὗ ἦν στράτευμα τῶν Ἀθηναίων πολιορκοῦν, καὶ ᾗπερ ὥρμηντο, δι’ ἐκείνου πορευθῆναι πέραν τοῦ Ἑλλησπόντου ὡς Φαρνάκην τὸν Φαρναβάζου, ὃς αὐτοὺς ἔμελλεν ὡς βασιλέα ἀναπέμψειν. 3.104.2. θῆκαι ὅσαι ἦσαν τῶν τεθνεώτων ἐν Δήλῳ, πάσας ἀνεῖλον, καὶ τὸ λοιπὸν προεῖπον μήτε ἐναποθνῄσκειν ἐν τῇ νήσῳ μήτε ἐντίκτειν, ἀλλ’ ἐς τὴν Ῥήνειαν διακομίζεσθαι. ἀπέχει δὲ ἡ Ῥήνεια τῆς Δήλου οὕτως ὀλίγον ὥστε Πολυκράτης ὁ Σαμίων τύραννος ἰσχύσας τινὰ χρόνον ναυτικῷ καὶ τῶν τε ἄλλων νήσων ἄρξας καὶ τὴν Ῥήνειαν ἑλὼν ἀνέθηκε τῷ Ἀπόλλωνι τῷ Δηλίῳ ἁλύσει δήσας πρὸς τὴν Δῆλον. καὶ τὴν πεντετηρίδα τότε πρῶτον μετὰ τὴν κάθαρσιν ἐποίησαν οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὰ Δήλια. 4.50.1. τοῦ δ’ ἐπιγιγνομένου χειμῶνος Ἀριστείδης ὁ Ἀρχίππου, εἷς τῶν ἀργυρολόγων νεῶν Ἀθηναίων στρατηγός, αἳ ἐξεπέμφθησαν πρὸς τοὺς ξυμμάχους, Ἀρταφέρνην ἄνδρα Πέρσην παρὰ βασιλέως πορευόμενον ἐς Λακεδαίμονα ξυλλαμβάνει ἐν Ἠιόνι τῇ ἐπὶ Στρυμόνι. 4.50.2. καὶ αὐτοῦ κομισθέντος οἱ Ἀθηναῖοι τὰς μὲν ἐπιστολὰς μεταγραψάμενοι ἐκ τῶν Ἀσσυρίων γραμμάτων ἀνέγνωσαν, ἐν αἷς πολλῶν ἄλλων γεγραμμένων κεφάλαιον ἦν πρὸς Λακεδαιμονίους, οὐ γιγνώσκειν ὅτι βούλονται: πολλῶν γὰρ ἐλθόντων πρέσβεων οὐδένα ταὐτὰ λέγειν: εἰ οὖν τι βούλονται σαφὲς λέγειν, πέμψαι μετὰ τοῦ Πέρσου ἄνδρας ὡς αὐτόν. 6.85.1. ἀνδρὶ δὲ τυράννῳ ἢ πόλει ἀρχὴν ἐχούσῃ οὐδὲν ἄλογον ὅτι ξυμφέρον οὐδ’ οἰκεῖον ὅτι μὴ πιστόν: πρὸς ἕκαστα δὲ δεῖ ἢ ἐχθρὸν ἢ φίλον μετὰ καιροῦ γίγνεσθαι. καὶ ἡμᾶς τοῦτο ὠφελεῖ ἐνθάδε, οὐκ ἢν τοὺς φίλους κακώσωμεν, ἀλλ’ ἢν οἱ ἐχθροὶ διὰ τὴν τῶν φίλων ῥώμην ἀδύνατοι ὦσιν. 8.5.5. ἐπήγετο γὰρ καὶ ὁ Τισσαφέρνης τοὺς Πελοποννησίους καὶ ὑπισχνεῖτο τροφὴν παρέξειν. ὑπὸ βασιλέως γὰρ νεωστὶ ἐτύγχανε πεπραγμένος τοὺς ἐκ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἀρχῆς φόρους, οὓς δι’ Ἀθηναίους ἀπὸ τῶν Ἑλληνίδων πόλεων οὐ δυνάμενος πράσσεσθαι ἐπωφείλησεν: τούς τε οὖν φόρους μᾶλλον ἐνόμιζε κομιεῖσθαι κακώσας τοὺς Ἀθηναίους, καὶ ἅμα βασιλεῖ ξυμμάχους Λακεδαιμονίους ποιήσειν, καὶ Ἀμόργην τὸν Πισσούθνου υἱὸν νόθον, ἀφεστῶτα περὶ Καρίαν, ὥσπερ αὐτῷ προσέταξε βασιλεύς, ἢ ζῶντα ἄξειν ἢ ἀποκτενεῖν. 8.46.1. παρῄνει δὲ καὶ τῷ Τισσαφέρνει μὴ ἄγαν ἐπείγεσθαι τὸν πόλεμον διαλῦσαι, μηδὲ βουληθῆναι κομίσαντα ἢ ναῦς Φοινίσσας ἅσπερ παρεσκευάζετο ἢ Ἕλλησι πλέοσι μισθὸν πορίζοντα τοῖς αὐτοῖς τῆς τε γῆς καὶ τῆς θαλάσσης τὸ κράτος δοῦναι, ἔχειν δ᾽ ἀμφοτέρους ἐᾶν δίχα τὴν ἀρχήν, καὶ βασιλεῖ ἐξεῖναι αἰεὶ ἐπὶ τοὺς αὐτῷ λυπηροὺς τοὺς ἑτέρους ἐπάγειν. 8.46.2. γενομένης δ’ ἂν καθ’ ἓν τῆς ἐς γῆν καὶ θάλασσαν ἀρχῆς ἀπορεῖν ἂν αὐτὸν οἷς τοὺς κρατοῦντας ξυγκαθαιρήσει, ἢν μὴ αὐτὸς βούληται μεγάλῃ δαπάνῃ καὶ κινδύνῳ ἀναστάς ποτε διαγωνίσασθαι. εὐτελέστερα δὲ τάδ’ εἶναι, βραχεῖ μορίῳ τῆς δαπάνης καὶ ἅμα μετὰ τῆς ἑαυτοῦ ἀσφαλείας αὐτοὺς περὶ ἑαυτοὺς τοὺς Ἕλληνας κατατρῖψαι. 8.46.3. ἐπιτηδειοτέρους τε ἔφη τοὺς Ἀθηναίους εἶναι κοινωνοὺς αὐτῷ τῆς ἀρχῆς: ἧσσον γὰρ τῶν κατὰ γῆν ἐφίεσθαι, τὸν λόγον τε ξυμφορώτατον καὶ τὸ ἔργον ἔχοντας πολεμεῖν: τοὺς μὲν γὰρ ξυγκαταδουλοῦν ἂν σφίσι τε αὐτοῖς τὸ τῆς θαλάσσης μέρος καὶ ἐκείνῳ ὅσοι ἐν τῇ βασιλέως Ἕλληνες οἰκοῦσι, τοὺς δὲ τοὐναντίον ἐλευθερώσοντας ἥκειν, καὶ οὐκ εἰκὸς εἶναι Λακεδαιμονίους ἀπὸ μὲν σφῶν τῶν Ἑλλήνων ἐλευθεροῦν νῦν τοὺς Ἕλληνας, ἀπὸ δ’ ἐκείνων [τῶν βαρβάρων], ἢν μή ποτε αὐτοὺς μὴ ἐξέλωσι, μὴ ἐλευθερῶσαι. 8.58.2. χώραν τὴν βασιλέως, ὅση τῆς Ἀσίας ἐστί, βασιλέως εἶναι: καὶ περὶ τῆς χώρας τῆς ἑαυτοῦ βουλευέτω βασιλεὺς ὅπως βούλεται. | 1.2.1. For instance, it is evident that the country now called Hellas had in ancient times no settled population; on the contrary, migrations were of frequent occurrence, the several tribes readily abandoning their homes under the pressure of superior numbers. 1.13.6. Subsequently the Ionians attained to great naval strength in the reign of Cyrus, the first king of the Persians, and of his son Cambyses, and while they were at war with the former commanded for a while the Ionian sea. Polycrates also, the tyrant of Samos , had a powerful navy in the reign of Cambyses with which he reduced many of the islands, and among them Rhenea, which he consecrated to the Delian Apollo. About this time also the Phocaeans, while they were founding Marseilles , defeated the Carthaginians in a sea-fight. 1.82.1. Not that I would bid you be so unfeeling as to suffer them to injure your allies, and to refrain from unmasking their intrigues; but I do bid you not to take up arms at once, but to send and remonstrate with them in a tone not too suggestive of war, nor again too suggestive of submission, and to employ the interval in perfecting our own preparations. The means will be, first, the acquisition of allies, Hellenic or barbarian it matters not, so long as they are an accession to our strength naval or pecuniary—I say Hellenic or barbarian, because the odium of such an accession to all who like us are the objects of the designs of the Athenians is taken away by the law of self-preservation—and secondly the development of our home resources. 1.118.2. All these actions of the Hellenes against each other and the barbarian occurred in the fifty years' interval between the retreat of Xerxes and the beginning of the present war. During this interval the Athenians succeeded in placing their empire on a firmer basis, and advanced their own home power to a very great height. The Lacedaemonians, though fully aware of it, opposed it only for a little while, but remained inactive during most of the period, being of old slow to go to war except under the pressure of necessity, and in the present instance being hampered by wars at home; until the growth of the Athenian power could be no longer ignored, and their own confederacy became the object of its encroachments. They then felt that they could endure it no longer, but that the time had come for them to throw themselves heart and soul upon the hostile power, and break it, if they could, by commencing the present war. 2.7.1. After the affair at Plataea the treaty had been broken by an overt act, and Athens at once prepared for war, as did also Lacedaemon and her allies. They resolved to send embassies to the king and to such other of the barbarian powers as either party could look to for assistance, and tried to ally themselves with the independent states at home. 2.67.1. At the end of the same summer the Corinthian Aristeus, Aneristus, Nicolaus, and Pratodamus, envoys from Lacedaemon , Timagoras, a Tegean, and a private individual named Pollis from Argos , on their way to Asia to persuade the king to supply funds and join in the war, came to Sitalces, son of Teres in Thrace , with the idea of inducing him, if possible, forsake the alliance of Athens and to march on Potidaea then besieged by an Athenian force, and also of getting conveyed by his means to their destination across the Hellespont to Pharnabazus, who was to send them up the country to the king. 3.104.2. All the sepulchres of those that had died in Delos were taken up, and for the future it was commanded that no one should be allowed either to die or to give birth to a child in the island; but that they should be carried over to Rhenea, which is so near to Delos that Polycrates, tyrant of Samos , having added Rhenea to his other island conquests during his period of naval ascendancy, dedicated it to the Delian Apollo by binding it to Delos with a chain. The Athenians, after the purification, celebrated, for the first time, the quinquennial festival of the Delian games. 4.50.1. During the winter ensuing Aristides, son of Archippus, one of the commanders of the Athenian ships sent to collect money from the allies, arrested at Eion on the Strymon Artaphernes, a Persian, on his way from the king to Lacedaemon . 4.50.2. He was conducted to Athens , where the Athenians got his dispatches translated from the Assyrian character and read them. With numerous references to other subjects, they in substance told the Lacedaemonians that the king did not know what they wanted, as of the many ambassadors they had sent him no two ever told the same story; however they were prepared to speak plainly they might send him some envoys with this Persian. 6.85.1. Besides, for tyrants and imperial cities nothing is unreasonable if expedient, no one a kinsman unless sure; but friendship or enmity is everywhere an affair of time and circumstance. Here, in Sicily , our interest is not to weaken our friends, but by means of their strength to cripple our enemies. Why doubt this? In Hellas we treat our allies as we find them useful. 8.5.5. in the maritime districts, who invited the Peloponnesians to come over, and promised to maintain their army. The king had lately called upon him for the tribute from his government, for which he was in arrears, being unable to raise it from the Hellenic towns by reason of the Athenians; and he therefore calculated that by weakening the Athenians he should get the tribute better paid, and should also draw the Lacedaemonians into alliance with the king; and by this means, as the king had commanded him, take alive or dead Amorges, the bastard son of Pissuthnes, who was in rebellion on the coast of Caria . 8.46.1. Alcibiades further advised Tissaphernes not to be in too great a hurry to end the war, or to let himself be persuaded to bring up the Phoenician fleet which he was equipping, or to provide pay for more Hellenes, and thus put the power by land and sea into the same hands; but to leave each of the contending parties in possession of one element, thus enabling the king when he found one troublesome to call in the other. 8.46.2. For if the command of the sea and land were united in one hand, he would not know where to turn for help to overthrow the domit power; unless he at last chose to stand up himself, and go through with the struggle at great expense and hazard. The cheapest plan was to let the Hellenes wear each other out, at a small share of the expense and without risk to himself. 8.46.3. Besides, he would find the Athenians the most convenient partners in empire as they did not aim at conquests on shore, and carried on the war upon principles and with a practice most advantageous to the king; being prepared to combine to conquer the sea for Athens , and for the king all the Hellenes inhabiting his country, whom the Peloponnesians, on the contrary, had come to liberate. Now it was not likely that the Lacedaemonians would free the Hellenes from the Hellenic Athenians, without freeing them also from the barbarian Mede , unless overthrown by him in the meanwhile. 8.58.2. 1. The country of the king in Asia shall be the king's, and the king shall treat his own country as he pleases. |
|
| 26. Plato, Laws, 694 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 124 |
27. Plato, Republic, None (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 120 | 470c. if this goes to the mark. I affirm that the Hellenic race is friendly to itself and akin, and foreign and alien to the barbarian. Rightly, he said. We shall then say that Greeks fight and wage war with barbarians, and barbarians with Greeks, and are enemies by nature, and that war is the fit name for this enmity and hatred. Greeks, however, we shall say, are still by nature the friends of Greeks when they act in this way, but that Greece is sick in that case and divided by faction, |
|
| 28. Aristotle, Economics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 161 |
| 29. Aristotle, Politics, None (4th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 120 |
| 30. Duris of Samos, Fragments, None (4th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342 |
31. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.1-1.11, 13.41-13.42 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 200, 201, 210 | 1.1. After Alexander son of Philip, the Macedonian, who came from the land of Kittim, had defeated Darius, king of the Persians and the Medes, he succeeded him as king. (He had previously become king of Greece.) 1.2. He fought many battles, conquered strongholds, and put to death the kings of the earth. 1.3. He advanced to the ends of the earth, and plundered many nations. When the earth became quiet before him, he was exalted, and his heart was lifted up. 1.4. He gathered a very strong army and ruled over countries, nations, and princes, and they became tributary to him. 1.5. After this he fell sick and perceived that he was dying. 1.6. So he summoned his most honored officers, who had been brought up with him from youth, and divided his kingdom among them while he was still alive. 1.7. And after Alexander had reigned twelve years, he died. 1.8. Then his officers began to rule, each in his own place. 1.9. They all put on crowns after his death, and so did their sons after them for many years; and they caused many evils on the earth. 1.10. From them came forth a sinful root, Antiochus Epiphanes, son of Antiochus the king; he had been a hostage in Rome. He began to reign in the one hundred and thirty-seventh year of the kingdom of the Greeks. 1.11. In those days lawless men came forth from Israel, and misled many, saying, "Let us go and make a covet with the Gentiles round about us, for since we separated from them many evils have come upon us." 13.41. In the one hundred and seventieth year the yoke of the Gentiles was removed from Israel, 13.42. and the people began to write in their documents and contracts, "In the first year of Simon the great high priest and commander and leader of the Jews." |
|
32. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 1.1, 1.10, 9.17, 11.16-11.27, 11.34 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 162, 211 | 1.1. The Jewish brethren in Jerusalem and those in the land of Judea, To their Jewish brethren in Egypt, Greeting, and good peace.' 1.10. Those in Jerusalem and those in Judea and the senate and Judas,To Aristobulus, who is of the family of the anointed priests, teacher of Ptolemy the king, and to the Jews in Egypt,Greeting, and good health.' 9.17. and in addition to all this he also would become a Jew and would visit every inhabited place to proclaim the power of God." 11.16. The letter written to the Jews by Lysias was to this effect:'Lysias to the people of the Jews, greeting.' 11.17. John and Absalom, who were sent by you, have delivered your signed communication and have asked about the matters indicated therein.' 11.18. I have informed the king of everything that needed to be brought before him, and he has agreed to what was possible.' 11.19. If you will maintain your good will toward the government, I will endeavor for the future to help promote your welfare.' 11.20. And concerning these matters and their details, I have ordered these men and my representatives to confer with you.' 11.21. Farewell. The one hundred and forty-eighth year, Dioscorinthius twenty-fourth.' 11.22. The king's letter ran thus:'King Antiochus to his brother Lysias, greeting.' 11.23. Now that our father has gone on to the gods, we desire that the subjects of the kingdom be undisturbed in caring for their own affairs.' 11.24. We have heard that the Jews do not consent to our father's change to Greek customs but prefer their own way of living and ask that their own customs be allowed them." 11.25. Accordingly, since we choose that this nation also be free from disturbance, our decision is that their temple be restored to them and that they live according to the customs of their ancestors.' 11.26. You will do well, therefore, to send word to them and give them pledges of friendship, so that they may know our policy and be of good cheer and go on happily in the conduct of their own affairs.' 11.27. To the nation the king's letter was as follows:'King Antiochus to the senate of the Jews and to the other Jews, greeting.' 11.34. The Romans also sent them a letter, which read thus:'Quintus Memmius and Titus Manius, envoys of the Romans, to the people of the Jews, greeting.' |
|
| 33. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q448, 0 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 201 |
| 34. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 12.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 200 |
| 35. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 200 |
36. Polybius, Histories, 29.21.3-29.21.8, 38.21-38.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 147| 29.21.3. εἰ γὰρ λάβοιτʼ ἐν νῷ μὴ χρόνον ἄπειρον μηδὲ γενεὰς πολλάς, ἀλλὰ πεντήκοντα μόνον ἔτη ταυτὶ τὰ πρὸ ἡμῶν, γνοίητʼ ἂν ὡς τὸ τῆς τύχης χαλεπὸν ἐνταῦθα. 29.21.4. πεντηκοστῷ γὰρ ἔτει πρότερον οἴεσθʼ ἂν ἢ Πέρσας ἢ βασιλέα τῶν Περσῶν ἢ Μακεδόνας ἢ βασιλέα τῶν Μακεδόνων, εἴ τις θεῶν αὐτοῖς προύλεγε τὸ μέλλον, πιστεῦσαί ποτʼ ἂν ὡς εἰς τοῦτον τὸν καιρὸν Περσῶν μὲν οὐδʼ ὄνομα λειφθήσεται τὸ παράπαν, οἳ πάσης σχεδὸν τῆς οἰκουμένης ἐδέσποζον, Μακεδόνες δὲ καὶ πάσης κρατήσουσιν, ὧν οὐδʼ ὄνομα πρότερον ἦν γνώριμον 29.21.5. . ἀλλʼ ὅμως ἡ πρὸς τὸν βίον ἡμῶν ἀσύνθετος τύχη καὶ πάντα παρὰ τὸν λογισμὸν τὸν ἡμέτερον καινοποιοῦσα καὶ τὴν αὑτῆς δύναμιν ἐν τοῖς παραδόξοις ἐνδεικυμένη καὶ νῦν, ὡς ἐμοὶ δοκεῖ, δείκνυσι πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις, 29.21.6. Μακεδόνας εἰς τὴν Περσῶν εὐδαιμονίαν εἰσοικίσασα, διότι καὶ τούτοις ταῦτα τἀγαθὰ κέχρηκεν, ἕως ἂν ἄλλο τι βουλεύσηται περὶ αὐτῶν. 29.21.7. " ὃ νῦν γέγονε κατὰ Περσέα. ταῦτα μὲν οὖν Δημήτριος ὡσανεὶ θείῳ τινὶ στόματι περὶ τοῦ μέλλοντος ἀποπεφοίβακεν. 29.21.8. ἐγὼ δὲ κατὰ τὴν γραφὴν ἐπιστὰς τοῖς καιροῖς καθʼ οὓς συνέβη καταλυθῆναι τὴν Μακεδόνων βασιλείαν, οὐκ ἔκρινον ἀνεπιστάτως παραδραμεῖν, ἅτε γεγονὼς αὐτόπτης τῆς πράξεως, ἀλλʼ αὐτός τε τὸν πρέποντα λόγον ἐπιφθέγξασθαι καὶ Δημητρίου μνησθῆναι· | 29.21.3. "For if you consider not countless years or many generations, but merely these last fifty years, you will read in them the cruelty of Fortune. 29.21.4. I ask you, do you think that fifty years ago either the Persians and the Persian king or the Macedonians and the king of Macedon, if some god had foretold the future to them, would ever have believed that at the time when we live, the very name of the Persians would have perished utterly â the Persians who were masters of almost the whole world â and that the Macedonians, whose name was formerly almost unknown, would now be the lords of it all? 29.21.5. But nevertheless this Fortune, who never compacts with life, who always defeats our reckoning by some novel stroke; she who ever demonstrates her power by foiling our expectations, now also, as it seems to me, makes it clear to all men, 29.21.6. by endowing the Macedonians with the whole wealth of Persia, that she has but lent them these blessings until she decides to deal differently with them." 29.21.7. And this now happened in the time of Perseus. Surely Demetrius, as if by the mouth of some god, uttered these prophetic words. 29.21.8. And I, as I wrote and reflected on the time when the Macedonian monarchy perished, did not think it right to pass over the event without comment, as it was one I witnessed with my own eyes; but I considered it was for me also to say something befitting such an occasion, and recall the words of Demetrius. 38.21. 1. Turning round to me at once and grasping my hand Scipio said, "A glorious moment, Polybius; but I have a dread foreboding that some day the same doom will be pronounced on my own country." It would be difficult to mention an utterance more statesmanlike and more profound.,2. For at the moment of our greatest triumph and of disaster to our enemies to reflect on our own situation and on the possible reversal of circumstances, and generally to bear in mind at the season of success the mutability of Fortune, is like a great and perfect man, a man in short worthy to be remembered. (From Appian, Punica, 132) 38.22. 1. Scipio, when he looked upon the city as it was utterly perishing and in the last throes of its complete destruction, is said to have shed tears and wept openly for his enemies.,2. After being wrapped in thought for long, and realizing that all cities, nations, and authorities must, like men, meet their doom; that this happened to Ilium, once a prosperous city, to the empires of Assyria, Media, and Persia, the greatest of their time, and to Macedonia itself, the brilliance of which was so recent, either deliberately or the verses escaping him, he said: A day will come when sacred Troy shall perish, And Priam and his people shall be slain. ,3. And when Polybius speaking with freedom to him, for he was his teacher, asked him what he meant by the words, they say that without any attempt at concealment he named his own country, for which he feared when he reflected on the fate of all things human. Polybius actually heard him and recalls it in his history. |
|
| 37. Livy, History, 29.10.4-29.10.6, 31.23-31.26, 36.17.15 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of •persian empire Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 85; Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 145; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342 |
38. Ovid, Metamorphoses, 15.829-15.831 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 145| 15.829. Quid tibi barbariem, gentesque ab utroque iacentes 15.830. oceano numerem? Quodcumque habitabile tellus 15.831. sustinet, huius erit: pontus quoque serviet illi! | |
|
39. Philo of Alexandria, On The Confusion of Tongues, 129 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 203 | 129. And the name is, as the Hebrews say, Phanuel, which translated into our language means, "turning away from God." For any strong building which is erected by means of plausible arguments is not built for the sake of any other object except that of averting and alienating the mind from the honour due to God, than which object what can be more iniquitous? |
|
40. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, 16.89.1, 34.33.1-34.33.2 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 173 | 16.89.1. When Phrynichus was archon at Athens, the Romans installed as consuls Titus Manlius Torquatus and Publius Decius. In this year King Philip, proudly conscious of his victory at Chaeroneia and seeing that he had dashed the confidence of the leading Greek cities, conceived of the ambition to become the leader of all Greece. |
|
41. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 1.51 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 211 | 1.51. And he receives all persons of a similar character and disposition, whether they were originally born so, or whether they have become so through any change of conduct, having become better people, and as such entitled to be ranked in a superior class; approving of the one body because they have not defaced their nobility of birth, and of the other because they have thought fit to alter their lives so as to come over to nobleness of conduct. And these last he calls proselytes (proseµlytou |
|
42. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 58-63, 57 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 321 | 57. Now of the banquets among the Greeks the two most celebrated and most remarkable are those at which Socrates also was present, the one in the house of Callias, when, after Autolycus had gained the crown of victory, he gave a feast in honour of the event, and the other in the house of Agathon, which was thought worthy of being commemorated by men who were imbued with the true spirit of philosophy both in their dispositions and in their discourses, Plato and Xenophon, for they recorded them as events worthy to be had in perpetual recollection, looking upon it that future generations would take them as models for a well managed arrangement of future banquets; |
|
| 43. Philo of Alexandria, Questions On Exodus, 2.2 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 211 |
44. Philo of Alexandria, On The Migration of Abraham, 86-89, 91-94, 90 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 321 | 90. But now men living solitarily by themselves as if they were in a desert, or else as if they were mere souls unconnected with the body, and as if they had no knowledge of any city, or village, or house, or in short of any company of men whatever, overlook what appears to the many to be true, and seek for plain naked truth by itself, whom the sacred scripture teaches not to neglect a good reputation, and not to break through any established customs which divine men of greater wisdom than any in our time have enacted or established. |
|
45. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 1.179 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 210 | 1.179. This man, then [answered Aristotle], was by birth a Jew, and came from Celesyria: these Jews are derived from the Indian philosophers; they are named by the Indians Calami, and by the Syrians Judaei, and took their name from the country they inhabit, which is called Judea; but for the name of their city it is a very awkward one, for they call it Jerusalem. |
|
46. New Testament, Romans, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 328| 9.3. ηὐχόμην γὰρ ἀνάθεμα εἶναι αὐτὸς ἐγὼ ἀπὸ τοῦ χριστοῦ ὑπὲρ τῶν ἀδελφῶν μου τῶν συγγενῶν μου κατὰ σάρκα, οἵτινές εἰσιν Ἰσραηλεῖται, | 9.3. For I could wish that I myself were accursed from Christ for my brothers' sake, my relatives according to the flesh, |
|
47. Tosefta, Horayot, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184| 2.5. "הוא ואביו ורבו עומדין בשבי הוא קודם לרבו ורבו קודם לאביו ואמו קודמת לכל אדם איזהו רבו רבו שלמדו תורה לא שלמדו אומנות ואיזה זה שפתח לו תחלה ר' מאיר אומר רבו שלמדו חכמה לא רבו שלמדו תורה ר' יהודה אומר כל שרוב תלמודו ממנו ר' יוסי אומר כל שהאיר עיניו במשנתו.", | |
|
48. New Testament, Galatians, 3.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 228| 3.10. Ὅσοι γὰρ ἐξ ἔργων νόμου εἰσὶν ὑπὸ κατάραν εἰσίν, γέγραπται γὰρ ὅτι Ἐπικατάρατος πᾶς ὃς οὐκ ἐμμένει πᾶσιν τοῖς γεγραμμένοις ἐν τῷ βιβλίῳ τοῦ νόμου τοῦ ποιῆσαι αὐτά. | 3.10. For as many as are of the works of the law areunder a curse. For it is written, "Cursed is everyone who doesn'tcontinue in all things that are written in the book of the law, to dothem." |
|
49. New Testament, Acts, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 319| 6.9. Ἀνέστησαν δέ τινες τῶν ἐκ τῆς συναγωγῆς τῆς λεγομένης Λιβερτίνων καὶ Κυρηναίων καὶ Ἀλεξανδρέων καὶ τῶν ἀπὸ Κιλικίας καὶ Ἀσίας συνζητοῦντες τῷ Στεφάνῳ, | 6.9. But some of those who were of the synagogue called "The Libertines," and of the Cyrenians, of the Alexandrians, and of those of Cilicia and Asia arose, disputing with Stephen. |
|
50. New Testament, 1 Thessalonians, 4.1-4.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 328| 4.1. Λοιπὸν, ἀδελφοί, ἐρωτῶμεν ὑμᾶς καὶ παρακαλοῦ μεν ἐν κυρίῳ Ἰησοῦ, [ἵνα] καθὼς παρελάβετε παρʼ ἡμῶν τὸ πῶς δεῖ ὑμᾶς περιπατεῖν καὶ ἀρέσκειν θεῷ, καθὼς καὶ περιπατεῖτε,— ἵνα περισσεύητε μᾶλλον. 4.2. οἴδατε γὰρ τίνας παραγγελίας ἐδώκαμεν ὑμῖν διὰ τοῦ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ. 4.3. Τοῦτο γάρ ἐστιν θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, ὁ ἁγιασμὸς ὑμῶν, ἀπέχεσθαι ὑμᾶς ἀπὸ τῆς πορνείας, 4.4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, 4.5. μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶτὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 4.6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότιἔκδικος Κύριοςπερὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα. 4.7. οὐ γὰρ ἐκάλεσεν ἡμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἐπὶ ἀκαθαρσίᾳ ἀλλʼ ἐν ἁγιασμῷ. 4.8. τοιγαροῦν ὁ ἀθετῶν οὐκ ἄνθρωπον ἀθετεῖ ἀλλὰ τὸν θεὸν τὸνδιδόντα τὸ πνεῦμα αὐτοῦτὸ ἅγιονεἰς ὑμᾶς. 4.9. Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους· 4.10. καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς [τοὺς] ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ. Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισσεύειν μᾶλλον, 4.11. καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν, καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν, 4.12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε. | 4.1. Finally then, brothers, we beg and exhort you in the Lord Jesus, that as you received from us how you ought to walk and to please God, that you abound more and more. 4.2. For you know what charge we gave you through the Lord Jesus. 4.3. For this is the will of God: your sanctification, that you abstain from sexual immorality, 4.4. that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 4.5. not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don't know God; 4.6. that no one should take advantage of and wrong a brother or sister in this matter; because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified. 4.7. For God called us not for uncleanness, but in sanctification. 4.8. Therefore he who rejects doesn't reject man, but God, who has also given his Holy Spirit to you. 4.9. But concerning brotherly love, you have no need that one write to you. For you yourselves are taught by God to love one another, 4.10. for indeed you do it toward all the brothers who are in all Macedonia. But we exhort you, brothers, that you abound more and more; 4.11. and that you make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, even as we charged you; 4.12. that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and may have need of nothing. |
|
51. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 211| 4.4. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בָּא יְהוּדָה, גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי, וְעָמַד לִפְנֵיהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָה אֲנִי לָבֹא בַקָּהָל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָסוּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מֻתָּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים כג), לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה' גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי וְגוֹ'. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְכִי עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים בִּמְקוֹמָן הֵן. כְּבָר עָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וּבִלְבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה י), וְאָסִיר גְּבוּלֹת עַמִּים וַעֲתוּדוֹתֵיהֶם שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּאבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (ירמיה מט), וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁבוּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, וּכְבָר חָזְרוּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (עמוס ט), וְשַׁבְתִּי אֶת שְׁבוּת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא שָׁבוּ. הִתִּירוּהוּ לָבֹא בַקָּהָל: \n", | 4.4. "On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. So they permitted him to enter the assembly.", |
|
52. Mishnah, Shekalim, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 5, 321| 5.2. "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשְּׁלֹשָה גִּזְבָּרִין וּמִשִּׁבְעָה אֲמַרְכָּלִין, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, חוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם וְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁאוֹתָן קִבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן: \n", | 5.2. "They did not have less than three treasurers. Or less than seven superintendents. Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public.", |
|
53. Mishnah, Terumot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 119| 1.6. "חֲמִשָּׁה לֹא יִתְרֹמוּ, וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה. הָאִלֵּם, וְהַשִּׁכּוֹר, וְהֶעָרוֹם, וְהַסּוּמָא, וּבַעַל קֶרִי. לֹא יִתְרֹמוּ, וְאִם תָּרְמוּ, תְּרוּמָתָן תְּרוּמָה: \n", | 1.6. "Five may not give terumah, but if they do, their terumah is terumah.A mute person; A drunken person; One who is naked; A blind person; Or one who has had a seminal emission. They may not give terumah, but if they do their terumah is valid.", |
|
54. Mishnah, Yevamot, 16.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, significance of cultural, social influences Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 118| 16.7. "אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, כְּשֶׁיָּרַדְתִּי לִנְהַרְדְּעָא לְעַבֵּר הַשָּׁנָה, מָצָאתִי נְחֶמְיָה אִישׁ בֵּית דְּלִי, אָמַר לִי, שָׁמַעְתִּי שֶׁאֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בְאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, אֶלָּא רַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא. וְנוּמֵתִי לוֹ, כֵּן הַדְּבָרִים. אָמַר לִי, אֱמֹר לָהֶם מִשְּׁמִי, אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים שֶׁהַמְּדִינָה מְשֻׁבֶּשֶׁת בִּגְיָסוֹת, מְקֻבְּלָנִי מֵרַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן, שֶׁמַּשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. וּכְשֶׁבָּאתִי וְהִרְצֵיתִי הַדְּבָרִים לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שָׂמַח לִדְבָרַי, וְאָמַר, מָצָאנוּ חָבֵר לְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה בֶן בָּבָא. מִתּוֹךְ הַדְּבָרִים נִזְכַּר רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, שֶׁנֶּהֶרְגוּ הֲרוּגִים בְּתֵל אַרְזָא, וְהִשִּׂיא רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן נְשׁוֹתֵיהֶם עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד, וְהֻחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת מַשִּׂיאִין עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. וְהֻחְזְקוּ לִהְיוֹת מַשִּׂיאִין עֵד מִפִּי עֵד, מִפִּי עֶבֶד, מִפִּי אִשָּׁה, מִפִּי שִׁפְחָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמְרִים, אֵין מַשִּׂיאִין אֶת הָאִשָּׁה עַל פִּי עֵד אֶחָד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא עַל פִּי אִשָּׁה, וְלֹא עַל פִּי עֶבֶד וְלֹא עַל פִּי שִׁפְחָה, וְלֹא עַל פִּי קְרוֹבִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מַעֲשֶׂה בִבְנֵי לֵוִי שֶׁהָלְכוּ לְצֹעַר עִיר הַתְּמָרִים, וְחָלָה אַחַד מֵהֶם בַּדֶּרֶךְ, וֶהֱבִיאוּהוּ בְפֻנְדָּק, וּבַחֲזָרָתָם אָמְרוּ לַפֻּנְדָּקִית אַיֵּה חֲבֵרֵנוּ, אָמְרָה לָהֶם מֵת וּקְבַרְתִּיו, וְהִשִּׂיאוּ אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, וְלֹא תְהֵא כֹהֶנֶת כַּפֻּנְדָּקִית. אָמַר לָהֶם, לִכְשֶׁתְּהֵא פֻּנְדָּקִית נֶאֱמֶנֶת. הַפֻּנְדָּקִית הוֹצִיאָה לָהֶם מַקְלוֹ וְתַרְמִילוֹ וְסֵפֶר תּוֹרָה שֶׁהָיָה בְיָדוֹ: \n", | 16.7. "Rabbi Akiva said: When I went down to Nehardea to intercalate the year, I met Nehemiah of Bet D’li who said to me, “I heard that in the land of Israel no one, permits a [married] woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, except Rabbi Judah ben Bava”. “That is so”, I told him. He said to me, “Tell them in my name: ‘You know that this country is in confusion because of marauders. I have received a tradition from Rabban Gamaliel the Elder: that they allow a [married] woman to remarry on the evidence of one witness’”. And when I came and recounted the conversation in the presence of Rabban Gamaliel he rejoiced at my words and exclaimed, “We have found a match for Rabbi Judah ben Bava!” As a result of this talk Rabban Gamaliel remembered that some men were once killed at Tel Arza, and that Rabban Gamaliel the Elder had allowed their wives to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and the law was established that they allow a woman to marry again on the evidence of one witness, and on the testimony of one [who states that he has heard] from another witness, from a slave, from a woman or from a female slave. Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua say: a woman is not be allowed to remarry on the evidence of one witness. Rabbi Akiva ruled: [a woman is not allowed to marry again] on the evidence of a woman, on that of a slave, on that of a female slave or on that of relatives. They said to him: It once happened that a number of Levites went to Tsoar, the city of palms, and one of them became ill on the way, and they left him in an inn. When they returned they asked the [female] innkeeper, “Where is our friend?” And she replied, “He is dead and I buried him”, and they allowed his wife to remarry. Should not then a priest’s wife [be believed at least as much] as an innkeeper!” He answered them: When she will [give such evidence] as the innkeeper [gave] she will be believed, for the innkeeper had brought out to them [the dead man’s] staff, his bag and the Torah scroll which he had with him.", |
|
55. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1, 1.19, 1.31-2.654, 2, 2.568, 2.569, 2.570, 2.571, 2.572, 2.573, 2.574, 2.575, 2.576, 2.577, 2.578, 2.579, 2.580, 2.581, 2.582, 2.583, 2.584, 2.585, 2.586, 2.587, 2.588, 2.589, 2.590, 2.591, 2.592, 2.593, 2.594, 2.595, 2.596, 2.597, 2.598, 2.599, 2.600, 2.601, 2.602, 2.603, 2.604, 2.605, 2.606, 2.607, 2.608, 2.609, 2.610, 2.611, 2.612, 2.613, 2.614, 2.615, 2.616, 2.617, 2.618, 2.619, 2.620, 2.621, 2.622, 2.623, 2.624, 2.625, 2.626, 2.627, 2.628, 2.629, 2.630, 2.631, 2.632, 2.633, 2.634, 2.635, 2.636, 2.637, 2.638, 2.639, 2.640, 2.641, 2.642, 2.643, 2.644, 2.645, 2.646, 2.647, 2.648, 2.649, 2.650, 2.651, 2.652, 2.653, 2.654, 3, 566 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 562 | 2.626. Accordingly, he privately sent messengers to Jerusalem, to accuse Josephus, as having too great power, and to let them know that he would soon come as a tyrant to their metropolis, unless they prevented him. |
|
56. Mishnah, Tamid, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 5| 5.3. "מְסָרוּם לַחַזָּנִים, הָיוּ מַפְשִׁיטִין אוֹתָם אֶת בִּגְדֵיהֶם, וְלֹא הָיוּ מַנִּיחִין עֲלֵיהֶם אֶלָּא מִכְנָסַיִם בִּלְבָד. וְחַלּוֹנוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, וְכָתוּב עֲלֵיהֶם תַּשְׁמִישֵׁי הַכֵּלִים: \n", | 5.3. "He then handed them over to the attendants, who stripped them of their garments, and they would leave on them only the pants. There were windows there on which was inscribed the name of the garment to which each was assigned.", |
|
57. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.2, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 150| 1.2. "עֶבֶד עִבְרִי נִקְנֶה בְכֶסֶף וּבִשְׁטָר, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַּשָּׁנִים וּבַיּוֹבֵל וּבְגִרְעוֹן כֶּסֶף. יְתֵרָה עָלָיו אָמָה הָעִבְרִיָּה, שֶׁקּוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּסִימָנִין. הַנִּרְצָע נִקְנֶה בִרְצִיעָה, וְקוֹנֶה אֶת עַצְמוֹ בַיּוֹבֵל וּבְמִיתַת הָאָדוֹן: \n", 1.6. "כָּל הַנַּעֲשֶׂה דָמִים בְּאַחֵר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה, נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה בַחֲלִיפָיו. כֵּיצַד. הֶחֱלִיף שׁוֹר בְּפָרָה אוֹ חֲמוֹר בְּשׁוֹר, כֵּיוָן שֶׁזָּכָה זֶה, נִתְחַיֵּב זֶה בַחֲלִיפָיו. רְשׁוּת הַגָּבוֹהַּ, בְּכֶסֶף, וּרְשׁוּת הַהֶדְיוֹט, בַּחֲזָקָה. אֲמִירָתוֹ לַגָּבוֹהַּ, כִּמְסִירָתוֹ לַהֶדְיוֹט: \n", | 1.2. "A Hebrew slave is acquired by money and by document; And acquires himself by years, by Jubilee, and by deduction from the purchase price. A Hebrew maidservant is greater in that she acquires herself by ‘signs [of physical maturity]’. He whose ear is bored is acquired by boring, and acquires himself by Jubilee or his master's death.", 1.6. "Whatever can be used as payment for another object, as soon as this one takes possession [of the object], the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. How so? If one exchanges an ox for a cow, or a donkey for an ox, as soon as this one takes possession, the other one assumes liability for what is given in exchange. The sanctuary’s title to property [is acquired] by money; the title of an ordinary person to property by hazakah. Dedication to the sanctuary is equal to delivery to an ordinary person.", |
|
58. Tosefta, Miqvaot, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 123| 6.1. "ארץ הכותים טהורה מקוותיה ומדוריה ושביליה טהורות. ארץ העמים טמאה מקוותיה ומדוריה ושביליה טמאין. מקוואות העמים שבחוצה לארץ כשרים לבעלי קריין ופסולין לכל הטמאין ושבארץ ישראל שחוץ מן המפתח לכל הטמאין וא\"צ לומר לבעלי קריין ושלפנים מן המפתח פסולין לבעלי קריין וא\"צ לומר לכל הטמאין דברי ר\"מ ר' יהודה אומר כשרין לבעלי קריין מפני שבעל קרי טובל במ' סאה בכל מקום. ושחוץ מן המפתח כשרין אף לנדות. אמר רשב\"ג הלכה אין לי. אלא מעשה במערה שהיתה בגינתו של מוסק אחד בדמיו שהיו כהנים כובשין את הגדר ויורדין וטובלין לתוכה. <א\"ר יהודה> מעשה במקוה שבין אושא לשפרעם <ושל שפרעם היה> והיה ר' דוסא מושיב בו <עליו> ב' תלמידי חכמים כדי שיקוו בו המים מ' סאה. שוב מעשה ברום בתענת שקוות יתר מאלפים כור ובאו ושאלו את ר' חנניא בן תרדיון ופסל שאני אומר נכנסו עובדי כוכבים וזלפוה בלילה וחזרו ומילאו אותו בקילון. ומעשה בר\"ג ואונקלוס הגר שהיו באשקלון וטבל ר\"ג במרחץ ואונקלוס בים. אמר ר' יהושע בן קופסאי עמהן הייתי ולא טבל ר\"ג אלא בים.", | |
|
59. Tosefta, Taanit, 2.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, significance of cultural, social influences Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 11| 2.5. "אנשי משמר ואנשי מעמד אסורין לספר ולכבס בין משחרב הבית ובין עד שלא חרב הבית רבי יוסי אומר משחרב הבית מותרין מפני שאבל הוא להם יום שני וחמישי הוחדו לתענית צבור ובהן בתי דינים יושבין בעיירות ובהן נכנסין לבתי כנסיות וקורין ובהן [מפסיקין] למקרא מגילה.", | |
|
60. Tosefta, Terumot, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 119| 3.1. "מאימתי תורמין את הגורן משתעקר האלה צבר מקצת הגורן תורם מן הצבור על שאינו צבור.", 3.1. "מפני מה אמרו אלם לא יתרום מפני שאין יכול לברך מפני מה אמרו סומא לא יתרום מפני שאין יכול לבור את היפה מן הרע מפני מה אמרו שיכור לא יתרום מפני שאין בו דעת אע\"פ שאמרו שיכור מקחו מקח וממכרו ממכר מתנתו מתנה ונדרו נדר הקדשו הקדש עבר עבירה שחייב עליה [חטאת] מחייבין אותו סקילה [מחייבין אותו] כללו של דבר שיכור הרי הוא כפקח לכל [דבר] מפני מה אמרו בעל קרי לא יתרום מפני שאינו יכול לברך מפני מה אמרו ערום לא יתרום מפני שאינו יכול לברך אבל מכסה את עצמו בתבן ובקש ובכל דבר ומברך." | |
|
61. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.13, 5.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 119| 2.13. "בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול הרי זה קורא את שמע ואינו משמיע לאזנו ואינו מברך לפניה ולא לאחריה דברי רבי מאיר וחכ\"א קורא את שמע ומשמיע לאזנו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה אמר ר' מאיר פעם אחת היינו יושבין לפני ר' עקיבה בבית המדרש והיינו קורין את שמע ולא היינו משמיעים לאזנינו מפני קסדור אחד שהיה עומד על הפתח אמר לו אין שעת הסכנה ראיה.", 5.14. "מים ראשונים רשות אחרונים חובה מים ראשונים רצה להפסיק מפסיק אחרונים [רצה להפסיק] אינו מפסיק.", | |
|
62. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 1.146, 1.333, 4.180, 11.6, 11.123, 11.168-11.169, 11.173, 11.312, 13.85, 13.398, 14.187, 17.190, 17.323, 20.160, 20.214 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 154, 192, 203, 213, 254, 560 | 1.146. Sala was the son of Arphaxad; and his son was Heber, from whom they originally called the Jews Hebrews. Heber begat Joetan and Phaleg: he was called Phaleg, because he was born at the dispersion of the nations to their several countries; for Phaleg among the Hebrews signifies division. 1.333. He also commanded him to be called Israel, which in the Hebrew tongue signifies one that struggled with the divine angel. These promises were made at the prayer of Jacob; for when he perceived him to be the angel of God, he desired he would signify to him what should befall him hereafter. And when the angel had said what is before related, he disappeared; 4.180. O children of Israel! there is but one source of happiness for all mankind, the favor of God for he alone is able to give good things to those that deserve them, and to deprive those of them that sin against him; towards whom, if you behave yourselves according to his will, and according to what I, who well understand his mind, do exhort you to, you will both be esteemed blessed, and will be admired by all men; and will never come into misfortunes, nor cease to be happy: you will then preserve the possession of the good things you already have, and will quickly obtain those that you are at present in want of,— 11.6. This was foretold by Isaiah one hundred and forty years before the temple was demolished. Accordingly, when Cyrus read this, and admired the divine power, an earnest desire and ambition seized upon him to fulfill what was so written; so he called for the most eminent Jews that were in Babylon, and said to them, that he gave them leave to go back to their own country, and to rebuild their city Jerusalem, and the temple of God, 11.123. Accordingly, the king wrote the following epistle to those governors: “Xerxes, king of kings, to Esdras the priest, and reader of the divine law, greeting. I think it agreeable to that love which I bear to mankind, to permit those of the Jewish nation that are so disposed, as well as those of the priests and Levites that are in our kingdom, to go together to Jerusalem. 11.168. 7. Now when he was come to Babylon, and had taken with him many of his countrymen, who voluntarily followed him, he came to Jerusalem in the twenty and fifth year of the reign of Xerxes. And when he had shown the epistles to God he gave them to Adeus, and to the other governors. He also called together all the people to Jerusalem, and stood in the midst of the temple, and made the following speech to them: 11.169. “You know, O Jews, that God hath kept our fathers, Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in mind continually, and for the sake of their righteousness hath not left off the care of you. Indeed he hath assisted me in gaining this authority of the king to raise up our wall, and finish what is wanting of the temple. 11.173. So the Jews prepared for the work: that is the name they are called by from the day that they came up from Babylon, which is taken from the tribe of Judah, which came first to these places, and thence both they and the country gained that appellation. 11.312. But there was now a great disturbance among the people of Jerusalem, because many of those priests and Levites were entangled in such matches; for they all revolted to Manasseh, and Sanballat afforded them money, and divided among them land for tillage, and habitations also, and all this in order every way to gratify his son-in-law. 13.85. And when the captains had thus done, those that were prepared to accuse Jonathan, and who bore him ill-will, when they saw the honor that was done him by proclamation, and that by the king’s order, ran away, and were afraid lest some mischief should befall them. Nay, king Alexander was so very kind to Jonathan, that he set him down as the principal of his friends. 13.398. 5. After this, king Alexander, although he fell into a distemper by hard drinking, and had a quartan ague, which held him three years, yet would not leave off going out with his army, till he was quite spent with the labors he had undergone, and died in the bounds of Ragaba, a fortress beyond Jordan. 14.187. for whereas many will not believe what hath been written about us by the Persians and Macedonians, because those writings are not every where to be met with, nor do lie in public places, but among us ourselves, and certain other barbarous nations, 17.190. He also made provision for all the rest of his kindred, by giving them sums of money and annual revenues, and so left them all in a wealthy condition. He bequeathed also to Caesar ten millions [of drachmae] of coined money, besides both vessels of gold and silver, and garments exceeding costly, to Julia, Caesar’s wife; and to certain others, five millions. 17.323. he also granted all that was bequeathed to himself to the king’s sons, which was one thousand five hundred talents, excepting a few of the vessels, which he reserved for himself; and they were acceptable to him, not so much for the great value they were of, as because they were memorials of the king to him. 20.160. 5. Now as for the affairs of the Jews, they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude. 20.214. Costobarus also, and Saulus, did themselves get together a multitude of wicked wretches, and this because they were of the royal family; and so they obtained favor among them, because of their kindred to Agrippa; but still they used violence with the people, and were very ready to plunder those that were weaker than themselves. And from that time it principally came to pass that our city was greatly disordered, and that all things grew worse and worse among us. |
|
63. Arrian, Anabasis of Alexander, 5.26.2 (1st cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 145| 5.26.2. καὶ ἐγὼ ἐπιδείξω Μακεδόσι τε καὶ τοῖς ξυμμάχοις τὸν μὲν Ἰνδικὸν κόλπον ξύρρουν ὄντα τῷ Περσικῷ, τὴν δὲ Ὑρκανίαν θάλασσαν τῷ Ἰνδικῷ· ἀπὸ δὲ τοῦ Περσικοῦ εἰς Λιβύην περιπλευσθήσεται στόλῳ ἡμετέρῳ τὰ μέχρι Ἡρακλέους Στηλῶν· ἀπὸ δὲ Στηλῶν ἡ ἐντὸς Λιβύη πᾶσα ἡμετέρα γίγνεται καὶ ἡ Ἀσία δὴ οὕτω πᾶσα, καὶ ὅροι τῆς ταύτῃ ἀρχῆς οὕσπερ καὶ τῆς γῆς ὅρους ὁ θεὸς ἐποίησε. | |
|
64. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 318| 7.6. "וְאֵלּוּ יוֹצְאוֹת שֶׁלֹּא בִכְתֻבָּה, הָעוֹבֶרֶת עַל דַּת מֹשֶׁה וִיהוּדִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא דַּת מֹשֶׁה, מַאֲכִילָתוֹ שֶׁאֵינוֹ מְעֻשָּׂר, וּמְשַׁמַּשְׁתּוֹ נִדָּה, וְלֹא קוֹצָה לָהּ חַלָּה, וְנוֹדֶרֶת וְאֵינָהּ מְקַיֶּמֶת. וְאֵיזוֹהִי דַת יְהוּדִית, יוֹצְאָה וְרֹאשָׁהּ פָּרוּעַ, וְטוֹוָה בַשּׁוּק, וּמְדַבֶּרֶת עִם כָּל אָדָם. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמְקַלֶּלֶת יוֹלְדָיו בְּפָנָיו. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹלָנִית. וְאֵיזוֹ הִיא קוֹלָנִית, לִכְשֶׁהִיא מְדַבֶּרֶת בְּתוֹךְ בֵּיתָהּ וּשְׁכֵנֶיהָ שׁוֹמְעִין קוֹלָהּ: \n", | 7.6. "These leave [their marriage] without their ketubah: A wife who transgresses the law of Moses or Jewish law. And what is the law of Moses? Feeding her husband with untithed food, having intercourse with him while in the period of her menstruation, not separating dough offering, or making vows and not fulfilling them. And what is Jewish practice? Going out with her head uncovered, spinning wool in the marketplace or conversing with every man. Abba Shaul says: also one who curses her husband’s parents in his presence. Rabbi Tarfon says: also one who has a loud voice. And who is regarded as one who has a loud voice? A woman whose voice can be heard by her neighbors when she speaks inside her house.", |
|
65. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 123| 3.6. "זָב שֶׁרָאָה קְרִי, וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה, צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר: \n", | 3.6. "A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.", |
|
66. Mishnah, Taanit, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 76| 1.4. "הִגִּיעַ שִׁבְעָה עָשָׂר בְּמַרְחֶשְׁוָן וְלֹא יָרְדוּ גְשָׁמִים, הִתְחִילוּ הַיְחִידִים מִתְעַנִּין שָׁלשׁ תַּעֲנִיּוֹת. אוֹכְלִין וְשׁוֹתִין מִשֶּׁחֲשֵׁכָה, וּמֻתָּרִין בִּמְלָאכָה וּבִרְחִיצָה וּבְסִיכָה וּבִנְעִילַת הַסַּנְדָּל וּבְתַשְׁמִישׁ הַמִּטָּה: \n", | 1.4. "If the seventeenth of Marheshvan came and no rain fell, individuals begin to fast three fasts. They eat and drink after it gets dark and they are permitted to do work, to bathe, to anoint themselves with oil, to wear shoes, and to have marital relations.", |
|
67. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 7.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 318| 7.6. "כל אלו נשים שעברו על הדת צריכות התראה ויוצאות שלא בכתובה לא התרה בהן יוציא ויתן כתובה כל אלו שאמרו יוציא ויתן כתובה אין צריך לומר מאתים לבתולה ומנה לאלמנה יתר על כן אפילו כתובתה מאה מנה איבדה את הכל ונוטלת בלאיות שמוצאה לפניה.", | 7.6. "All of these women that transgressed custom need [a formal, legal] warning [in order to] go out without the ketubah. If they were not warned, he sends her out and pays her ketubah—and they don't need to [this about] say 200 for a virgin or 100 for a non-virgin [that of course if she leaves without her ketubah she doesn't get this money], but even more than this, even if her ketubah is 100 maneh, she can lose it all and receive only the rags that she can find in front of her.", |
|
68. New Testament, Mark, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 560, 562| 9.5. καὶ ἀποκριθεὶς ὁ Πέτρος λέγει τῷ Ἰησοῦ Ῥαββεί, καλόν ἐστιν ἡμᾶς ὧδε εἶναι, καὶ ποιήσωμεν τρεῖς σκηνάς, σοὶ μίαν καὶ Μωυσεῖ μίαν καὶ Ἠλείᾳ μίαν. | 9.5. Peter answered Jesus, "Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let's make three tents: one for you, one for Moses, and one for Elijah." |
|
69. New Testament, Matthew, 18.23-18.35, 22.11-22.13, 24.50 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 254| 18.23. Διὰ τοῦτο ὡμοιώθη ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ἀνθρώπῳ βασιλεῖ ὃς ἠθέλησεν συνᾶραι λόγον μετὰ τῶν δούλων αὐτοῦ· 18.24. ἀρξαμένου δὲ αὐτοῦ συναίρειν προσήχθη εἷς αὐτῷ ὀφειλέτης μυρίων ταλάντων. 18.25. μὴ ἔχοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι ἐκέλευσεν αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος πραθῆναι καὶ τὴν γυναῖκα καὶ τὰ τέκνα καὶ πάντα ὅσα ἔχει καὶ ἀποδοθῆναι. 18.26. πεσὼν οὖν ὁ δοῦλος προσεκύνει αὐτῷ λέγων Μακροθύμησον ἐπʼ ἐμοί, καὶ πάντα ἀποδώσω σοι. 18.27. σπλαγχνισθεὶς δὲ ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου [ἐκείνου] ἀπέλυσεν αὐτόν, καὶ τὸ δάνιον ἀφῆκεν αὐτῷ. 18.28. ἐξελθὼν δὲ ὁ δοῦλος ἐκεῖνος εὗρεν ἕνα τῶν συνδούλων αὐτοῦ ὃς ὤφειλεν αὐτῷ ἑκατὸν δηνάρια, καὶ κρατήσας αὐτὸν ἔπνιγεν λέγων Ἀπόδος εἴ τι ὀφείλεις. 18.29. πεσὼν οὖν ὁ σύνδουλος αὐτοῦ παρεκάλει αὐτὸν λέγων Μακροθύμησον ἐπʼ ἐμοί, καὶ ἀποδώσω σοι. 18.30. ὁ δὲ οὐκ ἤθελεν, ἀλλὰ ἀπελθὼν ἔβαλεν αὐτὸν εἰς φυλακὴν ἕως ἀποδῷ τὸ ὀφειλόμενον. 18.31. ἰδόντες οὖν οἱ σύνδουλοι αὐτοῦ τὰ γενόμενα ἐλυπήθησαν σφόδρα, καὶ ἐλθόντες διεσάφησαν τῷ κυρίῳ ἑαυτῶν πάντα τὰ γενόμενα. 18.32. τότε προσκαλεσάμενος αὐτὸν ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ λέγει αὐτῷ Δοῦλε πονηρέ, πᾶσαν τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἐκείνην ἀφῆκά σοι, ἐπεὶ παρεκάλεσάς με· 18.33. οὐκ ἔδει καὶ σὲ ἐλεῆσαι τὸν σύνδουλόν σου, ὡς κἀγὼ σὲ ἠλέησα; 18.34. καὶ ὀργισθεὶς ὁ κύριος αὐτοῦ παρέδωκεν αὐτὸν τοῖς βασανισταῖς ἕως [οὗ] ἀποδῷ πᾶν τὸ ὀφειλόμενον. 18.35. Οὕτως καὶ ὁ πατήρ μου ὁ οὐράνιος ποιήσει ὑμῖν ἐὰν μὴ ἀφῆτε ἕκαστος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἀπὸ τῶν καρδιῶν ὑμῶν. 22.11. εἰσελθὼν δὲ ὁ βασιλεὺς θεάσασθαί τοὺς ἀνακειμένους εἶδεν ἐκεῖ ἄνθρωπον οὐκ ἐνδεδυμένον ἔνδυμα γάμου· 22.12. καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ Ἑταῖρε, πῶς εἰσῆλθες ὧδε μὴ ἔχων ἔνδυμα γάμου; ὁ δὲ ἐφιμώθη. 22.13. τότε ὁ βασιλεὺς εἶπεν τοῖς διακόνοις Δήσαντες αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας ἐκβάλετε αὐτὸν εἰς τὸ σκότος τὸ ἐξώτερον· ἐκεῖ ἔσται ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων. 24.50. ἥξει ὁ κύριος τοῦ δούλου ἐκείνου ἐν ἡμέρᾳ ᾗ οὐ προσδοκᾷ καὶ ἐν ὥρᾳ ᾗ οὐ γινώσκει, | 18.23. Therefore the Kingdom of Heaven is like a certain king, who wanted to reconcile accounts with his servants. 18.24. When he had begun to reconcile, one was brought to him who owed him ten thousand talents. 18.25. But because he couldn't pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, with his wife, his children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. 18.26. The servant therefore fell down and kneeled before him, saying, 'Lord, have patience with me, and I will repay you all.' 18.27. The lord of that servant, being moved with compassion, released him, and forgave him the debt. 18.28. "But that servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, who owed him one hundred denarii, and he grabbed him, and took him by the throat, saying, 'Pay me what you owe!' 18.29. "So his fellow servant fell down at his feet and begged him, saying, 'Have patience with me, and I will repay you.' 18.30. He would not, but went and cast him into prison, until he should pay back that which was due. 18.31. So when his fellow servants saw what was done, they were exceedingly sorry, and came and told to their lord all that was done. 18.32. Then his lord called him in, and said to him, 'You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt, because you begged me. 18.33. Shouldn't you also have had mercy on your fellow servant, even as I had mercy on you?' 18.34. His lord was angry, and delivered him to the tormentors, until he should pay all that was due to him. 18.35. So my heavenly Father will also do to you, if you don't each forgive your brother from your hearts for his misdeeds." 22.11. But when the king came in to see the guests, he saw there a man who didn't have on wedding clothing, 22.12. and he said to him, 'Friend, how did you come in here not wearing wedding clothing?' He was speechless. 22.13. 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.' 24.50. the lord of that servant will come in a day when he doesn't expect it, and in an hour when he doesn't know it, |
|
| 70. Plutarch, Sulla, 41974 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 85 |
71. Plutarch, Pompey, 38.2-38.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 145| 38.2. n="2" resp="perseus" πολλῶν μὲν ἡγεμόνων καὶ δυναστῶν, βασιλέων δὲ δώδεκα βαρβάρων ἀφιγμένων πρὸς αὐτόν, ὅθεν οὐδὲ ἠξίωσε τὸν Πάρθον ἀντιγράφων, ὥσπερ οἱ λοιποί, βασιλέα βασιλέων προσαγορεῦσαι, τοῖς ἄλλοις χαριζόμενος. αὐτὸν δέ τις ἔρως καὶ ζῆλος εἶχε Συρίαν ἀναλαβεῖν καὶ διὰ τῆς Ἀραβίας ἐπὶ τὴν ἐρυθρὰν ἐλάσαι θάλασσαν, ὡς τῷ περιϊόντι τὴν οἰκουμένην πανταχόθεν Ὠκεανῷ προσμίξειε νικῶν· 38.3. καὶ γὰρ ἐν Λιβύῃ πρῶτος ἄχρι τῆς ἐκτὸς θαλάσσης κρατῶν προῆλθε, καὶ τὴν ἐν Ἰβηρίᾳ, πάλιν ἀρχὴν ὡρίσατο Ῥωμαίοις τῷ Ἀτλαντικῷ πελάγει, καὶ τρίτον ἔναγχος Ἀλβανοὺς διώκων ὀλίγον ἐδέησεν ἐμβαλεῖν εἰς τὴν Ὑρκανίαν θάλασσαν, ὡς οὖν συνάψων τῇ ἐρυθρᾷ τὴν περίοδον τῆς στρατείας ἀνίστατο. καὶ γὰρ ἄλλως τὸν Μιθριδάτην ἑώρα δυσθήρατον ὄντα τοῖς ὅπλοις καὶ φεύγοντα χαλεπώτερον ἢ μαχόμενον. | 38.2. 38.3. |
|
72. Plutarch, Lysander, 11.7, 18.3-18.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342| 11.7. ὃς μυρίας μορφὰς ἀγώνων καὶ πραγμάτων μεταβολὰς ἀμείψας, καὶ στρατηγοὺς ὅσους οὐδὲ οἱ σύμπαντες οἱ πρὸ αὐτοῦ τῆς Ἑλλάδος ἀναλώσας, ἑνὸς ἀνδρὸς εὐβουλία καὶ δεινότητι συνῄρητο· διὸ καὶ θεῖόν τινες ἡγήσαντο τοῦτο τὸ ἔργον. 18.3. πρώτῳ μὲν γάρ, ὡς ἱστορεῖ Δοῦρις, Ἑλλήνων ἐκείνῳ βωμοὺς αἱ πόλεις ἀνέστησαν ὡς θεῷ καὶ θυσίας ἔθυσαν, εἰς πρῶτον δὲ παιᾶνες ᾔσθησαν, ὧν ἑνὸς ἀρχὴν ἀπομνημονεύουσι τοιάνδε· 18.4. σάμιοι δὲ τὰ παρʼ αὐτοῖς Ἡραῖα Λυσάνδρεια καλεῖν ἐψηφίσαντο. τῶν δὲ ποιητῶν Χοιρίλον μὲν ἀεὶ περὶ αὑτὸν εἶχεν ὡς κοσμήσοντα τὰς πράξεις διὰ ποιητικῆς, Ἀντιλόχῳ δὲ ποιήσαντι μετρίους τινὰς εἰς αὐτὸν στίχους ἡσθεὶς ἔδωκε πλήσας ἀργυρίου τὸν πῖλον. Ἀντιμάχου δὲ τοῦ Κολοφωνίου καὶ Νικηράτου τινὸς Ἡρακλεώτου ποιήμασι Λυσάνδρεια διαγωνισαμένων ἐπʼ αὐτοῦ τὸν Νικήρατον ἐστεφάνωσεν, ὁ δὲ Ἀντίμαχος ἀχθεσθεὶς ἠφάνισε τὸ ποίημα. | 11.7. 18.3. 18.4. |
|
73. Plutarch, Advice To Bride And Groom, None (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 | 141b. but accommodating, inoffensive, and agreeable. For, as physicians have more fear of fevers that originate from obscure causes and gradual accretion than of those which may be accounted for by manifest and weighty reasons, so it is the petty, continual, daily clashes between man and wife, unnoticed by the great majority, that disrupt and mar married life. King Philip was enamoured of a Thessalian woman who was accused of using magic charms upon him. Olympias accordingly made haste to get the woman into her power. But when the latter had come into the queen's presence and was seen to be beautiful in appearance, and her conversation with the queen was not lacking in good-breeding or cleverness, Olympias exclaimed, |
|
| 74. Plutarch, Artaxerxes, 9.4-10.1, 21.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 132 |
| 75. Plutarch, Mark Antony, 34 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 93 |
76. Plutarch, Alcibiades, 32.2-32.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 329| 32.2. ἃ δὲ Δοῦρις ὁ Σάμιος Ἀλκιβιάδου φάσκων ἀπόγονος εἶναι προστίθησι τούτοις, αὐλεῖν μὲν εἰρεσίαν τοῖς ἐλαύνουσι Χρυσόγονον τὸν πυθιονίκην, κελεύειν δὲ Καλλιππίδην τὸν τῶν τραγῳδιῶν ὑποκριτήν, στατοὺς καὶ ξυστίδας καὶ τὸν ἄλλον ἐναγώνιον ἀμπεχομένους κόσμον, ἱστίῳ δʼ ἁλουργῷ τὴν ναυαρχίδα προσφέρεσθαι τοῖς λιμέσιν, ὥσπερ ἐκ μέθης ἐπικωμάζοντος, 32.3. οὔτε Θεόπομπος οὔτʼ Ἔφορος οὔτε Ξενοφῶν γέγραφεν, οὔτʼ εἰκὸς ἦν οὕτως ἐντρυφῆσαι τοῖς Ἀθηναίοις μετὰ φυγὴν καὶ συμφορὰς τοσαύτας κατερχόμενον, ἀλλʼ ἐκεῖνος καὶ δεδιὼς κατήγετο, καὶ καταχθεὶς οὐ πρότερον ἀπέβη τῆς τριήρους, πρὶν στὰς ἐπὶ τοῦ καταστρώματος ἰδεῖν Εὐρυπτόλεμόν τε τὸν ἀνεψιὸν παρόντα καὶ τῶν ἄλλων φίλων καὶ οἰκείων συχνοὺς ἐκδεχομένους καὶ παρακαλοῦντας. | 32.2. Duris the Samian, who claims that he was a descendant of Alcibiades, gives some additional details. He says that the oarsmen of Alcibiades rowed to the music of a flute blown by Chrysogonus the Pythian victor; that they kept time to a rhythmic call from the lips of Callipides the tragic actor; that both these artists were arrayed in the long tunics, flowing robes, and other adornment of their profession; and that the commander’s ship put into harbors with a sail of purple hue, as though, after a drinking bout, he were off on a revel. 32.3. But neither Theopompus, nor Ephorus, nor Xenophon mentions these things, nor is it likely that Alcibiades put on such airs for the Athenians, to whom he was returning after he had suffered exile and many great adversities. Nay, he was in actual fear as he put into the harbor, and once in, he did not leave his trireme until, as he stood on deck, he caught sight of his cousin Euryptolemus on shore, with many other friends and kinsmen, and heard their cries of welcome. |
|
| 77. Pliny The Elder, Natural History, 2.129, 8.76 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of •pottery, in persian empire Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 164; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342 |
| 78. Appian, The Mithridatic Wars, 30-37, 39-41, 38 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 85 |
| 79. Suetonius, Augustus, 49.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •angareion (organization of message transmission in the persian empire) Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 380 |
| 80. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.22-2.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, christian centers in Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71 |
| 81. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
82. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 25.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 228| 25.1. וְכִי תָבֹאוּ אֶל הָאָרֶץ וּנְטַעְתֶּם כָּל עֵץ מַאֲכָל (ויקרא יט, כג), הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (משלי ג, יח): עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ, אָמַר רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי אַחָא שֶׁלֹּא יִהְיוּ דִבְרֵי תוֹרָה בְּעֵינֶיךָ כְּאָדָם שֶׁיֵּשׁ לוֹ בַּת בּוֹגֶרֶת וְהוּא רוֹצֶה לְהַשִּׂיאָהּ לְאֶחָד, אֶלָּא (משלי ב, א): בְּנִי אִם תִּקַּח אֲמָרָי וּמִצְוֹתַי תִּצְפֹּן אִתָּךְ, אִם יֵשׁ לְךָ זְכוּת קַח אֲמָרָי. רַב הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי בִּנְיָמִין בֶּן לֵוִי אָמַר, מָשָׁל לְמֶלֶךְ שֶׁאָמַר לִבְנוֹ צֵא לִפְרַקְמַטְיָא, אָמַר לוֹ אַבָּא מִתְיָרֵא אֲנִי בַּדֶּרֶךְ מֵהַלִּסְטִים וּבַיָּם מִפְּנֵי אַפִּירָטִין, מֶה עָשָׂה אָבִיו נָטַל מַקֵּל וַחֲקָקוֹ וְנָתַן בּוֹ קָמֵיעַ וּנְתָנָהּ לִבְנוֹ וְאָמַר לוֹ יְהִי הַמַּקֵּל הַזֶּה בְּיָדֶךָ וְאִי אַתָּה מִתְיָרֵא מִשּׁוּם בְּרִיָּה, אַף כָּךְ אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לְמשֶׁה, אֱמֹר לְיִשְׂרָאֵל בָּנַי עִסְקוּ בַּתּוֹרָה וְאֵין אַתֶּם מִתְיָרְאִים מִשּׁוּם אֻמָּה, אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לָעֲמֵלִים בָּהּ, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה לְשׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים. אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִלְמַד, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה לְשׂוֹנְאֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, אֶלָּא (דברים כז, כו): אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים אֶת [כל] דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת, לְכָךְ נֶאֱמַר: עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ. רַב הוּנָא אָמַר אִם נִכְשַׁל אָדָם בַּעֲבֵרָה חַיָּב מִיתָה בִּידֵי שָׁמַיִם, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִחְיֶה, אִם הָיָה לָמוּד לִקְרוֹת דַּף אֶחָד קוֹרֵא שְׁנֵי דַפִּים, וְאִם הָיָה לָמוּד לִשְׁנוֹת פֶּרֶק אֶחָד יִשְׁנֶה שְׁנַיִם, וְאִם אֵינוֹ לָמוּד לִקְרוֹת וְלִשְׁנוֹת, מַה יַּעֲשֶׂה וְיִחְיֶה, יֵלֵךְ וְיֵעָשֶׂה פַּרְנָס עַל הַצִּבּוּר וְגַבַּאי שֶׁל צְדָקָה וְהוּא חַי, שֶׁאִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יִלְמַד, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה, אֶלָּא אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים. אִלּוּ נֶאֱמַר עֵץ חַיִּים לָעֲמֵלִים בָּהּ, לֹא הָיְתָה תְּקוּמָה, אֶלָּא עֵץ חַיִּים הִיא לַמַּחֲזִיקִים בָּהּ. (קהלת ז, יב): כִּי בְּצֵל הַחָכְמָה בְּצֵל הַכָּסֶף, אָמַר רַבִּי אַחָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי תַּנְחוּם בֶּן רַבִּי חִיָּא לָמַד אָדָם וְלִמֵּד וְשָׁמַר וְעָשָׂה וְהָיְתָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְמַחוֹת וְלֹא מִחָה, לְהַחֲזִיק וְלֹא הֶחֱזִיק, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל אָרוּר, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא יָקִים. רַבִּי יִרְמְיָה אָמַר בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי חִיָּא לֹא לָמַד אָדָם וְלֹא עָשָׂה וְלֹא שָׁמַר וְלֹא לִמֵּד לַאֲחֵרִים וְלֹא הָיְתָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לְהַחֲזִיק וְהֶחֱזִיק, וְלֹא לְמַחוֹת וּמִחָה, הֲרֵי זֶה בִּכְלַל בָּרוּךְ. | |
|
| 83. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120 |
| 84. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, significance of cultural, social influences Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 58 |
| 85. Palestinian Talmud, Megillah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, significance of cultural, social influences Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 59 |
| 86. Palestinian Talmud, Shabbat, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, christian centers in Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 70 |
| 87. Aelius Aristides, Orations, 1.238, 1.284-1.285, 3.335, 26.14-26.27, 26.30-26.32, 26.40-26.58, 26.66, 26.91 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 71; Stanton (2021), Unity and Disunity in Greek and Christian Thought under the Roman Peace, 86 |
| 88. Chariton, Chaereas And Callirhoe, 1.1.12, 5.1.3-5.1.7, 6.6.3 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •empire, persian Found in books: Pinheiro et al. (2012a), Narrating Desire: Eros, Sex, and Gender in the Ancient Novel, 32 |
89. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 33.3, 64.9, 74.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51; Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 5| 33.3. טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו (תהלים קמה, ט), אָמַר רַבִּי לֵוִי טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל, עַל הַכֹּל, שֶׁהוּא מַעֲשָׂיו. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וְרַחֲמָיו עַל הַכֹּל שֶׁהֵן מִדּוֹתָיו הוּא מְרַחֵם. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל, וּמֵרַחֲמָיו הוּא נוֹתֵן לִבְרִיּוֹתָיו. רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא וְרַבִּי אַבָּא בַּר אָבִין בְּשֵׁם רַב אַחָא לְמָחָר שְׁנַת בַּצֹּרֶת בָּאָה וְהַבְּרִיּוֹת מְרַחֲמִין אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ, וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיהֶן רַחֲמִים. בְּיוֹמֵי דְּרַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא הָיוּ צְרִיכִין יִשְׂרָאֵל לְתַעֲנִית, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ אָמְרִין לֵיהּ רַבִּי גְּזָר תַּעֲנִיתָא, גָּזַר תַּעֲנִיתָא יוֹם קַדְמָאי יוֹם ב' יוֹם ג' וְלָא נְחַת מִטְרָא, עָאל וְדָרַשׁ לְהוֹן אֲמַר לְהוֹן בָּנַי הִתְמַלְּאוּ רַחֲמִים אֵלּוּ עַל אֵלּוּ וְהַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא מִתְמַלֵּא עֲלֵיכֶם רַחֲמִים. עַד שֶׁהֵן מְחַלְּקִין צְדָקָה לַעֲנִיֵּיהֶם רָאוּ אָדָם אֶחָד נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, אָתוֹן לְגַבֵּיהּ וַאֲמַרוּ לֵיהּ, רַבִּי מָה אֲנַן יָתְבִין הָכָא וַעֲבֵרְתָּא הָכָא. אֲמַר לָהֶן מָה רְאִיתֶם, אָמְרוּ לוֹ רָאִינוּ אָדָם פְּלוֹנִי נוֹתֵן מָעוֹת לִגְרוּשָׁתוֹ, שְׁלַח בַּתְרֵיהוֹן וְאַיְיתִינוֹן לְגוֹ צִבּוּרָא. אָמַר לֵיהּ מָה הִיא לָךְ זוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ גְּרוּשָׁתִי הִיא. אָמַר לוֹ מִפְּנֵי מָה נָתַתָּ לָהּ מָעוֹת, אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי רָאִיתִי אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְהִתְמַלֵּאתִי עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים. בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה הִגְבִּיהַּ רַבִּי תַּנְחוּמָא פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי מַעְלָה וְאָמַר רִבּוֹן כָּל הָעוֹלָמִים מָה אִם זֶה שֶׁאֵין לָהּ עָלָיו מְזוֹנוֹת רָאָה אוֹתָהּ בְּצָרָה וְנִתְמַלֵּא עָלֶיהָ רַחֲמִים, אַתָּה שֶׁכָּתוּב בְּךָ (תהלים קמה, ח): חַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, וְאָנוּ בְּנֵי יְדִידֶיךָ בְּנֵי אַבְרָהָם יִצְחָק וְיַעֲקֹב עַל אַחַת כַּמָּה וְכַמָּה שֶׁתִּתְמַלֵּא עָלֵינוּ רַחֲמִים, מִיָּד יָרְדוּ גְּשָׁמִים וְנִתְרַוָּה הָעוֹלָם. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה יָתֵיב לָעֵי בְּאוֹרַיְתָא קַמֵּי כְּנִשְׁתָּא דְּבַבְלָאי בְּצִפּוֹרִין, עֲבַר חַד עֵגֶל קוֹדָמוֹי, אָזֵל לְמִתְנְכָסָה וְשָׁרֵי גָּעֵי כְּמֵימַר שֵׁיזִבְנִי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וּמָה אֲנִי יָכוֹל לְמֶעְבַּד לָךְ לְכָךְ נוֹצַרְתָּ, וְחָשַׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה שֶׁהָיָה חוֹשֵׁשׁ רַבִּי אֶת שִׁנָּיו, לֹא הִפִּילָה עֻבָּרָה בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְלֹא נִצְטַעֲרוּ הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, בָּתַר יוֹמִין עֲבַר חַד שֶׁרֶץ קַמֵּי בְּרַתֵּיהּ וּבְעָא לְמִקְטְלָא, אֲמַר לָהּ בְּרַתִּי שַׁבְקֵיהּ, דִּכְתִיב: וְרַחֲמָיו עַל כָּל מַעֲשָׂיו. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה עִנְוָתָן סַגֵּי, וַהֲוָה אֲמַר כָּל מַה דְּיֹאמַר לִי בַּר נַשׁ אֲנָא עָבֵיד חוּץ מִמַּה שֶּׁעָשׂוּ בְּנֵי בְתֵירָא לִזְקֵנִי, שֶׁיָּרְדוּ מִגְדֻלָּתָן וְהֶעֱלוּ אוֹתוֹ, וְאִין סָלֵיק רַב הוּנָא רֵישׁ גָּלוּתָא לְהָכָא, אֲנָא קָאֵים לִי מִן קֳדָמוֹהִי, לָמָּה דְּהוּא מִן יְהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן בִּנְיָמִין, וְהוּא מִן דִּכְרַיָא דִּיהוּדָה וַאֲנָא מִן נֻקְבְתָא. אֲמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה וַהֲרֵי הוּא עוֹמֵד בַּחוּץ, נִתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו שֶׁל רַבִּי וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאָה שֶׁנִּתְכַּרְכְּמוּ פָּנָיו אָמַר לוֹ אֲרוֹנוֹ הוּא, אֲמַר לֵיהּ פּוֹק חֲזֵי מַאן בָּעֵי לָךְ לְבָרָא, נָפַק וְלָא אַשְׁכַּח בַּר נָשׁ, וְיָדַע דְּהוּא נָזוּף וְאֵין נְזִיפָה פְּחוּתָה מִשְּׁלשִׁים יוֹם. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר רַבִּי אָבִין כָּל אוֹתָן שְׁלשִׁים יוֹם שֶׁהָיָה רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה נָזוּף מֵרַבֵּנוּ, אַלֵּיף לְרַב בַּר אֲחָתֵיהּ כָּל כְּלָלֵי דְאוֹרַיְתָא, וְאִלֵּין אִינוּן כְּלָלַיָיא דְאוֹרַיְתָא הִלְכְתָא דְּבַבְלָאֵי. לְסוֹף תְּלָתִין יוֹמִין אָתָא אֵלִיָּהוּ זָכוּר לַטּוֹב בִּדְמוּתֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה אֵצֶל רַבֵּנוּ וִיְהַב יְדֵיהּ עַל שִׁנֵּיהּ וְאִתְּסֵי, כֵּיוָן דְּאָתָא רַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה לְגַבֵּי רַבֵּנוּ אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה עֲבַדְתְּ בְּשִׁנָּךְ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מִן עוֹנָתָא דִּיהַבְתְּ יְדָךְ עִלּוֹהִי אִתְנְשֵׁימַת, אֲמַר לֵיהּ לֵית אֲנָא הֲוָה יָדַע מָה הוּא. כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן שָׁרֵי נָהֵיג בֵּיהּ יְקָרָא, וְקָרַב תַּלְמִידִים וּמְעַיֵּיל לֵיהּ מִלְּגַאו. אָמַר רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי וְלִפְנִים מִמֶּנִּי, אָמַר לֵיהּ חַס וְשָׁלוֹם לֹא יֵעָשֶׂה כֵן בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל. רַבֵּנוּ הֲוָה מְתַנֵּי שִׁבְחֵיהּ דְּרַבִּי חִיָּא רַבָּה קַמֵּיהּ דְּרַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל בֶּן רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אָמַר לֵיהּ אָדָם גָּדוֹל, אָדָם קָדוֹשׁ. חַד זְמַן חֲמִיתֵיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנֵּיהּ, אֲמַר לֵיהּ הַהוּא תַּלְמִידָךְ דַּהֲוַת מִשְׁתַּבַּח בֵּיהּ חֲמִיתֵּיהּ בֵּי בָנֵי וְלָא אִתְכְּנַע מִנָּאי. אֲמַר לֵיהּ וְלָמָּה לָא אִתְכְּנָעַת מִנֵּיהּ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי חִיָּא מִסְתַּכֵּל הָיִיתִי בְּאַגָּדַת תְּהִלִּים, כֵּיוָן דְּשָׁמַע כֵּן מְסַר לֵיהּ תְּרֵין תַּלְמִידוֹי וַהֲווֹ עָיְילִין עִמֵּיהּ לַאֲשׁוּנָה, דְּלָא יִשְׁהֵי וְתִזְעַר נַפְשֵׁיהּ. דָּבָר אַחֵר, טוֹב ה' לַכֹּל וגו', וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ וגו', אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמֵנִי אוֹי לָהֶם לָרְשָׁעִים שֶׁהֵם הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת רַחֲמִים לְמִדַּת הַדִין, בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר ה', מִדַּת רַחֲמִים, (שמות לד, ו): ה' ה' אֵל רַחוּם וְחַנּוּן, וּכְתִיב (בראשית ו, ה): וַיַּרְא ה' כִּי רַבָּה רָעַת הָאָדָם בָּאָרֶץ, (בראשית ו, ו): וַיִּנָּחֶם ה' כִּי עָשָׂה אֶת הָאָדָם (בראשית ו, ז): וַיֹּאמֶר ה' אֶמְחֶה וגו', אַשְׁרֵיהֶם הַצַּדִּיקִים שֶׁהֵן הוֹפְכִים מִדַּת הַדִּין לְמִדַּת רַחֲמִים. בְּכָל מָקוֹם שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר אֱלֹהִים הוּא מִדַּת הַדִּין (שמות כב, כז): אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל, (שמות כב, ח): עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר שְׁנֵיהֶם, וּכְתִיב (שמות ב, כד): וַיִּשְׁמַע אֱלֹהִים אֶת נַאֲקָתָם וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת בְּרִיתוֹ וגו' (בראשית ל, כב): וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת רָחֵל וגו', וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, מַה זְּכִירָה נִזְכַּר לוֹ שֶׁזָּן וּפִרְנֵס אוֹתָם כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ בַּתֵּבָה, וַיִּזְכֹּר אֱלֹהִים אֶת נֹחַ, וְהַדִּין נוֹתֵן מִזְּכוּת הַטְּהוֹרִים שֶׁהִכְנִיס עִמּוֹ בַּתֵּבָה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר לְשֵׁם קָרְבָּנוֹ נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ח, כא): וַיָּרַח ה' אֶת רֵיחַ הַנִּיחֹחַ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא לְשֵׁם נַחַת הַתֵּבָה נִקְרָא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ח, ד): וַתָּנַח הַתֵּבָה בַּחֹדֶשׁ הַשְּׁבִיעִי וגו'. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר (בראשית ח, כב): לֹא יִשְׁבֹּתוּ, מִכְּלַל שֶׁשָּׁבָתוּ. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן לֹא שִׁמְשׁוּ מַזָּלוֹת כָּל שְׁנֵים עָשָׂר חֹדֶשׁ, אָמַר לֵיהּ רַבִּי יוֹנָתָן שִׁמְשׁוּ אֶלָּא שֶׁלֹא הָיָה רִשּׁוּמָן נִכָּר. 64.9. וַאֲבִימֶלֶךְ הָלַךְ אֵלָיו מִגְּרָר (בראשית כו, כו), מְגֹרָר, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁנִּכְנְסוּ לִסְטִים לְתוֹךְ בֵּיתוֹ וְהָיוּ מְקַרְקְרִים בּוֹ כָּל הַלָּיְלָה. דָּבָר אַחֵר, מִגְּרָר, מְגֹרָר, מְלַמֵּד שֶׁעָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים, כְּמָה דְאַתְּ אָמַר (איוב ב, ח): לְהִתְגָּרֵד בּוֹ. (בראשית כו, כו): וַאֲחֻזַּת מֵרֵעֵהוּ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר אֲחֻזַּת מֵרֵעֵהוּ הָיָה שְׁמוֹ. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר סִיעַת מְרַחֲמוֹהִי. (בראשית כו, כו): וּפִיכֹל שַׂר צְבָאוֹ, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה וְרַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אָמַר פִּיכֹל שְׁמוֹ. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אָמַר פֶּה שֶׁכָּל צִבְאוֹתָיו נוֹשְׁקִים לוֹ עַל פִּיו. 74.2. וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה וגו' (בראשית לא, ד), אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בִּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲנִי אוֹהֵב אֶת בְּנֵי הַמִּזְרָח, שֶׁאֵינָן נוֹשְׁכִין וְאוֹכְלִין אֶלָּא חוֹתְכִין וְאוֹכְלִין, וְאֵין חוֹתְכִין בָּשָׂר אֶלָּא עַל גַּבֵּי הַשֻּׁלְחָן, וְאֵין נוֹשְׁקִין אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין עֵצָה אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם רוֹוֵחַ, כָּעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר: וַיִּשְׁלַח יַעֲקֹב וַיִּקְרָא לְרָחֵל וּלְלֵאָה, בְּמָקוֹם רוֹוֵחַ. מַתְלָא אוֹמֵר בַּחֲקַל דְּאִית בָּהּ אִזְגָּרִין לָא תֵימַר מִלָּה דְמִסְטִירִין. | 33.3. " b God is good to all and His mercies are upon all of His works (Psalms 145:9): /b Rabbi Levi said, \"'God is good to all,' upon all, that He is their maker.\" Rabbi Shmuel said, \"'God is good to all and His mercies' - upon all that are His traits, He has mercy.” Rabbi Yehoshua of Sakhnin said in the name of Rabbi Levi, \"'God is good to all' and His merciful ones He give to His creatures.\" Rabbi Tanchuma and Rabbi Abba bar Avin [said] in the name of Rav Acha, “Tomorrow a famine will arrive and the creatures will have mercy, these upon those, and the Holy One, blessed be He, will be filled with mercy on them.” In the days of Rabbi Tanchuma, Israel required a fast (to bring about rain). They came to [Rabbi Tanchuma and] said to him, “Rabbi, decree a fast.” [So] he decreed a fast on the first day, on the second day, on the third day and rain did not fall. He got up and expounded to them. He said to them, \"My children, have mercy, these upon those, and the Holy One, blessed be He, will be filled with mercy on you.\" While they were still distributing charity to the poor, they saw a man giving money to his ex-wife. They came to [Rabbi Tanchuma] and said to him, \"Rabbi, how are we sitting here [while] there is a sin here.\" He said [back] to them, \"What did you see?\" They said to him, \"We saw Mr. x give money to his ex-wife.\" They sent for them and they brought them in front of the community. [Rabbi Tanchuma] said to him, \"What is she to you?\" He said [back] to him, \"She is my ex-wife.\" He said to him, \"Why did you give her money?\" He said to him, \"Rabbi, I saw her in distress and I was filled with mercy on her.\" At that time, Rabbi Tanchuma lifted his head towards above and said, \"Master over the worlds, just like this one that does not have an obligation to sustain [her] saw her in distress and he was filled with mercy for her, all the more so, You, that it is written about You, 'Compassionate and Merciful' and we are the children of Your friends, Avraham, Yitschak and Yaakov, will You be filled with mercy on us.\" Immediately, rains fell and the world was irrigated. Our rabbi (Yehuda Hanassi) was sitting, involved in Torah in front of the synagogue of the Babylonian [Jews] in Tzippori [when] a calf passed in front of him [and] was going to be slaughtered and started to yell out as if to say, \"Save me.\" He said to it, \"And what can I do for you? That is what you were created for.\" [As a result, Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi] had toothaches for thirteen years. Rabbi Yoss bar Avin said, \"[During] those entire thirteen years that [he] had toothaches, no pregt woman had a miscarriage in the Land of Israel and no birthing mother had pain. After some time, a crawling animal passed in front of his daughter and she wanted to kill it. He said to her, \"My daughter, let it go, as it is written, \"and His mercies are upon all of his works.\" Our rabbi had great modesty and said, \"I will do anything that people tell me except what the sons of Batira did to my forefather - that they came down from their greatness (office) and brought him up; and [even] if Rabbi Huna, the Exilarch, came here, I would get up in front of him. Why? As he is from [the tribe of] Yehuda and I am from Binyamin, and he is from the males of Yehuda and I am from the females.\" Rabbi Chiya the Great said to him, \"And behold, he is [waiting] outside.\" [Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi]'s face changed colors. And when he saw that his face changed colors, [Rabbi Chiya] said to him, \"It is [Rabbi Huna]'s coffin.\" He said [back] to [Rabbi Chiya], \"Go out and see who needs you outside.\" He went out and did not find a person and he knew that he was excommunicated - and there is no excommunication less than thirty days. Rabbi Yossi bar Avin said, \"[During] the entire thirty days that Rabbi Chiya the Great was excommunicated from our rabbi, he taught Rav, the son of his sister, the principles of the Torah.\" And what are the principles of the Torah? They are the laws of the Babylonians. At the end of thirty days, Eliyahu - may he be remembered for good - came in the likeness of Rabbi Chiya the Great to our rabbi and put his hand on his teeth and he became healed. When Rabbi Chiya the Great came to our rabbi, he said to him, \"What did you do to your teeth?\" He said [back] to him, \"From the time that you put your hand on them, they became better. He said, \"I do not know what this is.\" When he heard this, he began to treat him with respect and he brought close the students and brought up [Rabbi Chiya] to the top. Rabbi Yishmael bar Yose said, \"And [should he] come closer than I?\" He said [back] to him, \"God forbid, such should not be done in Israel.\" Our rabbi was teaching the praises of Rabbi Chiya the Great in front of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yose - he said, \"He is a great man, he is a holy man.\" One time, [Rabbi Yishmael bar Yose] saw [Rabbi Chiya] in the bathhouse and [the latter] did not humble himself before him. He said to [Rabbi Yehuda Hanassi], \"Is this your student that you have been praising? I saw him in the bathhouse and he did not humble himself before me.\" He said to him, \"Why did you not humble yourself before him?\" Rabbi Chiya said [back], I was looking at the homilies (aggadot) of Psalms.\" Once [Rabbi Yehudah Hanassi] heard this, he gave him two students to go with him to the dark places, that he not get confounded and lose himself. Another explanation: \"God is good to all, etc.\" \"And God remembered Noach, etc.\" - Rabbi Shmuel bar Nachmani said, \"Woe to the evildoers who switch the [Divine] trait of mercy to the [Divine] trait of [strict] justice. In every place that it states 'the Lord,' it is the trait of mercy: 'The Lord, the Lord, merciful and compassionate God' (Exodus 34:6). And [yet] it is written (Genesis 6:5-6), 'And the Lord saw that the evil of man on the earth was very great[...] And the Lord regretted that He had made man on the earth, and the Lord said, \"I will erase, etc.\"' Happy are the righteous who switch the trait of [Divine] justice to the [divine] trait of mercy. In every place that it states ' i Elohim /i ,' it is the trait of mercy: 'Judges ( i Elohim /i ) you shall not curse' (Exodus 22:27); 'to the judges ( i elohim /i ) the matter of both of them will come' (Exodus 22:8). And [yet] it is written (Exodus 2:24), 'And God heard their cries and God remembered His covet'; '(Genesis 30:22), 'And God remembered Rachel'; 'And God remembered Noach.' And what memory did He remember for him? That he fed and sustained them all of the twelve months in the ark.\" \"And God remembered Noach\" - and justice requires it, from the merit of the pure ones that he brought with him into the ark. Rabbi Eliezer says, \"[Noach] was named corresponding to his sacrifice, as it states, 'And the Lord smelled the pleasant ( i nichoach /i ) fragrance.'\" Rabbi Yose bar Chaninah [says], \"He was named corresponding to the resting of the ark, as it states, 'And the ark rested ( i tanach /i ) on the seventh month, etc.'\" Rabbi Yehoshua says, \"'Will not cease' (Genesis 8:22) implies that they ceased.\"", |
|
| 90. Cassius Dio, Roman History, 37.16.6 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 210 |
91. Agathemerus, Geographiae Informatio, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 214| 1.1. Περὶ τῆς τῶν παλαιῶν Γεωγραφίας. Κεφ. αʹ. Ἀναξίμανδρος ὁ Μιλήσιος, ἀκουστὴς Θάλεω, πρῶτος ἐτόλμησε τὴν οἰκουμένην ἐν πίνακι γράψαι. Μεθ᾿ ὃν Ἑκαταῖος ὁ Μιλήσιος, ἀνὴρ πολυπλανὴς, διη διηκρίβωσεν, ὥστε θαυμασθῆναι τὸ πρᾶγμα. Ἑλλάνικος γὰρ Λέσβιος ἀνὴρ πολυΐστωρ ἀπλάστως παρέδωκε· τὴν ἱστορίαν. Εἶτα Δαμάστης ὁ Κιττιεὺς τὰ ἐκ τῶν Ἑκαταίου μεταγράψας περίπλουν ἔγραψεν. Ἑξῆς Δημόκριτος καὶ Εὔδοξος καὶ ἄλλοι τινὲς τῆς γῆς περιόδους καὶ περίπλους ἐπραγματεύσαντο. 1.1. Caput I. De veterum Geographia. Anaximander Milesius, Thaletis auditor, sustinuit omnium primus situm orbis terrarum in tabula pingere. Post quem He cataeus Milesius, vir multae peregrinationis, idem argumentum tam accurate tractavit, ut in admirationem venerit. Nam Hellanicus Lesbius, vir doctissimus, sine tabula historiam tradidit. Deinde Damastes Sigeeus, qui plurima ex Hecataeo de scripsit, circumnavigationem composuit. Mox Democritus et Eudoxus aliique nonnulli terrae circuitiones ac circumnavigationes composuerunt. | 1.1. Anaximander of Miletus, disciple of Thales, first attempted to draw the earth on a map. After him Hecataeus of Miletus, a widely- traveled man, improved the work marvelously. Hellanicus of Lesbos, a man of much learning, gave his account without a map. Then Damastes of Citium wrote a circumnavigation, drawing mostly on Hecataeus. Next Democritus and Eudoxus and others wrote tours of the earth by land and sea. |
|
| 92. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 305, 343, 43, 48 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 70 |
| 93. Athenaeus, The Learned Banquet, None (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 132 |
94. Anon., Qohelet Rabba, 7.23.1, 7.26 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persians, portrayals of, in the babylonian talmud, as references to the achaemenid, parthian, or sasanian empire •persia, persian empire, christian centers in Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71; Mokhtarian (2021), Rabbis, Sorcerers, Kings, and Priests: The Culture of the Talmud in Ancient Iran. 51| 7.23.1. כָּל זֹה נִסִּיתִי בַחָכְמָה, כְּתִיב (מלכים א ה, ט): וַיִּתֵּן אֱלֹהִים חָכְמָה לִשְׁלֹמֹה, רַבָּנָן וְרַבִּי לֵוִי, רַבָּנָן אָמְרֵי כַּחוֹל, מַהוּ כַּחוֹל, נִתַּן לוֹ חָכְמָה כְּנֶגֶד כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְרַבִּי לֵוִי אָמַר מָה הַחוֹל הַזֶּה גָּדֵר לַיָּם, כָּךְ הָיְתָה חָכְמָה גָּדֵר לִשְׁלֹמֹה, מַתְלָא אָמַר דַּעַת חָסַרְתָּ מַה קָּנִיתָ, דַּעַת קָנִיתָ מֶה חָסַרְתָּ. כְּתִיב (מלכים א ה, ט): וַתֵּרֶב חָכְמַת שְׁלֹמֹה מֵחָכְמַת כָּל בְּנֵי קֶדֶם וּמִכֹּל חָכְמַת מִצְרָיִם, וּמָה הָיְתָה חָכְמָתָן שֶׁל בְּנֵי קֶדֶם, שֶׁהָיוּ יוֹדְעִין בַּמַּזָּל, וְקוֹסְמִין בָּעוֹפוֹת, וּבְקִיאִין בַּטְּיָיר. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בִּשְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים אֲנִי מְשַׁבֵּחַ אֶת בְּנֵי הַמִּזְרָח, שֶׁאֵין נוֹשְׁקִין בַּפֶּה אֶלָּא בַּיָּד, וְאֵין נוֹשְׁכִין בַּפֶּה אֶלָּא חוֹתְכִים בַּסַּכִּין, וְאֵין נוֹטְלִין עֵצָה אֶלָּא בְּמָקוֹם מְרֻוָּח, שֶׁאֵין יוֹעֲצִין אֶלָּא בַּשָֹּׂדֶה. מָה הָיְתָה חָכְמָתָן שֶׁל מִצְרַיִם, אַתְּ מוֹצֵא בְּשָׁעָה שֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה לִבְנוֹת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ שָׁלַח אֵצֶל פַּרְעֹה נְכֹה וְאָמַר שְׁלַח לִי אֻמָּנִים בִּשְׂכָרָן, שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לִבְנוֹת בֵּית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. מֶה עָשָׂה כָּנַס כָּל אִסְטְרוֹלוֹגִין שֶׁלּוֹ, וְצָפוּ וְרָאוּ בְּנֵי אָדָם שֶׁהֵן עֲתִידִין לָמוּת בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה וּשְׁלָחָן לוֹ, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁבָּאוּ אֵצֶל שְׁלֹמֹה צָפָה בְּרוּחַ הַקֹּדֶשׁ שֶׁהֵם עֲתִידִין לָמוּת בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁנָה, וְנָתַן לָהֶם תַּכְרִיכִין וּשְׁלָחָן לוֹ, וְאָמַר לוֹ, אִם לֹא הָיָה לְךָ תַּכְרִיכִין לְצֹרֶךְ מֵתֶיךָ אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי הֵם וְתַכְרִיכֵיהוֹן קוּם קְבֹר אוֹתָם. (מלכים א ה, יא): וַיֶּחְכַּם מִכָּל הָאָדָם, מֵאָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, וּמֶה הָיְתָה חָכְמָתוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, אַתְּ מוֹצֵא כְּשֶׁבִּקֵּשׁ הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לִבְרֹאת אֶת אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן נִמְלַךְ בְּמַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת וְאָמַר לָהֶם, נַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם, אָמְרוּ לְפָנָיו רִבּוֹנוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם (תהלים ח, ה): מָה אֱנוֹשׁ כִּי תִזְכְּרֶנּוּ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אָדָם שֶׁאֲנִי רוֹצֶה לִבְרֹאתוֹ חָכְמָתוֹ מְרֻבָּה מִשֶּׁלָּכֶם, מֶה עָשָׂה כָּנַס כָּל בְּהֵמָה חַיָה וָעוֹף וְהֶעֱמִידָן לִפְנֵיהֶם, וְאָמַר לָהֶם קִרְאוּ לָהֶם שֵׁמוֹת, עָמְדוּ וְלֹא יָדְעוּ. הָלַךְ אֵצֶל אָדָם אָמַר לוֹ מַה שְּׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל אֵלּוּ, אָמַר רִבּוֹן הָעוֹלָמִים לָזֶה נָאֶה לִקְרוֹתוֹ שׁוֹר, וְלָזֶה אֲרִי, וְלָזֶה סוּס, וְלָזֶה גָּמָל, וְלָזֶה נֶשֶׁר, וְכֵן לְכֻלָּן. וְאָמַר לוֹ אַתָּה מַה שִּׁמְךָ, אָמַר לְפָנָיו, אָדָם, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁנִּבְרֵאתִי מִן הָאֲדָמָה. וַאֲנִי מַה שְּׁמִי, אָמַר לְפָנָיו, אֲדֹנָי, מִפְּנֵי מַה שֶּׁאַתָּה אָדוֹן עַל בְּרִיּוֹתֶיךָ, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (ישעיה מב, ח): אֲנִי ה' הוּא שְׁמִי, הוּא שְׁמִי שֶׁקָּרָא לִי אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן, הוּא שְׁמִי שֶׁהִתְנֵיתִי בֵּינִי לְבֵין עַצְמִי, הוּא שְׁמִי שֶׁהִתְנֵיתִי בֵּינִי לְבֵין בְּרִיּוֹתַי וּבֵין מַלְאֲכֵי הַשָּׁרֵת. מֵאֵיתָן הָאֶזְרָחִי, זֶה אַבְרָהָם, דִּכְתִיב (תהלים פט, ל): מַשְׂכִּיל לְאֵיתָן הָאֶזְרָחִי. וְהֵימָן, זֶה משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יב, ז): בְּכָל בֵּיתִי נֶאֱמָן הוּא. וְכַלְכֹּל, זֶה יוֹסֵף, דִּכְתִיב (בראשית מז, יב): וַיְכַלְכֵּל יוֹסֵף, אָמְרוּ מִצְרַיִם כְּלוּם עֶבֶד זֶה מֶלֶךְ עָלֵינוּ אֶלָּא בְּחָכְמָתוֹ, נָטְלוּ שִׁבְעִים פִּיתְקִין וְהָיוּ מַשְׁלִיכִין לְפָנָיו וְהָיָה קוֹרֵא כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד בִּלְשׁוֹנוֹ, וְלֹא עוֹד אֶלָּא שֶׁהָיָה מְדַבֵּר בִּלְשׁוֹן הַקֹּדֶשׁ, שֶׁלֹא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין וּמַכִּירִין בּוֹ וְאֵינָן יְכוֹלִין לִשְׁמֹעַ בּוֹ, וְכֵן הוּא אוֹמֵר (תהלים פא, ו): עֵדוּת בִּיהוֹסֵף שָׂמוֹ. וְדַרְדַּע, זֶה דּוֹר הַמִּדְבָּר, שֶׁכֻּלּוֹ דֵּעָה. בְּנֵי מָחוֹל, אֵלּוּ יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁמָּחַל לָהֶם הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא עַל מַעֲשֵׂה הָעֵגֶל. | |
|
| 95. Philostratus The Athenian, Lives of The Sophists, 1.20.514, 1.21.519-1.21.520, 1.22.522, 1.23.527, 1.24.528-1.24.529, 1.25.538, 1.25.541, 2.5.525, 2.5.575, 2.6.576, 2.8.580, 2.9.584, 2.10.589, 2.12.593, 2.15.595-2.15.596, 2.20.601, 2.27.620 (2nd cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 71 |
96. Pausanias, Description of Greece, 1.33.2, 8.37.3 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 329| 1.33.2. Μαραθῶνος δὲ σταδίους μάλιστα ἑξήκοντα ἀπέχει Ῥαμνοῦς τὴν παρὰ θάλασσαν ἰοῦσιν ἐς Ὠρωπόν. καὶ αἱ μὲν οἰκήσεις ἐπὶ θαλάσσῃ τοῖς ἀνθρώποις εἰσί, μικρὸν δὲ ἀπὸ θαλάσσης ἄνω Νεμέσεώς ἐστιν ἱερόν, ἣ θεῶν μάλιστα ἀνθρώποις ὑβρισταῖς ἐστιν ἀπαραίτητος. δοκεῖ δὲ καὶ τοῖς ἀποβᾶσιν ἐς Μαραθῶνα τῶν βαρβάρων ἀπαντῆσαι μήνιμα ἐκ τῆς θεοῦ ταύτης· καταφρονήσαντες γὰρ μηδέν σφισιν ἐμποδὼν εἶναι τὰς Ἀθήνας ἑλεῖν, λίθον Πάριον ὃν ὡς ἐπʼ ἐξειργασμένοις ἦγον ἐς τροπαίου ποίησιν. 8.37.3. θεῶν δὲ αὐτὰ τὰ ἀγάλματα, Δέσποινα καὶ ἡ Δημήτηρ τε καὶ ὁ θρόνος ἐν ᾧ καθέζονται, καὶ τὸ ὑπόθημα τὸ ὑπὸ τοῖς ποσίν ἐστιν ἑνὸς ὁμοίως λίθου· καὶ οὔτε τῶν ἐπὶ τῇ ἐσθῆτι οὔτε ὁπόσα εἴργασται περὶ τὸν θρόνον οὐδέν ἐστιν ἑτέρου λίθου προσεχὲς σιδήρῳ καὶ κόλλῃ, ἀλλὰ τὰ πάντα ἐστὶν εἷς λίθος. οὗτος οὐκ ἐσεκομίσθη σφίσιν ὁ λίθος, ἀλλὰ κατὰ ὄψιν ὀνείρατος λέγουσιν αὐτὸν ἐξευρεῖν ἐντὸς τοῦ περιβόλου τὴν γῆν ὀρύξαντες. τῶν δὲ ἀγαλμάτων ἐστὶν ἑκατέρου μέγεθος κατὰ τὸ Ἀθήνῃσιν ἄγαλμα μάλιστα τῆς Μητρός· | 1.33.2. About sixty stades from Marathon as you go along the road by the sea to Oropus stands Rhamnus. The dwelling houses are on the coast, but a little way inland is a sanctuary of Nemesis, the most implacable deity to men of violence. It is thought that the wrath of this goddess fell also upon the foreigners who landed at Marathon. For thinking in their pride that nothing stood in the way of their taking Athens , they were bringing a piece of Parian marble to make a trophy, convinced that their task was already finished. 8.37.3. The actual images of the goddesses, Mistress and Demeter, the throne on which they sit, along with the footstool under their feet, are all made out of one piece of stone. No part of the drapery, and no part of the carvings about the throne, is fastened to another stone by iron or cement, but the whole is from one block. This stone was not brought in by them, but they say that in obedience to a dream they dug up the earth within the enclosure and so found it. The size of both images just about corresponds to the image of the Mother at Athens . |
|
| 97. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 76 |
| 98. Polyaenus, Stratagems, 8.40.1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
99. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 82a. והא כי אתא ר' אבין א"ר יוחנן אחד אילן הנוטה לתוך שדה חבירו ואחד אילן הסמוך למצר מביא וקורא שעל מנת כן הנחיל יהושע לישראל את הארץ,אלא מאן תנא עשרה תנאין שהתנה יהושע ר' יהושע בן לוי הוא רב גביהה מבי כתיל מתני לה בהדיא ר' תנחום ור' ברייס אמרי משום זקן אחד ומנו ר' יהושע בן לוי עשרה תנאין התנה יהושע:,עשרה תקנות תיקן עזרא שקורין במנחה בשבת וקורין בשני ובחמישי ודנין בשני ובחמישי ומכבסים בחמישי בשבת ואוכלין שום בערב שבת ושתהא אשה משכמת ואופה ושתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר ושתהא אשה חופפת וטובלת ושיהו רוכלין מחזירין בעיירות ותיקן טבילה לבעלי קריין:,שיהו קוראין במנחה בשבת משום יושבי קרנות:,ושיהו קוראין בשני ובחמישי עזרא תיקן והא מעיקרא הוה מיתקנא דתניא (שמות טו, כב) וילכו שלשת ימים במדבר ולא מצאו מים דורשי רשומות אמרו אין מים אלא תורה שנאמר (ישעיהו נה, א) הוי כל צמא לכו למים,כיון שהלכו שלשת ימים בלא תורה נלאו עמדו נביאים שביניהם ותיקנו להם שיהו קורין בשבת ומפסיקין באחד בשבת וקורין בשני ומפסיקין שלישי ורביעי וקורין בחמישי ומפסיקין ערב שבת כדי שלא ילינו ג' ימים בלא תורה,מעיקרא תקנו חד גברא תלתא פסוקי אי נמי תלתא גברי תלתא פסוקי כנגד כהנים לוים וישראלים אתא הוא תיקן תלתא גברי ועשרה פסוקי כנגד עשרה בטלנין:,ודנין בשני ובחמישי דשכיחי דאתו למקרא בסיפרא:,ושיהו מכבסין בחמישי בשבת משום כבוד שבת:,ושיהו אוכלין שום בע"ש משום עונה דכתיב (תהלים א, ג) אשר פריו יתן בעתו וא"ר יהודה ואיתימא רב נחמן ואיתימא רב כהנא ואיתימא ר' יוחנן זה המשמש מטתו מע"ש לע"ש,ת"ר חמשה דברים נאמרו בשום משביע ומשחין ומצהיל פנים ומרבה הזרע והורג כנים שבבני מעיים וי"א מכניס אהבה ומוציא את הקנאה:,ושתהא אשה משכמת ואופה כדי שתהא פת מצויה לעניים:,ושתהא אשה חוגרת בסינר משום צניעותא:,ושתהא אשה חופפת וטובלת דאורייתא היא,דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) ורחץ את בשרו במים שלא יהא דבר חוצץ בין בשרו למים את בשרו את הטפל לבשרו ומאי ניהו שער,אמרי דאורייתא לעיוני דלמא מיקטר אי נמי מאוס מידי משום חציצה | 82a. The Gemara further questions the number of Joshua’s stipulations: b But when Rabbi Avin came /b from Eretz Yisrael he said that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to b both a tree that leans into the field of another and a tree that is close to a boundary /b with another field, the owner of the tree b brings /b the first fruits of the tree b and recites /b the accompanying declaration, as described in Deuteronomy 26:5–10, b as /b it was b on this condition /b that b Joshua apportioned Eretz /b Yisrael b to the Jewish people. /b This is an additional stipulation by Joshua, which means that there are more than ten.,The Gemara answers: b Rather, who /b is the one who b taught /b the i baraita /i that deals with the b ten conditions that Joshua stipulated? It is Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, /b an i amora /i . Therefore, Rabbi Yoḥa, another i amora /i , can disagree with it. b Rav Geviha from Bei Katil teaches /b this b explicitly /b in his version of the i baraita /i : b Rabbi Tanḥum and Rabbi Berayes say in the name of a certain elder, and who is that /b elder? It is b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: Joshua stipulated ten conditions. /b ,§ The Sages taught that b Ezra /b the Scribe b instituted ten ordices: /b He instituted b that /b communities b read /b the Torah b on Shabbat in the afternoon; and they /b also b read /b the Torah b on /b every b Monday and Thursday; and /b the courts convene and b judge /b every b Monday and Thursday; and one does laundry on Thursday; and one eats garlic on Shabbat eve. And /b Ezra further instituted b that a woman should rise early and bake /b bread on those days when she wants to bake; b and that a woman should don a breechcloth; and that a woman should /b first b comb /b her hair b and /b only then b immerse /b in a ritual bath after being ritually impure; b and that peddlers /b of cosmetics and perfumes b should travel around through /b all b the towns. And /b Ezra further b instituted /b the requirement of b immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission. /b ,The Gemara analyzes these ordices, the first of which is b that /b communities b shall read /b the Torah b on Shabbat afternoon. /b This Gemara explains that this ordice was instituted b due to those who sit /b idly on street b corners, /b who do not attend the synagogue during the week.,The Gemara discusses the second of Ezra’s ordices: b And that they should read /b the Torah b on /b every b Monday and Thursday. /b The Gemara asks: b Did Ezra institute /b this practice? b But it was instituted from the beginning, /b i.e., long before his time. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “And Moses led Israel onward from the Red Sea, and they went out into the wilderness of Shur; b and they went three days in the wilderness, and found no water” /b (Exodus 15:22). b Those who interpret verses /b metaphorically b said /b that b water /b here is referring to b nothing other than Torah, as it is stated /b metaphorically, concerning those who desire wisdom: b “Ho, everyone who thirsts, come for water” /b (Isaiah 55:1).,The i baraita /i continues: The verse means that b since /b the Jews b traveled for three days without /b hearing any b Torah they became weary, /b and therefore the b prophets among them arose and instituted for them that they should read /b from the Torah each b Shabbat, and pause /b on b Sunday, and read /b again on b Monday, and pause /b on b Tuesday and Wednesday, and read /b again on b Thursday, and pause /b on b Shabbat eve, so they would not tarry three days without /b hearing the b Torah. /b Evidently this practice predates Ezra.,The Gemara answers: b Initially they instituted /b that b one man /b read b three verses; /b or b alternatively, /b that b three men /b read b three verses. /b Either way, the number three b corresponds to /b the three types of Jews: b Priests, Levites, and Israelites. /b Ezra later b came /b and b instituted /b that b three men /b always read, b and /b that b ten verses /b altogether be read by them, b corresponding to the ten idlers /b in a city, i.e., the ten men who are paid to spend their time dealing with synagogue and communal matters.,The next ordice of Ezra is: b And /b the courts convene and b judge /b every b Monday and Thursday. /b The Gemara explains that the reason for this ordice is b that /b many people are b found /b in a city on these days, b as they come /b from the countryside b for the reading of the /b holy b book, /b the Torah, which is performed on Mondays and Thursdays, as stated above.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And that one should do laundry on Thursday. /b This was instituted b due to /b the need to have clean garments in b deference to Shabbat. /b ,The Gemara explains the next listed ordice: b And that one should eat garlic Shabbat eve. /b This is b due to /b the fact that garlic enhances sexual potency, and Friday night is an appropriate time for b conjugal relations. As it is written /b concerning the righteous: “And he shall be like a tree planted by streams of water, b who brings forth his fruit in his season” /b (Psalms 1:3); b and Rabbi Yehuda says, and some say /b it was b Rav Naḥman, and some say /b it was b Rav Kahana, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa /b who said: b This /b is referring to b one who engages in sexual intercourse every Shabbat eve. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that b five matters were stated with regard to garlic: It satisfies; it warms /b the body; b it causes /b one’s b countece to shine; it increases /b one’s b sperm, and it kills lice that are in the intestines. And some say /b that it also b instills love /b into those who eat it b and removes jealousy /b from them.,The next ordice is: b And that a woman should rise early and bake /b bread on those days when she bakes. This Gemara explains that this was instituted b so that bread should be available for poor people, /b who go begging for bread in the mornings.,The i baraita /i further teaches: b And that a woman should don a breechcloth [ i sinar /i ]. /b This ordice was instituted b due to /b reasons of b modesty. /b ,The i baraita /i adds: b And that a woman should /b first b comb /b her hair b and /b only then b immerse /b in a ritual bath. This is to ensure that there is no dirt or other substance in the hair that would invalidate the immersion. The Gemara questions this: b This is /b required b by Torah law, /b Ezra did not institute this., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i , concerning a verse that discusses one who must undergo ritual immersion: b “And he shall bathe his flesh [ i et besaro /i ] in water” /b (Leviticus 14:9). This verse teaches b that no substance should interpose between his flesh and the water. /b When the verse states this in the expanded form of b “ i et /i his flesh,” /b using the term “ i et /i ,” this teaches that the water must come into contact even with b that which is subordinate to his flesh. And what is that? /b It is one’s b hair. /b Accordingly, the Torah itself states that there may not be any interposing substance in the hair at the time of immersion. What, then, did Ezra add?,The Sages b say /b in response: b By Torah law /b one is required b to inspect /b his or her hair before immersion, as b perhaps /b some hairs are b knotted /b together, preventing contact with water at that spot, b or /b perhaps there is some b repulsive substance /b in his hair. One must perform this inspection b because /b these would constitute b an interposition. /b |
|
100. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 22b. בקילעא דרב אושעיא אתו ושאלו לרב אסי אמר להו לא שנו אלא לחולה המרגיל אבל לחולה לאונסו פטור מכלום א"ר יוסף אצטמיד חצביה דרב נחמן,מכדי כולהו אמוראי ותנאי בדעזרא קמיפלגי ונחזי עזרא היכי תקן,אמר אביי עזרא תקן לבריא המרגיל מ' סאה ובריא לאונסו ט' קבין ואתו אמוראי ופליגי בחולה מר סבר חולה המרגיל כבריא המרגיל וחולה לאונסו כבריא לאונסו ומר סבר חולה המרגיל כבריא לאונסו וחולה לאונסו פטור מכלום,אמר רבא נהי דתקן עזרא טבילה נתינה מי תקן והאמר מר עזרא תקן טבילה לבעלי קריין אלא אמר רבא עזרא תקן טבילה לבריא המרגיל מ' סאה ואתו רבנן והתקינו לבריא לאונסו ט' קבין ואתו אמוראי וקא מיפלגי בחולה מר סבר חולה המרגיל כבריא המרגיל וחולה לאונסו כבריא לאונסו ומר סבר לבריא המרגיל מ' סאה וחולה המרגיל כבריא לאונסו ט' קבין אבל לחולה לאונסו פטור מכלום,אמר רבא הלכתא בריא המרגיל וחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה ובריא לאונסו תשעה קבין אבל לחולה לאונסו פטור מכלום:,ת"ר בעל קרי שנתנו עליו ט' קבין מים טהור בד"א לעצמו אבל לאחרים ארבעים סאה ר' יהודה אומר מ' סאה מכל מקום,ר' יוחנן וריב"ל ור"א ור' יוסי בר' חנינא חד מהאי זוגא וחד מהאי זוגא ארישא חד אמר הא דאמרת במה דברים אמורים לעצמו אבל לאחרים מ' סאה לא שנו אלא לחולה המרגיל אבל לחולה לאונסו ט' קבין וחד אמר כל לאחרים אפילו חולה לאונסו עד דאיכא מ' סאה,וחד מהאי זוגא וחד מהאי זוגא אסיפא חד אמר הא דאמר רבי יהודה מ' סאה מכל מקום לא שנו אלא בקרקע אבל בכלים לא וחד אמר אפי' בכלים נמי,בשלמא למ"ד אפי' בכלים היינו דקתני ר' יהודה אומר מ' סאה מכל מקום אלא למ"ד בקרקע אין בכלים לא מכל מקום לאתויי מאי,לאתויי מים שאובין,רב פפא ורב הונא בריה דרב יהושע ורבא (ברבי) בר שמואל כריכו ריפתא בהדי הדדי א"ל רב פפא הבו לי לדידי לברוך דנפול עילואי ט' קבין אמר להו רבא (ברבי) [בר] שמואל תנינא במה דברים אמורים לעצמו אבל לאחרים מ' סאה אלא הבו לי לדידי לברוך דנפול עילואי ארבעים סאה אמר להו רב הונא הבו לי לדידי לברוך דליכא עילואי לא האי ולא האי,רב חמא טביל במעלי יומא דפסחא להוציא רבים ידי חובתן ולית הלכתא כוותיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היה עומד בתפלה ונזכר שהוא בעל קרי לא יפסיק אלא יקצר,ירד לטבול אם יכול לעלות ולהתכסות ולקרות עד שלא תהא הנץ החמה יעלה ויתכסה ויקרא ואם לאו יתכסה במים ויקרא ולא יתכסה לא במים הרעים ולא במי המשרה עד שיטיל לתוכן מים וכמה ירחיק מהן ומן הצואה ד' אמות:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר היה עומד בתפלה ונזכר שהוא בעל קרי לא יפסיק אלא יקצר היה קורא בתורה ונזכר שהוא בעל קרי אינו מפסיק ועולה אלא מגמגם וקורא ר"מ אומר אין בעל קרי רשאי לקרות בתורה יותר מג' פסוקים,תניא אידך היה עומד בתפלה וראה צואה כנגדו מהלך לפניו עד שיזרקנה לאחוריו ד' אמות והתניא לצדדין ל"ק הא דאפשר הא דלא אפשר,היה מתפלל ומצא צואה במקומו אמר רבה אע"פ שחטא תפלתו תפלה מתקיף ליה רבא והא (משלי כא, כז) זבח רשעים תועבה אלא אמר רבא הואיל וחטא אע"פ שהתפלל תפלתו תועבה:,ת"ר היה עומד בתפלה ומים שותתין על ברכיו פוסק עד שיכלו המים וחוזר ומתפלל להיכן חוזר רב חסדא ורב המנונא חד אמר חוזר לראש וחד אמר למקום שפסק,לימא בהא קמיפלגי | 22b. b that /b this problem was raised b in Rav Oshaya’s chamber, /b and b they came and asked Rav Asi. He said to them: They only stated /b the obligation to pour water over one who is impure because of a seminal emission b with regard to a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission, b but a sick person who experienced an involuntary /b seminal emission is clearly b exempt from anything /b and requires no immersion whatsoever. b Rav Yosef said: /b In that case, b Rav Naḥman’s jug is rejoined, /b meaning that it is effective with regard to purification.,Up to now, discussion has focused on various problems pertaining to the laws of immersion as they concern one whose impurity is due to seminal emission. The Gemara asks: b Since all /b of the b i amora’im /i and i tanna’im /i disagree with regard to /b the decree of b Ezra, let us examine how Ezra instituted /b this ordice, as this is not an uncommon circumstance and we can see how they conducted themselves., b Abaye said: Ezra /b did not institute a sweeping ordice concerning every case of one who experienced a seminal emission; rather, he b instituted /b only that b a healthy person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is required to immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i , while for a healthy person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, b nine i kav /i /b are sufficient. b And the i amora’im /i came and disagreed with regard to a sick person. One Sage held /b that b a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission, b while a sick person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission. b However, another Sage maintained /b that b a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, and consequently requires only that nine i kav /i be poured over him, b while a sick person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission b is exempt from any /b form of immersion or purification., b Rava said: Although Ezra instituted immersion /b for one who experienced a seminal emission, b did he institute the pouring /b of nine b i kav /i ? Didn’t the Master say /b that we have a tradition that b Ezra /b only b instituted immersion for those who experienced a seminal emission? Rather, Rava said: /b We must explain that the diverse opinions developed after Ezra’s decree. b Ezra /b himself b instituted immersion in forty i se’a /i /b only b for a healthy person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission. b And the Sages came and instituted that a healthy person who experienced an involuntary /b seminal emission should have b nine i kav /i /b poured over him. b And /b then b the i amora’im /i came and disagreed /b with regard to b a sick person; one Sage held /b that b a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission, b while a sick person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, b another Sage maintained /b that only b a healthy person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is required to immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i while a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission is considered b like a healthy person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, requiring only b nine i kav /i . But a sick person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission b is exempt from any /b form of immersion or purification., b Rava stated /b that b the /b halakhic ruling is in accordance with the first opinion: b A healthy person /b who experienced b a normal /b seminal emission b and a sick person /b who experienced b a normal /b seminal emission require b forty i se’a /i , while a healthy person /b who experienced b an involuntary /b seminal emission suffices with b nine i kav /i . But a sick person /b who experienced b an involuntary /b seminal emission b is exempt from /b undergoing b any /b rite of purification., b The Sages taught /b in a i Tosefta /i : b One who experienced a seminal emission and had nine i kav /i of /b drawn b water poured over him is ritually pure. In what /b case b is this statement said? /b In a case involving Torah study b for himself, but /b in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah b to others, /b he must immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i . Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty i se’a /i /b is required for purification b in any case. /b ,With regard to this issue, a dispute arose between b Rabbi Yoḥa and Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. One /b member b of this pair and one /b member b of that pair /b disagreed b with regard to the first clause /b of the i Tosefta /i . b One said: That which you said: In what /b case b is this statement said? /b In a case involving Torah study b for himself, but /b in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah b to others, /b he must immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i , /b was b only taught regarding a sick person who experienced a normal /b seminal emission, b but for a sick person /b who experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, b nine i kav /i /b is sufficient even for teaching others. b And one said /b that b anyone /b who teaches b others, even /b if he was b sick /b and experienced an b involuntary /b seminal emission, is not considered pure b until there are forty i se’a /i . /b , b And one /b member b of this pair and one /b member b of that pair /b disagreed b with regard to the latter clause /b of the i Tosefta /i . b One said: That which Rabbi Yehuda said: Forty i se’a /i in any case, was only taught when /b the water is in b the ground, /b in accordance with the Torah law of ritual bath, b but not /b if it was collected b in vessels. And one said: Even /b forty i se’a /i collected b in vessels /b are sufficient for purification.,The Gemara clarifies this problem: b Granted, according to the one who said /b that forty i se’a /i purifies b even in vessels. That is /b why the i Tosefta /i b taught: Rabbi Yehuda says: Forty i se’a /i in any case. However, /b according to b the one who said /b that Rabbi Yehuda’s opinion is that forty i se’a /i b in the ground, yes, /b it purifies, but b in vessels, no, /b it does not purify, b what /b does the expression b in any case /b come b to include? /b ,The Gemara explains: In any case comes b to include drawn water, /b as Rabbi Yehuda permits immersion in forty i se’a /i of water collected in the ground even if the water was drawn by human hand.,The Gemara relates that b Rav Pappa and Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, and Rava bar Shmuel ate bread together. Rav Pappa said to them: Allow me to recite /b Grace after Meals for the group, as I am ritually pure because b nine i kav /i /b of water b fell upon me; /b in other words, he poured it over himself. b Rava bar Shmuel said to them: We learned, in what /b case b is this statement /b that nine i kav /i purify, b said? /b In a case involving Torah study b for himself. But, /b in order to purify himself that he may teach Torah b to others, /b and by extension to fulfill the obligation of others, he must immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i . Rather, allow me to recite /b Grace after Meals for the group, b as forty i se’a /i /b of water b fell upon me; /b in other words, I immersed myself in a ritual bath. b Rav Huna said to them: Allow me to recite /b Grace after Meals for the group, b as I have /b had b neither this nor that upon me /b because I remained ritually pure.,It is also said that b Rav Ḥama would immerse himself on Passover eve in order to fulfill the obligations of the masses. /b However the Gemara concludes: b The i halakha /i is not in accordance with his /b opinion that distinguishes between the purification for oneself and purification for the sake of others., strong MISHNA: /strong This mishna contains various statements with regard to individuals with different types of ritual impurity as well as the need to distance oneself from filth and impurity. b One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, /b and according to this opinion he is prohibited from praying, should b not interrupt /b his prayer, b rather he should abridge /b each individual blessing.,They stated a general principle: b One who descended to immerse himself, if he is able to ascend, cover himself /b with a garment, b and recite /b the morning i Shema /i b before sunrise, he should ascend, cover himself, and recite /b i Shema /i , b and if not, /b he should b cover himself in the water and recite /b i Shema /i there. b He may not, however, cover himself in either foul water, or water /b in which flax was b soaked, until he pours /b other b water into it. And /b in general, b how far must one distance /b himself b from /b urine b and feces /b in order to recite i Shema /i ? At least b four cubits. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong A i baraita /i further elaborates on the first i halakha /i in the mishna. b The Sages taught: One who was standing in prayer and he recalled that he /b had b experienced a seminal emission, /b should b not interrupt /b his prayer. b Rather, he should abridge. One who was reading the Torah and recalled that he experienced a seminal emission, does not interrupt /b his reading, b but rather reads quickly /b with less than perfect diction. b Rabbi Meir /b disagrees and b says: One who experienced a seminal emission is not permitted to read more than three verses in the Torah, /b as one may read no fewer than three verses in the Torah. After he completes three verses, he must stop and let someone else continue., b It was taught in another /b i baraita /i : b One who was standing in prayer and he saw feces before him must walk forward until he has placed it four cubits behind him. /b The Gemara challenges this: b Wasn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i that it is sufficient if he distances himself four cubits b to the side? /b The Gemara resolves this contradiction: b This is not difficult, /b as b that /b i baraita /i which taught that it must be four cubits behind him, is referring to a case b where it is possible /b for him to advance that distance, b while that /b i baraita /i which taught that he may distance himself four cubits to the side, is referring to a case b where it is not possible /b to advance four cubits, in which case he must at least step to the side.,The Gemara cites another i halakha /i : b One who was praying and /b later b found feces in the place /b where he prayed, b Rabba said: Although he committed a transgression /b in his failure to examine that venue to determine if it was worthy of prayer ( i Tosafot /i ), b his prayer is a /b valid b prayer /b and he fulfilled his obligation. b Rava strongly objects to his /b statement: b Isn’t /b it stated: b “The sacrifice of the wicked is an abomination, /b the more so as he offers it in depravity” (Proverbs 21:27), from which we derive that a mitzva performed inappropriately is no mitzva at all? Consequently, the fact that he did not pay proper attention invalidates his prayer. b Rather, Rava said: Because /b this person b committed a transgression, although he prayed, his prayer is an abomination /b and he must pray again., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who was standing in prayer when, /b for some reason, b urine is flowing on his knees, he must interrupt /b his prayer b until the urine ceases, and then resume praying. /b The Gemara, asks: b To where /b in the prayer b does he return /b when he resumes his prayer? b Rav Ḥisda and Rav Hamnuna /b disagreed; b one said: He must return to the beginning /b of the prayer, b and the other said: /b He must return b to /b the point b where he stopped. /b ,The Gemara notes: b Let us say /b that b they disagree about this: /b |
|
101. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 35| 20b. נזדמן לו אדם אחד שהיה מכוער ביותר אמר לו שלום עליך רבי ולא החזיר לו אמר לו ריקה כמה מכוער אותו האיש שמא כל בני עירך מכוערין כמותך אמר לו איני יודע אלא לך ואמור לאומן שעשאני כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית כיון שידע בעצמו שחטא ירד מן החמור ונשתטח לפניו ואמר לו נעניתי לך מחול לי אמר לו איני מוחל לך עד שתלך לאומן שעשאני ואמור לו כמה מכוער כלי זה שעשית,היה מטייל אחריו עד שהגיע לעירו יצאו בני עירו לקראתו והיו אומרים לו שלום עליך רבי רבי מורי מורי אמר להם למי אתם קורין רבי רבי אמרו לו לזה שמטייל אחריך אמר להם אם זה רבי אל ירבו כמותו בישראל אמרו לו מפני מה אמר להם כך וכך עשה לי אמרו לו אעפ"כ מחול לו שאדם גדול בתורה הוא,אמר להם בשבילכם הריני מוחל לו ובלבד שלא יהא רגיל לעשות כן מיד נכנס רבי אלעזר בן רבי שמעון ודרש לעולם יהא אדם רך כקנה ואל יהא קשה כארז ולפיכך זכה קנה ליטול הימנה קולמוס לכתוב בו ספר תורה תפילין ומזוזות:,וכן עיר שיש בה דבר או מפולת כו': תנו רבנן מפולת שאמרו בריאות ולא רעועות שאינן ראויות ליפול ולא הראויות ליפול,הי ניהו בריאות הי ניהו שאינן ראויות ליפול הי ניהו רעועות הי ניהו ראויות ליפול לא צריכא דנפלו מחמת גובהייהו אי נמי דקיימן אגודא דנהרא,כי ההיא אשיתא רעועה דהואי בנהרדעא דלא הוה חליף רב ושמואל תותה אע"ג דקיימא באתרה תליסר שנין יומא חד איקלע רב אדא בר אהבה להתם אמר ליה שמואל לרב ניתי מר נקיף אמר ליה לא צריכנא האידנא דאיכא רב אדא בר אהבה בהדן דנפיש זכותיה ולא מסתפינא,רב הונא הוה ליה ההוא חמרא בההוא ביתא רעיעא ובעי לפנוייה עייליה לרב אדא בר אהבה להתם משכי' בשמעתא עד דפנייה בתר דנפק נפל ביתא ארגיש רב אדא בר אהבה איקפד,סבר לה כי הא דאמר רבי ינאי לעולם אל יעמוד אדם במקום סכנה ויאמר עושין לי נס שמא אין עושין לו נס ואם תימצי לומר עושין לו נס מנכין לו מזכיותיו אמר רב חנן מאי קרא דכתיב (בראשית לב, יא) קטנתי מכל החסדים ומכל האמת,מאי הוה עובדיה דרב אדא בר אהבה כי הא דאתמר שאלו תלמידיו (את רבי זירא ואמרי לה) לרב אדא בר אהבה במה הארכת ימים אמר להם מימי לא הקפדתי בתוך ביתי ולא צעדתי בפני מי שגדול ממני,ולא הרהרתי במבואות המטונפות ולא הלכתי ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא ששתי בתקלת חברי ולא קראתי לחבירי בהכינתו ואמרי לה בחניכתו,אמר ליה רבא לרפרם בר פפא לימא לן מר מהני מילי מעלייתא דהוה עביד רב הונא אמר ליה בינקותיה לא דכירנא בסיבותיה דכירנא דכל יומא דעיבא הוו מפקין ליה בגוהרקא דדהבא וסייר לה לכולה מתא וכל אשיתא דהוות רעיעתא הוה סתר לה אי אפשר למרה בני לה ואי לא אפשר בני לה איהו מדידיה,וכל פניא דמעלי שבתא הוה משדר שלוחא לשוקא וכל ירקא דהוה פייש להו לגינאי זבין ליה ושדי ליה לנהרא וליתביה לעניים זמנין דסמכא דעתייהו ולא אתו למיזבן ולשדייה לבהמה קסבר מאכל אדם אין מאכילין לבהמה,ולא ליזבניה כלל נמצאת מכשילן לעתיד לבא,כי הוה ליה מילתא דאסותא הוי מלי כוזא דמיא ותלי ליה בסיפא דביתא ואמר כל דבעי ליתי ולישקול ואיכא דאמרי מילתא דשיבתא הוה גמיר והוה מנח כוזא דמיא ודלי ליה ואמר כל דצריך ליתי וליעול דלא לסתכן,כי הוה כרך ריפתא הוה פתח לבביה ואמר כל מאן דצריך ליתי וליכול אמר רבא כולהו מצינא מקיימנא לבר מהא דלא מצינא למיעבד | 20b. b He happened /b upon b an exceedingly ugly person, /b who b said to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, but /b Rabbi Elazar b did not return /b his greeting. Instead, Rabbi Elazar b said to him: Worthless [ i reika /i ] /b person, b how ugly is that man. Are all the people of your city as ugly as you? /b The man b said to him: I do not know, but you /b should b go and say to the Craftsman Who made me: How ugly is the vessel you made. When /b Rabbi Elazar b realized that he /b had b sinned /b and insulted this man merely on account of his appearance, b he descended from his donkey and prostrated himself before him, and he said to /b the man: b I have sinned against you; forgive me. /b The man b said to him: I will not forgive you go until you go to the Craftsman Who made me and say: How ugly is the vessel you made. /b , b He walked behind /b the man, trying to appease him, b until they reached /b Rabbi Elazar’s b city. The people of his city came out to greet him, saying to him: Greetings to you, my rabbi, my rabbi, my master, my master. /b The man b said to them: Who are you calling my rabbi, my rabbi? They said to him: To this man, who is walking behind you. He said to them: If this /b man b is a rabbi, may there not be many like him among the Jewish people. They asked him: For what /b reason do you say this? He b said to them: He did such and such to me. They said to him: Even so, /b forgive him, b as he is a great Torah scholar. /b , b He said to them: For your sakes I forgive him, provided that /b he accepts upon himself b not to become accustomed to behave like this. Immediately, Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, entered the study hall and taught: A person should always be soft like a reed and he should not be stiff like a cedar, /b as one who is proud like a cedar is likely to sin. b And therefore, /b due to its gentle qualities, the b reed merited /b that b a quill is taken from it to write with it a Torah scroll, phylacteries, and i mezuzot /i . /b ,§ The mishna taught: b And likewise, /b if a b city is /b afflicted b by pestilence or collapsing buildings, /b that city fasts and sounds the alarm, and all of its surrounding areas fast but they do not sound the alarm. Rabbi Akiva says: They sound the alarm but they do not fast. b The Sages taught: /b These collapsing buildings b to which /b the Sages b referred /b are those of b sturdy and not dilapidated /b walls; they have walls b that are not ready to fall, and not those that are ready to fall. /b ,The Gemara expresses puzzlement with regard to the wording of the i baraita /i : b What are sound /b walls; b what are /b walls b that are not ready to fall; what are dilapidated /b walls; b what are those that are ready to fall? /b The elements in each pair of walls are apparently the same, and the i baraita /i is repetitive. The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is b necessary /b to specify that in the case of walls b that fell due to their height, /b i.e., they are sound but also ready to fall, due to their excessive height. b Alternatively, /b the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the walls b were positioned on a riverbank, /b as they are likely to fall despite the fact that they are not dilapidated, as the riverbank itself is unstable.,The Gemara relates: This is b like that /b dilapidated wall b that was in Neharde’a, under which Rav and Shmuel would not pass, although it stood in place thirteen years. One day Rav Adda bar Ahava happened /b to come b there /b and walked with them. As they passed the wall, b Shmuel said to Rav: Come, Master, let us circumvent /b this wall, so that we do not stand beneath it. Rav b said to him: /b It is b not necessary /b to do so b today, as Rav Adda bar Ahava is with us, whose merit is great, and /b therefore b I am not afraid /b of its collapse.,The Gemara relates another incident. b Rav Huna had a certain /b quantity of b wine in a certain dilapidated house and he wanted to move it, /b but he was afraid that the building would collapse upon his entry. b He brought Rav Adda bar Ahava to there, /b to the ramshackle house, and b he dragged /b out a discussion with b him /b concerning a matter of b i halakha /i until they had removed /b all the wine. b As soon as they exited, the building collapsed. Rav Adda bar Ahava realized /b what had happened b and became angry. /b ,The Gemara explains: Rav Adda bar Ahava b holds in accordance with this /b statement, b as Rabbi Yannai said: A person should never stand in a place of danger and say: A miracle will be performed for me, /b and I will escape unharmed, b lest a miracle is not performed for him. And if you say /b that b a miracle /b will be b performed for him, they will deduct it from his merits. Rav Ḥa said: What is the verse /b that alludes to this idea? b As it is written: “I have become small from all the mercies and all the truth /b that You have showed Your servant” (Genesis 32:11). In other words, the more benevolence one receives from God, the more his merit is reduced.,After recounting stories that reflect Rav Adda bar Ahava’s great merit, the Gemara asks: b What were /b the exceptional deeds b of Rav Adda bar Ahava? /b The Gemara reports that they are b as it is stated: /b The students of Rabbi Zeira asked him, and some say that b the students of Rav Adda bar Ahava asked him: To what /b do you attribute b your longevity? He said to them: In all my days I did not become angry with my household, and I never walked before someone greater than myself; /b rather, I always gave him the honor of walking before me.,Rav Adda bar Ahava continued: b And I did not think /b about matters of Torah b in filthy alleyways; and I did not walk four cubits without /b engaging in b Torah and without /b donning b phylacteries; and I /b would b not fall asleep in the study hall, neither a deep sleep nor a brief nap; and I /b would b not rejoice in the mishap of my colleague; and I /b would b not call my colleague by his nickname. And some say /b that he said: I would b not call my colleague by his /b derogatory b family name. /b ,§ The Gemara relates another story about the righteous deeds of the Sages involving a dilapidated wall. b Rava said to Rafram bar Pappa: Let the Master tell us some of those fine /b deeds b that Rav Huna performed. He said to him: I do not remember /b what he did b in his youth, but /b the deeds b of his old age I remember. As on every cloudy day they would take him out in a golden carriage [ i guharka /i ], and he would survey the entire city. And /b he would command b that every unstable wall /b be b torn down, /b lest it fall in the rain and hurt someone. b If its owner was able /b to build another, Rav Huna would instruct him b to rebuild it. And if he was unable /b to rebuild it, Rav Huna would b build it himself with his own money. /b ,Rafram bar Pappa further relates: b And every Shabbat eve, /b in the b afternoon, /b Rav Huna b would send a messenger to the marketplace, and he would purchase all the vegetables that were left with the gardeners /b who sold their crops, b and throw /b them b into the river. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b why did he throw out the vegetables? b Let him give them to the poor. /b The Gemara answers: If he did this, the poor would b sometimes rely /b on the fact that Rav Huna would hand out vegetables, b and they would not come to purchase /b any. This would ruin the gardeners’ livelihood. The Gemara further asks: b And let him throw them to the animals. /b The Gemara answers: b He holds /b that b human food /b may b not be fed to animals, /b as this is a display of contempt for the food.,The Gemara objects: b But /b if Rav Huna could not use them in any way, he should b not purchase /b the vegetables b at all. /b The Gemara answers: If nothing is done, b you /b would have been b found /b to have caused b a stumbling block for them in the future. /b If the vegetable sellers see that some of their produce is left unsold, the next week they will not bring enough for Shabbat. Therefore, Rav Huna made sure that the vegetables were all bought, so that the sellers would continue to bring them.,Another custom of Rav Huna was b that when he had /b a new b medicine, he would fill /b a water b jug /b with the medicine b and hang it from the doorpost of his house, saying: All who need, let him come and take /b from this new medicine. b And there are /b those b who say: He had a remedy /b against the demon b Shivta /b that he knew by b tradition, /b that one must wash his hands for protection against this evil spirit. b And /b to this end, b he would place a water jug and hang /b it by the door, b saying: Anyone who needs, let him come /b to the house and wash his hands, so b that he will not be in danger. /b ,The Gemara further relates: b When /b Rav Huna b would eat bread, he would open the doors /b to his house, b saying: Whoever needs, let him come in and eat. Rava said: I can fulfill all these /b customs of Rav Huna, b except for this one, which I cannot do, /b |
|
102. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 69b. אין ישיבה בעזרה אלא למלכי בית דוד בלבד שנאמר (דברי הימים א יז, טז) ויבא המלך דוד וישב לפני ה' כדאמר רב חסדא בעזרת נשים הכא נמי בעזרת נשים,והיכא איתמר דרב חסדא אהא מיתיבי דתניא היכן קורין בו בעזרה ראב"י אומר בהר הבית שנאמר (נחמיה ח, ג) ויקרא בו לפני הרחוב אשר לפני שער המים ואמר רב חסדא בעזרת נשים,(נחמיה ח, ו) ויברך עזרא את ה' האלהים הגדול מאי גדול אמר רב יוסף אמר רב שגדלו בשם המפורש רב גידל אמר (דברי הימים א טז, לו) ברוך ה' אלהי ישראל מן העולם ועד העולם,אמר ליה אביי לרב דימי ודילמא שגידלו בשם המפורש א"ל אין אומרים שם המפורש בגבולים,ולא והכתיב (נחמיה ח, ד) ויעמוד עזרא הסופר על מגדל עץ אשר עשו לדבר ואמר רב גידל שגדלו בשם המפורש הוראת שעה היתה,(נחמיה ט, ד) ויצעקו אל ה' אלהים בקול גדול מאי אמור אמר רב ואיתימא ר' יוחנן בייא בייא היינו האי דאחרביה למקדשא וקליה להיכליה וקטלינהו לכולהו צדיקי ואגלינהו לישראל מארעהון ועדיין מרקד בינן כלום יהבתיה לן אלא לקבולי ביה אגרא לא איהו בעינן ולא אגריה בעינן,נפל להו פיתקא מרקיעא דהוה כתב בה אמת,אמר רב חנינא שמע מינה חותמו של הקב"ה אמת,אותיבו בתעניתא תלתא יומין ותלתא לילואתא מסרוהו ניהליהו נפק אתא כי גוריא דנורא מבית קדשי הקדשים אמר להו נביא לישראל היינו יצרא דעבודת כוכבים שנאמר (זכריה ה, ח) ויאמר זאת הרשעה,בהדי דתפסוה ליה אשתמיט ביניתא ממזייא ורמא קלא ואזל קליה ארבע מאה פרסי אמרו היכי נעביד דילמא חס ושלום מרחמי עליה מן שמיא אמר להו נביא שדיוהו בדודא דאברא וחפיוהו לפומיה באברא דאברא משאב שאיב קלא שנאמר (זכריה ה, ח) ויאמר זאת הרשעה וישלך אותה אל תוך האיפה וישלך את אבן העופרת אל פיה,אמרו הואיל ועת רצון הוא נבעי רחמי איצרא דעבירה בעו רחמי ואמסר בידייהו,אמר להו חזו דאי קטליתו ליה לההוא כליא עלמא חבשוהו תלתא יומי ובעו ביעתא בת יומא בכל ארץ ישראל ולא אשתכח אמרי היכי נעביד נקטליה כליא עלמא ניבעי רחמי אפלגא פלגא ברקיעא לא יהבי כחלינהו לעיניה ושבקוהו ואהני דלא מיגרי ביה לאיניש בקריבתה,במערבא מתנו הכי רב גידל אמר גדול שגדלו בשם המפורש ורב מתנא אמר (נחמיה ט, לב) האל הגדול הגבור והנורא,והא דרב מתנא מטייא לדרבי יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי למה נקרא שמן אנשי כנסת הגדולה שהחזירו עטרה ליושנה אתא משה אמר (דברים י, יז) האל הגדול הגבור והנורא אתא ירמיה ואמר נכרים מקרקרין בהיכלו איה נוראותיו לא אמר נורא אתא דניאל אמר נכרים משתעבדים בבניו איה גבורותיו לא אמר גבור,אתו אינהו ואמרו אדרבה זו היא גבורת גבורתו שכובש את יצרו שנותן ארך אפים לרשעים ואלו הן נוראותיו שאלמלא מוראו של הקב"ה היאך אומה אחת יכולה להתקיים בין האומות,ורבנן היכי עבדי הכי ועקרי תקנתא דתקין משה אמר רבי אלעזר מתוך שיודעין בהקב"ה שאמתי הוא לפיכך לא כיזבו בו,וקורא אחרי מות ואך בעשור ורמינהי מדלגין בנביא ואין מדלגין בתורה,לא קשיא כאן בכדי שיפסיק התורגמן כאן בכדי שלא יפסיק התורגמן,והא עלה קתני מדלגין בנביא ואין מדלגין בתורה ועד כמה מדלג בכדי שלא יפסיק התורגמן הא בתורה כלל כלל לא,אמר אביי לא קשיא כאן בענין אחד כאן בשני ענינין,והתניא מדלגין בתורה בענין אחד ובנביא בשני ענינין כאן וכאן בכדי שלא יפסיק התורגמן ואין מדלגין מנביא לנביא ובנביא של שנים עשר מדלגין | 69b. b Sitting in the /b Temple b courtyard is /b permitted b only for kings of the House of David, as it is stated: “Then King David went in and sat before the Lord” /b (I Chronicles 17:16)? How, then, could the High Priest have been sitting? The Gemara explains: b As Rav Ḥisda said /b in a similar context: This took place not in the Israelite courtyard, where the prohibition against sitting applies, but b in the women’s courtyard. Here, too, /b the reading was b in the women’s courtyard, /b where it is permitted to sit.,§ The Gemara clarifies: b And where was /b this statement b of Rav Ḥisda /b originally b stated? /b It was stated b in relation to the following: /b The Sages b raised an objection /b based on that b which was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Where did they read /b the Torah scroll in fulfillment of the mitzva of assembly, in which the Torah is publicly read on the i Sukkot /i following the Sabbatical Year? It was read b in the /b Temple b courtyard. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b It is read b on the Temple Mount, as it is stated /b concerning the public reading performed by Ezra: b “And he read from it before the wide road that was before the Gate of the Water” /b (Nehemiah 8:3). b And Rav Ḥisda said: /b The courtyard referred to by the first i tanna /i is b the women’s courtyard. /b ,Apropos the verse in Nehemiah, the Gemara interprets an adjacent verse homiletically. It is stated: b “And Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God” /b (Nehemiah 8:6). The Gemara asks: b What is /b the meaning of b “great” /b here? b Rav Yosef said /b that b Rav said: /b It means b that he ascribed greatness to Him by /b enunciating God’s b explicit name. Rav Giddel said: /b He established that one should say at the conclusion of every blessing: b “Blessed be the Lord, God of Israel, from eternity to eternity” /b (I Chronicles 16:36)., b Abaye said to Rav Dimi: /b Why does Rav Giddel interpret it this way? b Perhaps /b the meaning of “great” is b that he ascribed greatness to Him by /b enunciating God’s b explicit name? /b Rav Dimi b said to him: The explicit name may not be enunciated in the provinces, /b i.e., outside the Temple courtyard.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is this really b not /b permitted? b Isn’t it written: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose... /b and Ezra blessed the Lord, the great God” (Nehemiah 8:4-6); b and Rav Giddel said: /b “Great” in this verse means b that he ascribed greatness to Him by /b enunciating God’s b explicit name. /b Since this event took place outside the Temple (see Nehemiah 8:3), it suggests that God’s explicit name may indeed be enunciated outside the Temple. The Gemara answers: That cannot be proven from here because the permission to use God’s explicit name in that context b was a provisional edict /b issued in exigent circumstances, since the people had uniquely come together in a prayerful commitment to God.,The Gemara recounts the event described in the verses: The verse states: b And they cried with a loud voice to the Lord /b their b God /b (Nehemiah 9:4). b What was said? Rav said, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa /b who said: b Woe, woe. It is this, /b i.e., the evil inclination for idol worship, b that destroyed the Temple, and burned its Sanctuary, and murdered all the righteous ones, and caused the Jewish people to be exiled from their land. And it still dances among us, /b i.e., it still affects us. b Didn’t You give it to us solely for the purpose of /b our b receiving reward /b for overcoming it? b We do not want it, and we do not want its reward. /b We are prepared to forgo the potential rewards for overcoming the evil inclination as long as it departs from us.,In response to their prayer b a note fell to them from the heavens upon which was written: Truth, /b indicating that God accepted their request.,The Gemara makes a parenthetical observation. b Rav Ḥanina said: Learn from this /b that b the seal of the Holy One, Blessed be He, is truth. /b ,In response to the indication of divine acceptance, b they observed a fast for three days and three nights, and He delivered /b the evil inclination b to them. A form of a fiery lion cub came forth from the chamber of the Holy of Holies. /b Zechariah b the prophet said to the Jewish people: This is the /b evil b inclination for idol worship, as it is stated /b in the verse that refers to this event: b “And he said: This is the evil one” /b (Zechariah 5:8). The use of the word “this” indicates that the evil inclination was perceived in a physical form., b When they caught hold of it one of its hairs fell, and it let out a shriek /b of pain b that was heard for four hundred parasangs. They said: What /b should b we do /b to kill it? b Perhaps, Heaven forfend, they will have mercy upon him from Heaven, /b since it cries out so much. b The prophet said to them: Throw it into a container /b made b of lead and seal the opening with lead, since lead absorbs sound. As it is stated: “And he said: This is the evil one. And he cast it down into the midst of the measure, and he cast a stone of lead upon its opening” /b (Zechariah 5:8). They followed this advice and were freed of the evil inclination for idol worship.,When they saw that the evil inclination for idol worship was delivered into their hands as they requested, the Sages b said: Since it is an auspicious time, let us pray also concerning the /b evil b inclination for sin /b in the area of sexual relationships. b They prayed, and it was /b also b delivered into their hands. /b ,Zechariah the prophet b said to them: See /b and understand b that if you kill /b this evil inclination b the world will be destroyed /b because as a result there will also no longer be any desire to procreate. They followed his warning, and instead of killing the evil inclination b they imprisoned it for three days. /b At that time, people b searched for a fresh egg throughout all of Eretz Yisrael and could not find /b one. Since the inclination to reproduce was quashed, the chickens stopped laying eggs. b They said: What /b should b we do? /b If b we kill it, the world will be destroyed. /b If b we pray for half, /b i.e., that only half its power be annulled, nothing will be achieved because b Heaven does not grant half /b gifts, only whole gifts. What did they do? b They gouged /b out b its eyes, /b effectively limiting its power, b and set it free. And /b this b was effective /b to the extent b that a person is no /b longer b aroused to /b commit incest with b his /b close b relatives. /b ,The Gemara returns to its discussion of the verse in Nehemiah cited above: b In the West, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, b they taught /b the debate concerning the verse “the Lord, the great God” b as follows: Rav Giddel said: “Great” /b means b that he ascribed greatness to Him by /b enunciating God’s b explicit name. And Rav Mattana said: /b They reinserted the following appellations of God into their prayers: b “The great, the mighty, and the awesome God” /b (Nehemiah 9:32).,The Gemara comments: b This /b interpretation that b Rav Mattana /b said b leans to, /b i.e., is consot with, the exposition b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi. As Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: Why are /b the Sages of those generations b called the members of the Great Assembly? /b It is b because they returned the crown /b of the Holy One, Blessed be He, b to its former /b glory. How so? b Moses came /b and b said /b in his prayer: b “The great, the mighty, and the awesomeGod” /b (Deuteronomy 10:17). b Jeremiah /b the prophet b came and said: Gentiles, /b i.e., the minions of Nebuchadnezzar, b are carousing in His sanctuary; where is His awesomeness? /b Therefore, b he did not say awesome /b in his prayer: “The great God, the mighty Lord of Hosts, is His name” (Jeremiah 32:18). b Daniel came /b and b said: Gentiles are enslaving His children; where is His might? /b Therefore b he did not say mighty /b in his prayer: “The great and awesome God” (Daniel 9:4).,The members of the Great Assembly b came and said: On the contrary, this is the might of His might, /b i.e., this is the fullest expression of it, b that He conquers His inclination /b in b that He exercises patience toward the wicked. /b God’s anger is flared by the gentile nations’ enslavement of His people, yet He expresses tremendous might by suppressing His anger and holding back from punishing them immediately. Therefore, it is still appropriate to refer to God as mighty. b And these /b acts also express b His awesomeness: Were it not for the awesomeness of the Holy One, Blessed be He, how could one people, /b i.e., the Jewish people, who are alone and hated by the gentile nations, b survive among the nations? /b ,The Gemara asks: b And the Rabbis, /b i.e., Jeremiah and Daniel, b how could they do this and uproot an ordice instituted by Moses, /b the greatest teacher, who instituted the mention of these attributes in prayer? b Rabbi Elazar said: /b They did so b because they knew of the Holy One Blessed be He, that He is truthful /b and hates a lie. b Consequently, they did not speak falsely about Him. /b Since they did not perceive His attributes of might and awesomeness, they did not refer to them; therefore, they cannot be criticized for doing so.,§ It was taught in the mishna: b And he reads /b from the scroll the Torah portion beginning with the verse: b “After the death” /b (Leviticus 16:1), b and /b the portion beginning with the verse: b “But on the tenth” /b (Leviticus 23:26). Although both of these portions appear in the book of Leviticus, they are not adjacent to one another. Perforce, the High Priest skipped the sections in between the two portions. The Gemara b raises a contradiction: /b It is taught in a mishna in tractate i Megilla /i : b One /b may b skip /b sections when reading the i haftara /i b in the Prophets, but one /b may b not skip /b sections when reading b in the Torah. /b ,The Gemara answers: b This is not difficult: There, /b in the mishna in tractate i Megilla /i that teaches that one may not skip, the intention is that one should not skip if the sections are so far apart from one another that the delay caused by doing so will be b of such length that the translator /b who recites the Aramaic translation b will conclude /b his translation before the next section is reached. In that case, the community would have to remain in silence while waiting for the next section to be reached, which is considered disrespectful of the community’s honor. b Here, /b in the case of the mishna, where it is permitted to skip, the delay caused is b of such /b short b length that the translator will /b still b not conclude /b his translation before the new section is reached.,The Gemara challenges this resolution: b But it was taught concerning this /b statement in the continuation of that mishna: b One /b may b skip /b sections when reading b in the Prophets, and one /b may b not skip /b sections when reading b in the Torah. And how much /b may b one skip? /b One may skip b when the /b section skipped is b of /b such short b length that /b when the furling of the scroll is completed b the translator will /b still b not have concluded /b his translation. The i baraita /i implies that the qualification for the length of the section that may be skipped applies only to reading the Prophets, b but /b when reading b the Torah, /b one may b not /b skip b at all. /b The Gemara’s resolution is therefore refuted.,The Gemara offers a different resolution. b Abaye said: This is not difficult. Here, /b in the case of the mishna here, where it is permitted to skip, it is referring to when both sections b pertain to a single topic, /b and therefore the listeners will be unaware that sections were skipped. b There, /b in the mishna in tractate i Megilla /i , which teaches that one may not skip, it is referring to when the two sections b pertain to two /b different b topics. /b , b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One /b may b skip /b sections when reading b in the Torah /b when both sections read b pertain to one topic, and in the Prophets /b one may skip from one section to another even if they b pertain to two /b different b topics. /b Both b here and there, /b one may skip only b when /b the section skipped is b of such /b short b length that /b when furling is completed b the translator will /b still b not have concluded /b his translation. But b one /b may b not skip from one /b book of the b Prophets to another /b book of the b Prophets /b even if both pertain to the same topic, and even if the gap between them is short. However, b among the /b books of the b Twelve Prophets one may skip, /b as the twelve are considered one book for these purposes. |
|
103. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 118| 98a. מבושם אני מוכר לך חייב להעמיד לו עד העצרת וישן משל אשתקד ומיושן משל ג' שנים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר ר' יוסי בר' חנינא לא שנו אלא בקנקנים דלוקח אבל בקנקנים דמוכר אמר ליה הא חמרך והא קנקנך,וכי קנקנין דמוכר מאי הוי לימא ליה לא איבעי לך לשהויי לא צריכא דאמר ליה למקפה,ומאי דוחקיה דר' יוסי בר' חנינא לאוקמא למתניתין בקנקנין דלוקח ודאמר ליה למקפה לוקמא בקנקנין דמוכר ודלא אמר ליה למקפה,אמר רבא מתניתין קשיתיה דקתני אם ידוע שיינו מחמיץ הרי זה מקח טעות אמאי לימא ליה לא איבעי לך לשהויי אלא לאו שמע מינה דאמר ליה למקפה שמע מינה,ופליגא דרב חייא בר יוסף דאמר רב חייא בר יוסף חמרא מזלא דמריה גרים שנא' (חבקוק ב, ה) ואף כי היין בוגד גבר יהיר וגו',אמר רב מרי האי מאן דיהיר אפילו אאינשי ביתיה לא מיקבל שנא' (חבקוק ב, ה) גבר יהיר ולא ינוה מאי ולא ינוה בנוה שלו,א"ר יהודה אמר רב כל המתגאה בטלית של ת"ח ואינו ת"ח אין מכניסין אותו במחיצתו של הקב"ה כתיב הכא ולא ינוה וכתיב התם (שמות טו, יג) אל נוה קדשך,אמר רבא האי מאן דזבין ליה חביתא דחמרא לחנואה אדעתא לסבוייה ותקיף אפלגא או אתילתא דינא הוא דמקבל לה מיניה ולא אמרן אלא דלא שני בברזא אבל שני בברזא לא ולא אמרן אלא דלא מטא יומא דשוקא אבל מטא יומא דשוקא לא,ואמר רבא האי מאן דקביל חמרא אדעתא דממטי ליה לפרוותא דוול שפט ואדמטי התם זל דינא הוא דמקבל ליה,איבעיא להו הוה חלא מאי אמר ליה רב הלל לרב אשי כי הואן בי רב כהנא אמר לן חלא לא ודלא כר' יוסי בר' חנינא,ואיכא דאמרי אפילו חלא נמי מקבל כמאן כר' יוסי בר' חנינא:,ישן משל אשתקד כו': | 98a. that is b spiced, /b which is preserved and of lasting quality, that b I am selling to you, /b then b he bears /b ficial b responsibility to provide him /b with wine that will keep b until /b the festival of b i Shavuot /i . And /b if the seller said: I am selling you b old /b wine, he is responsible to provide wine b from the previous year. And /b if he said: I am selling you b aged /b wine, he is responsible to provide wine that is b from three years /b earlier., strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: /b When b they taught /b that the seller does not bear responsibility if the wine sours, that was b only /b if it soured while b in /b the b jugs of the buyer; but /b if it soured b in /b the b jugs of the seller, /b then the buyer b could say to him: This is your wine and this is your jug; /b take it and reimburse me. Since it soured while still in the original jugs, it was clearly flawed from the outset.,The Gemara asks: b But /b even b if /b the wine soured while in the b jugs of the seller, what of it? Let /b the seller b say /b to the buyer: b You should not have left it /b for so long after purchasing it; I should not be responsible just because you chose to do so. The Gemara answers: b No, /b this ruling is b necessary /b in a case where the buyer b had said to him /b that he was purchasing the wine b for cooking, /b in which case it is understood that he needs it to maintain its quality over a longer period of time, as only a small amount is used each time.,The Gemara asks: b And what impelled Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, to interpret the mishna as referring to /b a case where the wine soured while in the b jugs of the buyer, and where he had said to him /b that he wanted the wine b for cooking? /b Instead, b let him interpret it as referring to /b a case where the wine soured while in the b jugs of the seller, and /b to b where he had not said to him /b that he wanted the wine b for cooking. /b ,In explanation, b Rava said: The mishna was difficult for him, as it teaches /b in the following clause: b But if it is known /b of this seller b that his wine /b always b sours, then this /b sale b is a mistaken transaction. /b With regard to this clause one could ask: b Why /b is that so? b Let /b the seller b say to him: You should not have left it /b for so long after purchasing it. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from /b that clause b that /b the mishna is referring to a case b where /b the buyer b had said to him /b that he wants the wine b for cooking? /b The Gemara concludes: Yes, one can b conclude from it /b that this is so., b And /b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, b disagrees /b with the opinion b of Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef, as Rav Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: /b With regard to b wine, /b it is b the owner’s /b poor b fortune /b that b causes /b the wine to go sour, b as it is stated: “And moreover, wine is a treacherous dealer; /b the b haughty man /b abides not” (Habakkuk 2:5), which is interpreted to mean that the wine of a haughty man will betray him, as it will sour as a punishment for his arrogance. Accordingly, since the wine soured after the buyer purchased it, he cannot place the blame upon the seller.,The Gemara offers additional homiletic interpretations of the verse just cited. b Rav Mari said: One who is haughty is not accepted even by the members of his household, as it is stated: “The haughty man abides not” /b (Habakkuk 2:5). b What /b does the phrase b “abides [ i yinveh /i ] not” /b mean? It means that b even in his abode [ i naveh /i ], /b he is not accepted., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b With regard to b anyone who glorifies himself /b by wearing b a garment of /b the style worn by b a Torah scholar, but /b in reality b he is not a Torah scholar, he will not be brought within the boundary of the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b in the World-to-Come. This is alluded to by the fact that it is b written /b in the verse b here: “Abides [ i yinveh /i ] not,” and /b the meaning of the word i yinveh /i may be derived from that which b is written /b in a verse b there: “To Your holy habitation [ i neveh /i ]” /b (Exodus 15:13)., b Rava says: /b In the case of b one who sells a barrel of wine to a shopkeeper with the understanding /b that the wine will be b for serving /b to the shopkeeper’s customers and that he will be liable to pay the seller only once the barrel is finished, b and /b the wine b spoiled /b when b one-half or one-third /b of the wine still remained, b the i halakha /i is that /b the seller must b accept /b back the remaining wine b from /b the shopkeeper, as the shopkeeper is liable to pay only for the wine that he sells. b And we stated this /b i halakha /i b only /b in a case b where /b the shopkeeper b had not switched the tap /b of the barrel; b but /b if b he had switched the tap, /b the seller does b not /b have to take the wine back and the shopkeeper must pay for it all. b And /b furthermore, b we stated this /b i halakha /i b only where /b the wine soured b before the market day arrived /b and the shopkeeper did not have the opportunity to sell the entire barrel; b but /b if the wine was still of good quality when b the market day arrived, /b then the seller does b not /b have to take the wine back., b And Rava says: /b In the case of a vintner who enters a business venture with another person who will sell the wine for him and afterward they will split the profits, then if b this /b middleman b who receives the wine /b to sell does so b with the understanding that he will bring it to the port of /b the city of b Vol Shefat /b and sell it only there, b and before he arrives there /b the b price /b of the wine b drops, the i halakha /i /b is b that /b the vintner must b accept /b the loss.,With regard to the previous case, b a dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If the wine b becomes vinegar /b before he reaches Vol Shefat, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? b Rav Hillel said to Rav Ashi: When we were in the study hall of Rav Kahana, he said to us: /b If the wine becomes b vinegar, /b the vintner does b not /b have to accept the loss; b and /b this is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, /b who holds that as long as the wine is in the jug of the seller he is able to return it to the seller. The reason for this is that it is possible that the poor fortune of the middleman caused it to sour., b And there are /b those b who say /b that b even /b if the wine turns into b vinegar, /b the vintner must b also accept /b the loss. b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina. /b ,The mishna teaches: If the seller said: I am selling you b old /b wine, he is responsible to provide wine b from the previous year. /b And if he said: I am selling you aged wine, he is responsible to provide wine that is from three years earlier. |
|
104. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 86b. לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי אימא אף לכהן מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם בלוים קא משתעי קרא ואידך כדר' יהושע ב"ל דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהם (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ור"ע הכא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום יצא כהן שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות ואידך כל היכא דבעי דלא בעי חומה ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף לא לקי,ההיא גינתא דהוה שקיל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעשר ראשון מינה אזל ר"ע אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי אמר עקיבא בתרמילו ואנא חיי,איתמר מפני מה קנסו לוים במעשר פליגי בה רבי יונתן וסביא חד אמר שלא עלו בימי עזרא וח"א כדי שיסמכו כהנים עליו בימי טומאתן,בשלמא למאן דאמר שלא עלו משום הכי קנסינהו אלא למ"ד כדי שיסמכו עליו כהנים בימי טומאתן משום כהנים קנסינהו ללוים אלא כולי עלמא קנסא שלא עלו בימי עזרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר קנסא לעניים ומר סבר כהנים בימי טומאתן עניים נינהו,בשלמא למאן דאמר קנסא לעניים משום הכי אהדריה ר"ע לפתחא לבי קברי אלא למאן דאמר לכהנים אמאי אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי הכי קאמר ליה אי דקא אתית בתורת קנסא אית לך ואי קא אתית בתורת חלוקה לית לך,ומנא לן דלא סליקו בימי עזרא דכתיב (עזרא ח, טו) ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אהוא ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם אמר רב חסדא בתחלה לא היו מעמידים שוטרי' אלא מן הלוים שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יט, יא) ושוטרים הלוים לפניכם עכשיו אין מעמידין שוטרים אלא מישראל שנאמר ושוטרים הרבים בראשיכם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת ישראל שניסת לכהן תאכל בתרומה מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל בתרומה ניסת ללוי תאכל במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל במעשר ניסת לישראל לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר,מת בנה מישראל תאכל במעשר מת בנה מלוי תאכל בתרומה מת בנה מכהן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר | 86b. The first tithe is given b to a priest. /b The Gemara is puzzled: b To a priest and not to a Levite? /b But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: b Say /b he means it can be given b also to a priest. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b for b Rabbi Akiva’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “You shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them” /b (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, b the verse speaks of Levites, /b not priests. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Eliezer, maintains b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15)., b And Rabbi Akiva /b replies: b Here you cannot say /b the verse is referring to priests, b as it is written: “And you may eat it in any place” /b (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to b one who can eat it in any place. /b This b excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, /b as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. b And the other /b Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it b anywhere that he wishes, /b that is, in any city, b as it does not require /b the b wall /b of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. b And /b we further learn from here that b if he eats it in /b a state of b bodily impurity he is not flogged. /b Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, /b a priest, b would take /b the b first tithe, /b in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. b Rabbi Akiva went, /b closed up the garden, and b changed its entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar b said /b in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: b Akiva, /b a former shepherd, comes b with his satchel, but I have to live; /b from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed about the following question: b For what reason did /b the Sages b penalize /b the b Levites with regard to /b their b tithe, /b by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? b Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders /b who were with him b disagree /b with regard to b this /b matter. b One said /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, b in the days of Ezra. And one said /b that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests b so that they /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity. /b Because it is prohibited for priests to consume i teruma /i while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on i teruma /i . It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b we can understand that b due to that /b reason b they penalized /b the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. b But according to the one who says /b it was done b so that the priests /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity, /b should we b penalize the Levites for /b the benefit of b priests? Rather, everyone agrees /b that it was b a penalty /b for the fact b that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage holds /b that the b penalty /b is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, and /b one b Sage holds /b that b priests are /b classified as b poor in the days of their impurity. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, due to that /b reason b Rabbi Akiva changed /b the garden b entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. b But according to the one who says /b the tithe was given b to the priests, why did he change /b the b entrance /b so that it would be b toward the cemetery? /b The Gemara answers: b This is what he said to him, /b i.e., this is what he meant: b If you come /b to receive the tithe b by virtue of /b the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites, b you may have /b it, b but if you come by the /b standard i halakha /i b of distribution, /b demanding your share with the Levites, b you may not have /b the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.,The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: b And from where do we /b derive b that /b the Levites b did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there /b for b three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” /b (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, b Rav Ḥisda said: Initially they would establish officers /b over the people b only from /b among b the Levites, as it states: “And the officers, the Levites, before you” /b (II Chronicles 19:11), but b now they establish officers only from /b among the b Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. /b This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites., strong MISHNA: /strong b An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of i teruma /i . /b If the priest b died and she has a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of i teruma /i . /b If she subsequently b married a Levite, /b she may no longer partake of i teruma /i but b she may partake of /b the first b tithe /b on his account. If he, too, b died and she /b had b a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of tithe /b on account of the child. If she then b married an Israelite, she may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b If her Israelite husband b died and she /b had b a child from him, she /b still b may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b ,If b her child from the Israelite /b also b died, /b while her son from the Levite remained alive, b she may partake of tithe /b on account of the Levite’s child. If b her child from the Levite died, /b leaving her with a son from the priest, b she may /b once again b partake of i teruma /i . /b If b her child from the priest died /b as well, b she may no /b longer b partake of either i teruma /i or tithe. /b |
|
| 105. Arnobius, Against The Gentiles, 7.49 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342 |
106. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71| 48b. כמין שני חוטמין דקין (ואחד) מעובה ואחד דק כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת מערבו של מים מזרחו של יין עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא,ר' יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה ולמנסך אומר לו הגבה ידך שפעם אחד נסך אחד על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן,כמעשהו בחול כך מעשהו בשבת אלא שהיה ממלא מערב שבת חבית של זהב שאינה מקודשת מן השילוח ומניחה בלשכה נשפכה נתגלתה היה ממלא מן הכיור שהיין והמים מגולין פסולין לגבי מזבח:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנא הנ"מ אמר רב עינא דאמר קרא (ישעיהו יב, ג) ושאבתם מים בששון וגו',הנהו תרי מיני חד שמיה ששון וחד שמיה שמחה א"ל ששון לשמחה אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (ישעיהו לה, י) ששון ושמחה ישיגו וגו' א"ל שמחה לששון אנא עדיפנא מינך דכתיב (אסתר ח, יז) שמחה וששון ליהודים א"ל ששון לשמחה חד יומא שבקוך ושויוך פרוונקא דכתיב (ישעיהו נה, יב) כי בשמחה תצאו א"ל שמחה לששון חד יומא שבקוך ומלו בך מיא דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון,א"ל ההוא מינא דשמיה ששון לר' אבהו עתידיתו דתמלו לי מים לעלמא דאתי דכתיב ושאבתם מים בששון א"ל אי הוה כתיב לששון כדקאמרת השתא דכתיב בששון משכיה דההוא גברא משוינן ליה גודא ומלינן ביה מיא:,עלה בכבש ופנה לשמאלו כו': ת"ר כל העולים למזבח עולין דרך ימין ומקיפין ויורדין דרך שמאל חוץ מן העולה לשלשה דברים הללו שעולין דרך שמאל וחוזרין על העקב ואלו הן ניסוך המים וניסוך היין ועולת העוף כשרבתה במזרח:,אלא שהיו משחירין: בשלמא דיין משחיר דמיא אמאי משחיר כיון דאמר מר עירה של מים לתוך של יין ושל יין לתוך של מים יצא של מים אתי לאשחורי:,ומנוקבים כמין ב' חוטמין וכו': לימא מתניתין ר' יהודה היא ולא רבנן דתנן רבי יהודה אומר בלוג היה מנסך כל שמונה דאי רבנן כי הדדי נינהו,אפי' תימא רבנן חמרא סמיך מיא קליש,הכי נמי מסתברא דאי רבי יהודה רחב וקצר אית ליה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר שני קשוואות היו שם אחד של מים ואחד של יין של יין פיה רחב של מים פיה קצר כדי שיהו שניהם כלין בבת אחת ש"מ:,מערבו של מים: ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שניסך על גבי רגליו ורגמוהו כל העם באתרוגיהן ואותו היום נפגמה קרן המזבח והביאו בול של מלח וסתמוהו לא מפני שהוכשר לעבודה אלא מפני שלא יראה מזבח פגום | 48b. with b two thin /b perforated b nose-like /b protrusions. b One /b of the basins, used for the wine libation, had a perforation that was b broad, and one, /b used for the water libation, had a perforation that was b thin, so that /b the flow of b both /b the water and the wine, which do not have the same viscosity, would b conclude simultaneously. /b The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the b east of /b the altar was b for wine. /b However, if b one poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine, or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation, as failure to pour the libation from the prescribed location does not disqualify the libation after the fact., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The basin for the water libation was not that large; rather, b one would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival and not only seven. b And /b the appointee b says to the one pouring /b the water into the silver basin: b Raise your hand, /b so that his actions would be visible, b as one time /b a Sadducee priest intentionally b poured /b the water b on his feet, /b as the Sadducees did not accept the oral tradition requiring water libation, and in their rage b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . /b ,Rabbi Yehuda continues: b As its performance during the week, so is its performance on Shabbat, except /b that on Shabbat one would not draw water. Instead, b on Shabbat eve, one would fill a golden barrel that was not consecrated /b for exclusive use in the Temple b from the Siloam /b pool, b and he /b would b place it in the /b Temple b chamber /b and draw water from there on Shabbat. If the water in the barrel b spilled, /b or if it b was exposed /b overnight, leading to concern that a snake may have deposited poison in the water, b one would fill /b the jug with water b from the basin /b in the Temple courtyard, b as exposed wine or water is unfit for the altar. /b Just as it is prohibited for people to drink them due to the potential danger, so too, they may not be poured on the altar., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the customs accompanying the drawing of the water, the Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rav Eina said /b that it is b as the verse states: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water /b out of the springs of salvation” (Isaiah 12:3), indicating that the water was to be drawn from the spring and the rite performed in extreme joy.,Apropos this verse, the Gemara relates: There were b these two heretics, one named Sason and one named Simḥa. Sason said to Simḥa: I am superior to you, as it is written: “They shall obtain joy [ i sason /i ] and happiness [ i simḥa /i ], /b and sorrow and sighing shall flee” (Isaiah 35:10). The verse mentions joy first. b Simḥa said to Sason, /b On the contrary, b I am superior to you, as it is written: “There was happiness [ i simḥa /i ] and joy [ i sason /i ] for the Jews” /b (Esther 8:17). b Sason said to Simḥa: One day they will dismiss you and render you a messenger [ i parvanka /i ], as it is written: “For you shall go out with happiness [ i simḥa /i ]” /b (Isaiah 55:12). b Simḥa said to Sason: One day they will dismiss you and draw water with you, as it is written: “With joy [ i sason /i ] you shall draw water.” /b ,The Gemara relates a similar incident: b A certain heretic named Sason said to Rabbi Abbahu: You are /b all b destined to draw water for me in the World-to-Come, as it is written: “With i sason /i you shall draw water.” /b Rabbi Abbahu b said to him: If it had been written: For i sason /i , /b it would have been b as you say; now that it is written: With i sason /i , /b it means that b the skin of that man, /b you, b will be rendered a wineskin, and we will draw water with it. /b ,§ The mishna continues: The priest b ascended the ramp /b of the altar b and turned to his left. The Sages taught: All who ascend the altar ascend /b and turn b via /b the b right, and circle /b the altar, b and descend via /b the b left. /b This is the case b except for one ascending /b to perform one of b these three tasks, as /b the ones who perform these tasks b ascend via /b the b left, and /b then b turn on /b their b heel and return /b in the direction that they came. b And /b these tasks b are: The water libation, and the wine libation, and the bird /b sacrificed as b a burnt-offering when there were /b too b many /b priests engaged in the sacrifice of these burnt-offerings b in the /b preferred location b east /b of the altar. When that was the case, additional priests engaged in sacrificing the same offering would pinch the neck of the bird west of the altar.,The mishna continues: Rabbi Yehuda said that they were limestone, not silver, basins, b but they would blacken /b due to the wine. The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b the basin b for wine blackened /b due to the wine; however, b why did the /b basin b for water blacken? /b The Gemara answers: b Since the Master said /b in the mishna: However, if b one /b inadvertently b poured /b the contents of the basin b of water into /b the basin b of wine or /b the contents of the basin b of wine into /b the basin b of water, he fulfilled /b his obligation. Then even the basin b for water /b would b come to blacken /b over the course of time as well.,§ The mishna continues: b And /b the two basins were b perforated /b at the bottom with b two thin, /b perforated, b nose-like /b protrusions, one broad and one thin. The Gemara asks: b Let us say /b that b the mishna is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda and not /b with that of b the Rabbis, as we learned /b in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says: One would pour /b the water b with /b a vessel that had a capacity of b one i log /i /b on b all eight /b days of the Festival, unlike the wine libation, for which a three- i log /i basin was used. According to his opinion, there is a difference between the capacity of the wine vessel and that of the water vessel; therefore, it is clear why the opening in the wine vessel was broader. b As, if /b the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, they are the same /b as the capacity of the water basin, three i log /i . Why, then, were there different sized openings?,The Gemara answers: b Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b the reason for the different-sized openings is that b wine is thick /b and b water is thin, /b and therefore wine flows more slowly than water. In order to ensure that the emptying of both basins would conclude simultaneously, the wine basin required a wider opening., b So too, it is reasonable /b to establish that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, b as, if /b it is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b unlike the description of the two openings in the mishna as broad and thin, elsewhere he b is of /b the opinion that the openings b as wide and narrow, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: There were two /b small b pipes there, one for water and one for wine. The mouth of /b the pipe b for wine was wide and the mouth of /b the pipe b for water was narrow, so that /b the emptying of both basins b would conclude simultaneously. /b The disparity between wide and narrow is greater than the disparity between broad and thin, thereby facilitating the simultaneous emptying of the three- i log /i and one- i log /i basins according to Rabbi Yehuda. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from it /b that the mishna is not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda.,§ The mishna continues: The basin to the b west of /b the altar was b for water, /b and the basin to the east of the altar was for wine, and they would tell the one pouring the water to raise his hand. b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving one Sadducee /b priest b who poured /b the water b on his feet, /b and in anger b all the people pelted him with their i etrogim /i . And that day, the horn of the altar was damaged /b as a result of the pelting and the ensuing chaos. b They brought a fistful of salt and sealed /b the damaged section, b not because it rendered /b the altar b fit for the /b Temple b service, but /b in deference to the altar, b so that the altar would not be seen /b in its b damaged /b state. |
|
107. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 48b. הרחיבה שאול נפשה ופערה פיה לבלי חק וירד הדרה והמונה ושאונה ועלז בה,משמתו נביאים הראשונים מאן נביאים הראשונים אמר רב הונא זה דוד ושמואל ושלמה רב נחמן אמר בימי דוד זימנין סליק וזימנין לא סליק שהרי שאל צדוק ועלתה לו שאל אביתר ולא עלתה לו שנאמר (שמואל ב טו, כד) ויעל אביתר,מתיב רבה בר שמואל (דברי הימים ב כו, ה) ויהי לדרוש אלהים כל ימי זכריה המבין בראות אלהים מאי לאו באורים ותומים לא בנביאים,ת"ש משחרב בהמ"ק ראשון בטלו ערי מגרש ופסקו אורים ותומים ופסק מלך מבית דוד,ואם לחשך אדם לומר (עזרא ב, סג) ויאמר התרשתא להם אשר לא יאכלו מקדש הקדשים עד עמוד כהן לאורים ותומים [אמור לו] כאדם שאומר לחבירו עד שיחיו מתים ויבא משיח בן דוד,אלא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מאן נביאים הראשונים לאפוקי מחגי זכריה ומלאכי דאחרונים נינהו דת"ר משמתו חגי זכריה ומלאכי נסתלקה רוח הקודש מישראל ואע"פ כן היו משתמשים בבת קול,שפעם אחת היו מסובין בעליית בית גוריא ביריחו נתנה עליהן בת קול מן השמים ואמרה יש בכם אדם אחד שראוי שתשרה שכינה עליו אלא שאין דורו ראוי לכך נתנו עיניהם בהלל הזקן וכשמת הספידוהו הי חסיד הי עניו תלמידו של עזרא,ושוב פעם אחרת היו מסובין בעלייה ביבנה נתנה להן בת קול מן השמים ואמרה להן יש בכם אדם א' שראוי שתשרה שכינה עליו אלא שאין דורו זכאין לכך נתנו עיניהם בשמואל הקטן וכשמת הספידוהו הי עניו הי חסיד תלמידו של הלל,ואף הוא אמר בשעת מיתתו שמעון וישמעאל לחרבא וחברוהי לקטלא ושאר עמא לביזא ועקן סגיאין עתידין למיתי על עמא ואף על ר' יהודה בן בבא בקשו לומר הי חסיד הי עניו אלא שנטרפה שעה שאין מספידין על הרוגי מלכות,משחרב בהמ"ק בטל השמיר כו' ת"ר שמיר שבו בנה שלמה את בהמ"ק שנא' (מלכים א ו, ז) והבית בהבנותו אבן שלמה מסע נבנה הדברים ככתבן דברי ר' יהודה,אמר לו ר' נחמיה וכי אפשר לומר כן והלא כבר נאמר (מלכים א ז, ט) כל אלה אבנים יקרות וגו' מגוררות במגרה אם כן מה ת"ל לא נשמע בבית בהבנותו שהיה מתקין מבחוץ ומכניס מבפנים אמר רבי נראין דברי רבי יהודה באבני מקדש ודברי ר' נחמיה באבני ביתו,ור' נחמיה שמיר למאי אתא מיבעי ליה לכדתניא אבנים הללו אין כותבין אותן בדיו משום שנאמר (שמות כח, יא) פתוחי חותם ואין מסרטין עליהם באיזמל משום שנאמר במלואותם,אלא כותב עליהם בדיו ומראה להן שמיר מבחוץ והן נבקעות מאליהן כתאינה זו שנבקעת בימות החמה ואינה חסירה כלום וכבקעה זו שנבקעת בימות הגשמים ואינה חסירה כלום,ת"ר שמיר זה ברייתו כשעורה ומששת ימי בראשית נברא ואין כל דבר קשה יכול לעמוד בפניו במה משמרין אותו כורכין אותו בספוגין של צמר ומניחין אותו באיטני של אבר מליאה סובי שעורין,אמר רבי אמי משחרב מקדש ראשון בטלה שירא פרנדא וזכוכית לבנה תניא נמי הכי משחרב מקדש ראשון בטלה שירא פרנדא וזכוכית לבנה ורכב ברזל וי"א אף יין קרוש הבא משניר הדומה כעיגולי דבילה,ונופת צופים מאי נופת צופים אמר רב סולת שצפה על גבי נפה ודומה לעיסה שנילושה בדבש ושמן ולוי אמר שתי ככרות הנדבקות בתנור ותופחות ובאות עד שמגיעות זו לזו ורבי יהושע בן לוי אמר זה דבש הבא מן הציפיא מאי משמע כדמתרגם רב ששת כמא דנתזן דבריאתה ושייטן ברומי עלמא ומתיין דובשא מעישבי טורא,תנן התם כל הנצוק טהור חוץ מדבש זיפים והצפיחים מאי זיפים אמר רבי יוחנן דבש שמזייפין בו וריש לקיש אמר על שם מקומו כדכתיב (יהושע טו, כד) זיף וטלם ובעלות,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (תהלים נד, ב) בבא הזיפים ויאמרו לשאול הלא דוד וגו' מאי זיפים אמר רבי יוחנן בני אדם המזייפין דבריהם ורבי אלעזר אומר על שם מקומן כדכתיב זיף וטלם ובעלות,ופסקו אנשי אמנה אמר רבי יצחק אלו בני אדם שהן מאמינין בהקב"ה דתניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר כל מי שיש לו פת בסלו ואומר מה אוכל למחר אינו אלא מקטני אמנה,והיינו דאמר ר' אלעזר מאי דכתיב (זכריה ד, י) כי מי בז ליום קטנות מי גרם לצדיקים שיתבזבז שולחנן לעתיד לבא קטנות שהיה בהן שלא האמינו בהקב"ה רבא אמר אלו קטני בני רשעי ישראל | 48b. b the netherworld has enlarged her desire, and opened her mouth without measure, and down goes their glory and their tumult and their uproar, and he who rejoices among them” /b (Isaiah 5:14). Their punishment is that they shall descend into the netherworld.,§ The mishna taught: b From /b the time b when the early prophets died, /b the i Urim VeTummim /i was nullified. The Gemara poses a question: b Who /b are b the early prophets? Rav Huna says: This is /b referring to b David, and Samuel, and Solomon, /b and after their death the i Urim VeTummim /i was no longer used. b Rav Naḥman said: In the days of David /b there were b times /b an answer b rose up /b for them from the i Urim VeTummim /i b and /b there were b times /b an answer b did not rise up, /b i.e., they did not receive an answer. The proof for this is b that Tzadok, /b the High Priest in David’s time, b asked /b the i Urim VeTummim /i b and /b an answer b rose up for him, /b whereas b Abiathar asked and /b an answer b did not rise up for him, as /b it b is stated: “And Abiathar went up” /b (II Samuel 15:24), and he was removed from serving as the High Priest as a result., b Rabba bar Shmuel raises an objection: /b The verse states concerning Uzziah: b “And he set himself to seek God in the days of Zechariah, who had an understanding of the vision of God” /b (II Chronicles 26:5). b What, is /b the verse b not /b stating that Uzziah would seek God by asking questions b of /b the b i Urim VeTummim /i , /b despite the fact that he lived after the time of Solomon? The Gemara rejects this claim: b No, /b he would seek God by asking questions b of /b the b prophets, /b but not of the i Urim VeTummim /i .,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 13:2) with regard to when the i Urim VeTummim /i ceased: b From /b the time b when the First Temple was destroyed, the cities with fields /b that were allocated to the Levites b were nullified, and the i Urim VeTummim /i ceased, and the monarchy ceased from the house of David. /b , b And if a person would whisper to you saying /b that the i Urim VeTummim /i was still extant, as it states with regard to when the Second Temple first stood: b “And the Tirshatha said to them that they should not eat of the most sacred things, until there stood a priest with the i Urim VeTummim /i ” /b (Ezra 2:63), which seems to indicate that they merely had to wait until the Second Temple was built for the reappearance of the i Urim VeTummim /i ; you should b say to him /b that this is not referring to an expectation of a short-term development, but it is b like a person who says to his friend, /b with regard to something that will occur in the distant future: b Until the dead live and the Messiah, /b the b son of David, comes. /b In any case, the i baraita /i indicates that the i Urim VeTummim /i ceased only from the time when the First Temple was destroyed, and not in the time of Solomon., b Rather, Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Who /b are b the early prophets, /b with regard to whom it states that use of the i Urim VeTummim /i ceased immediately after their death? This term early prophets serves b to exclude Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, /b who b are /b the b latter prophets. /b The i Urim VeTummim /i was used throughout the First Temple period, up to, but not including, their time. b As the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 13:3): b From /b the time b when Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi died the Divine Spirit departed from the Jewish people, /b as these three were considered to be the last prophets. b And /b even after the Urim VeTummim ceased to exist, they would b nevertheless /b still b make use of a Divine Voice /b to receive instructions from Above, even after this time., b For on one occasion /b the Sages b were reclining in the upper story of the house of Gurya in Jericho. A Divine Voice from Heaven was issued to them, and it said: There is one person among you /b for b whom it is fitting that the Divine Presence should rest upon him /b as a prophet, b but his generation is not fit for it; /b they do not deserve to have a prophet among them. The Sages present b directed their gaze to Hillel the Elder. And when he died, they eulogized him /b in the following manner: b Alas pious one, alas humble one, student of Ezra. /b , b And again, on another occasion /b several generations later, the Sages b were reclining in an upper story /b of a house b in Yavne, /b and b a Divine Voice from Heaven was issued to them, and said: There is one person among you /b for b whom it is fitting that the Divine Presence should rest upon him, but his generation is not fit for it. /b The Sages present b directed their gaze to Shmuel HaKatan. And when he died, they eulogized him /b in the following manner: b Alas humble one, alas pious one, student of Hillel. /b , b And he too, /b Shmuel HaKatan, b said /b the following statement of divinely inspired prediction b at the time of his death: Shimon, /b i.e., Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, b and Yishmael, /b i.e., Rabbi Yishmael ben Elisha the High Priest, are slated b for the sword, and their colleagues for killing, and the rest of the people for plunder, and great troubles are destined to befall the people. /b The Gemara relates: b And they also sought to say about Rabbi Yehuda ben Bava, /b when eulogizing him: b Alas pious one, alas humble one, but the moment was disturbed /b and they could not do so. That is because b eulogies are not given for those killed by the monarchy, /b which was Rabbi Yehuda ben Baba’s fate, in order not to arouse the monarchy’s wrath.,§ The mishna taught: b From /b the time b when the /b First b Temple was destroyed the i shamir /i ceased /b to exist. b The Sages taught: /b This b i shamir /i /b is the creature b with which Solomon built the Temple, as it is stated: “For the house, when it was built, was built of whole stone from the quarry” /b (I Kings 6:7). Now b these words /b should be understood exactly b as they are written, /b that King Solomon took whole stones and shaped them by having the i shamir /i do the cutting. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. /b , b Rabbi Neḥemya said to him: And is it possible to say so? But isn’t it already stated: “All these were costly stones, /b according to the measures of hewn stones, b sawed with saws” /b (II Kings 7:9), which indicates that saws, which are iron implements, were used to shape the stones? b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: /b “And hammer, ax, and any tool of iron b were not heard in the house when it was being built” /b (I Kings 6:7)? It means b that he would prepare /b the stones b outside /b the Temple Mount using tools, b and bring /b them b inside /b already cut, so that no iron tools were used inside the Temple itself. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said: The statement of Rabbi Yehuda /b that no iron tools were used b appears /b to be correct b with regard to the Temple stones, and the statement of Rabbi Neḥemya /b that tools were used appears to be correct b with regard to the stones of the /b king’s own b house. /b ,The Gemara poses a question: b And /b according to b Rabbi Neḥemya, /b who maintains that they used iron tools even in the cutting of the stones for the Temple, b for what /b purpose b did the i shamir /i come? /b The Gemara answers: b It /b was b necessary for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b These stones /b in the breastplate and ephod, upon which were inscribed the names of the tribes, b they may not be written on with ink, because it is stated: “Like the engravings of a signet” /b (Exodus 28:21), which means the names must be engraved onto the stones. b And they may not be scratched on with a scalpel [ i izemel /i ], because it is stated: “In their full settings” /b (Exodus 28:20), indicating that the stones must be complete and not missing any of their mass.,The i baraita /i continues: b Rather, /b one b writes /b the letters b on them in ink, and shows them, /b i.e., he places the b i shamir /i /b close to the ink markings b from outside, /b without having it touch the stones, b and they split /b open along the lines of the ink b of their own accord, like this fig that splits in the summer without losing anything /b of its mass, b and like this /b field in b a valley that cracks in the rainy season without losing anything /b of its mass. The i shamir /i was used in this way for these engravings., b The Sages taught: This i shamir /i , its size is that of a barleycorn, and it was created in the six days of creation, and nothing hard can withstand it. In what is it kept, /b so that it will not break everything in the vicinity? b They wrap it in tufts [ i sefogin /i ] of wool and place it in a leaden vessel [ i itenei /i ], full of barley bran, /b which is soft and will not be broken by the i shamir /i .,§ b Rabbi Ami says: From /b the time b when the First Temple was destroyed, shiny [ i peranda /i ] silk [ i shira /i ] and white glass ceased /b to exist. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From /b the time b when the First Temple was destroyed, shiny silk, white glass, and iron chariots ceased; and some say /b that b even congealed wine that comes from Senir, /b the Hermon, b which is similar to round fig cakes /b after it congeals, ceased to exist as well.,The mishna taught: b And /b the b sweetness of the honeycomb [ i nofet tzufim /i ] /b also ceased when the First Temple was destroyed. The Gemara asks: b What /b is b i nofet tzufim /i ? Rav says: Fine flour that floats /b up and remains b on the top of the sieve [ i nafa /i ], which is similar /b in taste b to dough kneaded with honey and oil. And Levi says /b that i nofet tzufim /i is the term for b two loaves stuck together in an oven, which keep swelling until they reach each other. And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: This is honey that comes from elevated areas [ i tzipiyya /i ]. /b The Gemara explains: b From where may /b it b be inferred /b that this is what i nofet tzufim /i is? b As Rav Sheshet would translate /b the words: “As the bees do” (Deuteronomy 1:44): b Like the bees spread out and fly all over the world and bring honey from mountainous plants. /b Similarly, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi states that honey comes from elevated areas., b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Makhshirin /i 5:9): b Anything that is poured /b remains b ritually pure. /b In other words, even if a liquid is poured into a ritually impure utensil, the stream of the liquid does not defile the contents that remain in the ritually pure utensil from which they were poured, b apart from i zifim /i honey and wafer /b batter. These substances are too viscous to be considered liquids. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b i zifim /i ? Rabbi Yoḥa says: Honey /b of such rare quality that b they /b could b falsify [ i mezayyefin /i ] it, /b by diluting it with other substances, and it would not be noticed. b And Reish Lakish says: /b It is named b after its place, as it is written: “Ziph and Telem and Bealoth” /b (Joshua 15:24)., b Similarly, you /b can b say /b with regard to the verse: b “When the i zifim /i came and said to Saul, does not David /b hide himself with us” (Psalms 54:2). b What is /b the meaning of b i zifim /i , /b mentioned in this verse? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b It means b people who /b would b falsify [ i hamzayyefin /i ] their words. And Rabbi Elazar says: /b They are called b after their place, as it is written: “Ziph and Telem and Bealoth.” /b ,§ The mishna states that from the time when the Second Temple was destroyed b men of faith ceased. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: These are people who believe in the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b and place their trust in Him in all their ways. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer the Great says /b that b whoever has bread in his basket /b to eat today b and says: What shall I eat tomorrow, /b meaning he does not know how he will acquire bread for tomorrow, b he is nothing other /b than b from those of little faith. /b One must trust in God to provide him with his sustece., b And this is what Rabbi Elazar said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “For who plunders the day of small things” /b (Zechariah 4:10)? b What caused the table, /b i.e., the reward, b of the righteous to be plundered, /b meaning wasted, b in the future? /b It was b the /b small-mindedness b they possessed. /b And what is this small-mindedness? b That they did not believe in the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b with a complete faith. b Rava said: /b Who plunders the day of small things? b These are the small children of the wicked ones of the Jewish people, /b who die young, |
|
108. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 16a. על פי נביא נאכלת ועל פי נביא נשרפת:,כל שלא נעשית בכל אלו כו': איתמר רב הונא אמר בכל אלו תנן רב נחמן אמר באחת מכל אלו תנן,רב הונא אמר בכל אלו תנן קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ועזרא זכר בעלמא הוא דעבד,רב נחמן אמר באחת מכל אלו תנן קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא ועזרא קדושי קדיש אע"ג דלא הוו אורים ותומים,איתיביה רבא לרב נחמן כל שלא נעשית בכל אלו תני באחת מכל אלו,תא שמע אבא שאול אומר שני ביצעין היו בהר המשחה תחתונה ועליונה תחתונה נתקדשה בכל אלו עליונה לא נתקדשה בכל אלו אלא בעולי גולה שלא במלך ושלא באורים ותומים,תחתונה שהיתה קדושתה גמורה עמי הארץ נכנסין לשם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני וחברים אוכלין שם קדשים קלים ומעשר שני,עליונה שלא היתה קדושתה גמורה עמי הארץ היו נכנסין שם ואוכלין שם קדשים קלים אבל לא מעשר שני וחברים אין אוכלין שם לא קדשים קלים ולא מעשר שני ומפני מה לא קידשוה שאין מוסיפין על העיר ועל העזרות אלא במלך ונביא ואורים ותומים ובסנהדרין של ע"א ובשתי תודות ובשיר,ולמה קידשוה למה קידשוה הא אמרת לא קידשוה אלא למה הכניסוה מפני שתורפה של ירושלים היתה ונוחה היא ליכבש משם,תנאי היא דתניא א"ר אליעזר שמעתי כשהיו בונין בהיכל עשו קלעים להיכל וקלעים לעזרות אלא שבהיכל בונין מבחוץ ובעזרות בונין מבפנים,אמר רבי יהושע שמעתי שמקריבין אף על פי שאין בית אוכלין קדשי קדשים אע"פ שאין קלעים קדשים קלים ומעשר שני אע"פ שאין חומה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא לאו מכלל דר' אליעזר סבר לא קידשה לעתיד לבא,א"ל רבינא לרב אשי ממאי דלמא דכולי עלמא קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר ומר מאי דשמיע ליה קאמר וכי תימא קלעים לר' אליעזר למה לי לצניעותא בעלמא,אלא הני תנאי דתניא א"ר ישמעאל ברבי יוסי למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום אבל ראשונות בטלו משבטלה הארץ אלמא קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא,ורמינהי אמר ר' ישמעאל בר' יוסי וכי אלו בלבד היו והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ג, ד) ששים עיר כל חבל ארגוב ממלכת עוג בבשן כל אלה ערים בצורות חומה גבוהה אלא למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום,קידשום השתא הא אמרינן לקמן דלא צריכא לקדושי אלא מצאו אלו ומנאום,ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה בידך מסורת מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל מצות אלו נוהגות בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא קשיא דר' ישמעאל בר יוסי אדרבי ישמעאל בר יוסי,איבעית אימא תרי תנאי אליבא דר' ישמעאל בר יוסי איבעית אימא חדא מינייהו ר' אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא ר' אלעזר בר יוסי אומר (ויקרא כה, ל) אשר לוא חומה אע"פ שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן: | 16a. b Based on a ruling of a prophet /b the loaves of one thanks-offering b were eaten, and based on a ruling of a prophet /b the loaves of the other thanks-offering b were burned. /b The prophets Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi, who lived at the time of Ezra and Nehemiah’s reconsecration of Jerusalem, instructed the people concerning how the ceremony should be conducted, without providing reasons for the procedures.,§ The mishna teaches: And with regard to b any /b addition to the Temple b that was not made with all these /b ceremonial procedures, one who enters there while ritually impure is not liable. b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed about the text of the mishna. b Rav Huna says: We learned /b in the mishna: b With all these, /b which means that all of these procedures are indispensable, and if even one is missing, the consecration does not take effect. b Rav Naḥman says: We learned /b in the mishna: b With one of all these; /b i.e., any one of these procedures suffices for the consecration to take effect.,The Gemara further clarifies this disagreement. b Rav Huna says: We learned /b in the mishna: b With all these. /b The Gemara explains: b He maintains /b that b the initial consecration /b of the Temple in the days of David and Solomon b sanctified /b it b for its time and sanctified /b it b forever. /b Therefore, the site of the Temple retained its original sanctity even during the days of the Second Temple. b And Ezra, /b who reconsecrated the area, b did /b so b merely as a commemoration /b of the initial consecration. Accordingly, even though there was no king or i Urim VeTummim /i , the entire area was fully consecrated. By contrast, in order to consecrate an area that had not been part of the initial consecration, all of these procedures are necessary and none can be omitted., b Rav Naḥman says: We learned /b in the mishna: b With one of all these. /b The Gemara explains: b He maintains /b that b the initial consecration /b of the Temple b sanctified /b it b for its time /b only, b and did not sanctify /b it b forever. And Ezra consecrated /b the Temple and its courtyards, b even though there was no /b king or b i Urim VeTummim /i . /b Consequently, it follows that there is no need for all of these procedures in order for the consecration to take effect., b Rava raised an objection to Rav Naḥman: /b The mishna explicitly states: b Any /b addition b that was not made with all these /b procedures. Rav Naḥman said to him: Emend the mishna and b teach /b it as stating: b With one of all these /b procedures.,The Gemara cites a proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman: b Come /b and b hear /b a i baraita /i : b Abba Shaul says: There were two ponds [ i bitzin /i ] on the Mount of Olives [ i Har HaMishḥa /i ], a lower /b pond b and an upper /b pond. b The lower /b pond b was consecrated /b during the time of the First Temple b with all /b the procedures mentioned in the mishna, and it has the sanctity of Jerusalem for all purposes. By contrast, b the upper /b pond b was not consecrated with all these /b procedures, b but /b rather it was consecrated b by those who returned from the exile /b in Babylonia, b without a king and without /b the b i Urim VeTummim /i . /b ,The i baraita /i continues: With regard to b the lower /b pond, b whose consecration was complete, i amei ha’aretz /i , /b uneducated people who were not scrupulous in their observance of the mitzvot relating to tithes and to ritual purity, b would enter into there and /b would b partake of offerings of lesser sanctity /b that may be eaten in all of Jerusalem b there, but /b they would b not /b partake of b second tithe /b there because they conducted themselves stringently concerning this matter. b And i ḥaverim /i , /b who were meticulous in their observance of those mitzvot, b would partake of /b both b offerings of lesser sanctity and second tithe there. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: As for b the upper /b pond, b whose consecration was incomplete, i amei ha’aretz /i would enter into there and partake of offerings of lesser sanctity there, but /b they would b not /b partake of b second tithe /b there. b And i ḥaverim /i would partake of neither offerings of lesser sanctity nor second tithe there. And for what /b reason b did they not consecrate /b the upper pond? It was b because additions can be made to the city /b of Jerusalem b or to the /b Temple b courtyards only by /b a special body comprising the b king, a prophet, the i Urim VeTummim /i , and the Sanhedrin of seventy-one, and with two thanks-offerings and with /b a special b song. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But why did they consecrate /b the upper pond if they could not do so properly? This Gemara responds: b Why did they consecrate it? Didn’t you say /b that b they did not consecrate it? Rather, /b the question should be asked as follows: Given that they could not consecrate the upper pond, b why did they bring it within /b the walls of the city? The Gemara answers: b Because it was a weak point [ i turpa /i ] of Jerusalem and it would have been easy to conquer /b the city b from there, /b it became necessary to include it within the wall. This i baraita /i seems to present explicit proof against the opinion of Rav Naḥman, who holds that there is no need for all of the procedures listed in the mishna in order for the consecration to be complete.,The Gemara rejects this proof: This b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b as to whether the initial consecration of Jerusalem and the Temple sanctified them only for their time or forever. Abba Shaul maintains that the initial consecration lapsed, and therefore the reconsecration required all of the procedures mentioned in the mishna. Where is this dispute taught? b As it is taught /b in a mishna ( i Eduyyot /i 8:6): b Rabbi Eliezer says: I heard /b that b when they were building the Sanctuary /b in the Second Temple, b they fashioned /b temporary b curtains for the Sanctuary and /b temporary b curtains for the courtyards /b to serve as partitions until the construction of the stone walls was completed. The difference was b only that in the Sanctuary, /b the workers b built /b the walls b outside /b the curtains, without entering, b and in the courtyards, /b the workers b built /b the walls b within /b the curtains.,The mishna continues: b Rabbi Yehoshua says: I heard that one sacrifices offerings /b on the altar b even if there is no Temple, /b and b one partakes of offerings of the most sacred order /b in the Temple courtyard b even if there are no curtains, and /b one partakes of b offerings of lesser sanctity and second-tithe /b produce in Jerusalem b even if there is no wall /b surrounding the city. This is b due to /b the fact b that the initial consecration sanctified /b the Temple and Jerusalem b for their time and /b also b sanctified /b them b forever. /b The Gemara concludes: From the fact that Rabbi Yehoshua based his opinion on the principle that the initial consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever, can one b not /b learn b by inference /b that b Rabbi Eliezer maintains /b that b it did not sanctify /b them b forever? /b Apparently, this issue is the subject of a dispute between i tanna’im /i ., b Ravina said to Rav Ashi: From where /b do you draw this inference? b Perhaps everyone /b maintains that b the initial consecration sanctified /b the Temple and Jerusalem b for their time and /b also b sanctified /b them b forever. And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Eliezer, b stated that /b tradition, b which he heard /b from his teachers, b and /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehoshua, b stated that /b tradition, b which he heard /b from his teachers, and there is no dispute between them. b And if you would say: Why do I /b need b curtains /b at all b according to Rabbi Eliezer? /b The original sanctity remained when Jerusalem was not surrounded by walls, and similarly, the presence or absence of curtains is irrelevant to the sanctity of the Temple area. The Gemara answers: The curtains were established b merely for seclusion, /b as it would have been unbecoming for the activity in this most sacred venue to be visible to all., b Rather, /b this matter is subject to a dispute between b these i tanna’im /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the walled cities listed in the mishna in tractate i Arakhin /i (32a): b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: Why did the Sages enumerate /b specifically b these /b nine cities as cities that were walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? In fact, there were many more. The reason is b that when the exiles ascended /b to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia in the time of Ezra, b they found these /b cities b and consecrated them /b as walled cities; b but the /b sanctity of the b first /b walled cities, enumerated in the book of Joshua, b was nullified when /b settlement in b Eretz /b Yisrael b was negated /b and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara comments: b Apparently, /b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b maintains: The initial consecration sanctified /b the Temple and Jerusalem b for their time /b only b and did not sanctify /b them b forever. /b , b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a different i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, says: Were these /b cities that are enumerated in tractate i Arakhin /i b the only /b walled cities? b But isn’t it already stated: “Sixty cities, all the region of Argob, the kingdom of Og, king of Bashan, all these were cities fortified with high walls, /b gates and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5), indicating that there were many walled cities in the time of Joshua? b Rather, why /b then b did the Sages enumerate /b specifically b these /b cities? It is due to the fact b that when the exiles ascended /b from Babylonia b they found these and consecrated them /b as walled cities.,The Gemara asks: b They consecrated them? /b If their sanctity remained, it should not have been necessary to consecrate them. b Now, don’t we say later /b in the same i baraita /i b that it is not necessary to consecrate /b them? The Gemara clarifies: b Rather, /b this is what the i baraita /i means to say: When the exiles ascended from Babylonia b they found these and enumerated them. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And not only these, but /b in b any /b city with regard to b which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it was surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot /b with regard to walled cities b are observed in it, due to /b the fact b that the initial consecration sanctified /b the Temple and Jerusalem b for their time and sanctified /b them b forever. /b The Gemara comments: This is b difficult, /b as there is a contradiction between one statement b of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei and /b another statement b of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. /b ,The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that there are b two i tanna’im /i /b who disagree b with regard to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael bar Yosei. /b Each transmitted Rabbi Yishmael’s opinion in a different manner. And b if you wish, say /b instead that one of the traditions is mistaken, as b one of the /b i baraitot /i b was stated by Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei, /b and not his brother, Rabbi Yishmael. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says /b that the verse with regard to walled cities states: b “Which has [ i lo /i ] a wall” /b (Leviticus 25:30). The word i lo /i is written with an i alef /i , meaning no, and accordingly the verse would be stating to the contrary, that the city does not have a wall, but its vocalization is in the sense of its homonym, i lo /i with a i vav /i , meaning that it has a wall. This indicates that b even if it does not presently have /b a wall b but it had /b a wall b previously, /b it retains its status as a walled city. It is Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei who maintains that the first consecration sanctified the Temple and Jerusalem forever. |
|
109. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71| 43a. (ויקרא כד, כג) ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה,אלא מעתה (ויקרא כד, כג) וירגמו אותו אבן מאי עבדי ליה ההוא מבעי ליה לכדתניא וירגמו אותו באבן אותו ולא בכסותו אבן שאם מת באבן אחת יצא,ואצטריך למיכתב אבן ואיצטריך למיכתב אבנים דאי כתב רחמנא אבן הוה אמינא היכא דלא מת בחדא לא ניתי אחריתי ומיקטליה כתב רחמנא אבנים ואי כתב רחמנא אבנים הוה אמינא מעיקרא נייתי תרתי כתב רחמנא אבן,והא האי תנא נאמר קאמר אילו לא נאמר קאמר וה"ק אילו לא נאמר קרא הייתי אומר גזירה שוה עכשיו שנאמר קרא גזירה שוה לא צריך,רב אשי אמר משה היכא הוה יתיב במחנה לוייה ואמר ליה רחמנא הוצא את המקלל חוץ למחנה לוייה אל מחוץ למחנה חוץ למחנה ישראל ויוציאו את המקלל לעשייה,עשייה בהדיא כתיב בהו ובני ישראל עשו כאשר צוה ה' את משה ההוא מיבעי ליה חד לסמיכה וחד לדחייה,אמרו ליה רבנן לרב אשי לדידך כל הני הוציא דכתיבי בפרים הנשרפים מאי דרשת בהו קשיא:,אחד עומד כו': אמר רב הונא פשיטא לי אחד אבן שנסקל בה ואחד עץ שנתלה בו ואחד סייף שנהרג בו ואחד סודר שנחנק בו כולן משל צבור מ"ט דמדידיה לא אמרינן ליה זיל וליתיה וליקטול נפשיה,בעי רב הונא סודר שמניפין בו וסוס שרץ ומעמידן משל מי הוא כיון דהצלה דידיה מדידיה הוא או דילמא כיון דבי דינא מחייבין למעבד בה הצלה מדידהו,ותו הא דאמר ר' חייא בר רב אשי אמר רב חסדא היוצא ליהרג משקין אותו קורט של לבונה בכוס של יין כדי שתטרף דעתו שנאמר (משלי לא, ו) תנו שכר לאובד ויין למרי נפש ותניא נשים יקרות שבירושלים היו מתנדבות ומביאות אותן לא התנדבו נשים יקרות משל מי הא ודאי מסתברא משל צבור כיון דכתיב תנו מדידהו,בעא מיניה רב אחא בר הונא מרב ששת אמר אחד מן התלמידים יש לי ללמד עליו זכות ונשתתק מהו מנפח רב ששת בידיה נשתתק אפילו אחד בסוף העולם נמי התם לא קאמר הכא קאמר מאי,תא שמע דאמר רבי יוסי בר חנינא אחד מן התלמידים שזיכה ומת רואין אותו כאילו חי ועומד במקומו זיכה אין לא זיכה לא,זיכה פשיטא לי אמר תיבעי לך:,אפילו הוא כו': ואפילו פעם ראשונה ושניה והתניא פעם ראשונה ושניה בין שיש ממש בדבריו בין שאין ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו מכאן ואילך אם יש ממש בדבריו מחזירין אותו אין ממש בדבריו אין מחזירין אותו,אמר רב פפא תרגומה מפעם שניה ואילך,מנא ידעי אמר אביי דמסרינן ליה זוגא דרבנן אי איכא ממש בדבריו אין אי לא לא,ולימסר ליה מעיקרא אגב דבעית לא מצי אמר כל מאי דאית ליה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מצאו לו זכות פטרוהו ואם לאו יצא ליסקל וכרוז יוצא לפניו איש פלוני בן פלוני יוצא ליסקל על שעבר עבירה פלונית ופלוני ופלוני עדיו כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר אביי וצריך למימר ביום פלוני ובשעה פלונית ובמקום פלוני דילמא איכא דידעי ואתו ומזים להו:,וכרוז יוצא לפניו לפניו אין מעיקרא לא והתניא בערב הפסח תלאוהו לישו והכרוז יוצא לפניו מ' יום ישו יוצא ליסקל על שכישף והסית והדיח את ישראל כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו ולא מצאו לו זכות ותלאוהו בערב הפסח,אמר עולא ותסברא בר הפוכי זכות הוא מסית הוא ורחמנא אמר (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו אלא שאני ישו דקרוב למלכות הוה,ת"ר חמשה תלמידים היו לו לישו מתאי נקאי נצר ובוני ותודה אתיוהו למתי אמר להו מתי יהרג הכתיב (תהלים מב, ג) מתי אבוא ואראה פני אלהים אמרו לו אין מתי יהרג דכתיב (שם מא, ו) מתי ימות ואבד שמו,אתיוהו לנקאי אמר להו נקאי יהרג הכתיב (שמות כג, ז) ונקי וצדיק אל תהרוג אמרו לו אין נקאי יהרג דכתיב (תהלים י, ח) במסתרים יהרג נקי,אתיוהו לנצר אמר נצר יהרג הכתיב (ישעיה יא, א) ונצר משרשיו יפרה אמרו לו אין נצר יהרג דכתיב (שם יד, יט) ואתה השלכת מקברך כנצר נתעב,אתיוהו לבוני אמר אמר בוני יהרג הכתיב (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל אמרו לי' אין בוני יהרג דכתיב (שם, כג) הנה אנכי הורג את בנך בכורך,אתיוהו לתודה אמר תודה יהרג הכתיב (תהלים ק, א) מזמור לתודה אמרו לו אין תודה יהרג דכתיב (שם נ, כג) זובח תודה יכבדנני | 43a. b “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, what do they do with /b the words in the verse: b “And they stoned him with a stone”? /b These words appear to be superfluous, as even without them we would know that God’s instructions to stone the blasphemer were implemented. What then do they serve to teach? The Gemara answers: b That /b phrase is b necessary for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “And they stoned him with a stone.” /b The word b “him” /b teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, b but not /b while he was b in his clothing. /b The verse uses the singular term b “stone [ i aven /i ]” /b rather than the plural term stones [ i avanim /i ] to teach b that if /b the condemned man b died /b after being struck b with one stone, /b the court has b fulfilled /b its obligation.,The Gemara notes: b And /b it b was necessary to write /b with regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with b a stone,” /b in the singular, b and /b it b was necessary to write /b with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with b stones” /b (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. b As, had the Merciful One written /b only b “stone,” I would say /b that b where /b the condemned man b did not die /b after being struck b with one /b stone, b they do not bring other /b stones b and kill him /b with them. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes “stones.” And had the Merciful One written /b only b “stones,” I would say /b that b from the outset they should bring two /b or more stones. Therefore, b the Merciful One writes “stone.” /b ,The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s derivation: b But this i tanna /i /b of the i baraita /i cited above b said: It is stated /b here and it is stated elsewhere, thereby basing his derivation on a verbal analogy between the verse concerning the blasphemer and the verse concerning the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned. How, then, can Rav Pappa, an i amora /i , disagree and derive the i halakha /i directly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b said: Had it not been stated, and this /b is what he b is saying: Had a verse not been stated /b from which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, b I would have said /b that this can be learned by way of b a verbal analogy. /b But b now that /b such b a verse has been stated, /b the b verbal analogy is not needed. /b , b Rav Ashi said: /b The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. b Where was Moses sitting /b when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? b In the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: “Take out him who has cursed” /b (Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken b outside the Levite camp /b into the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: b “Outside the camp,” /b which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to b outside the Israelite camp. /b And the later verse, which says: b “And they brought him that had cursed /b out of the camp…and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us b about the implementation /b of God’s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.,The Gemara raises an objection: b The implementation /b of God’s instructions is b written explicitly in this /b context, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: b “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” /b The Gemara answers: b That /b verse b is necessary /b to teach us that not only was the condemned man taken outside the three camps and stoned, but the rest of God’s instructions were also fulfilled. These instructions relate b to the placing /b of the witnesses’ b hands /b upon the head of the condemned man, as it is stated: “And let all that heard him place their hands upon his head” (Leviticus 24:14), b and to the /b witnesses’ b pushing /b of the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories., b The Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you, /b that the expression “take out” by itself means outside the camp, and “outside the camp” means outside an additional camp, b what do you learn from all those /b instances of b “take out” that are written with regard to the bulls /b brought as sin-offerings b that are burned? /b According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is b difficult /b with regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.,§ The mishna teaches that b one /b man b stands /b at the entrance to the court, with cloths in his hand, ready to signal to the court agents leading the condemned man to his execution that some doubt has been raised with respect to the latter’s guilt. b Rav Huna says: /b It is b obvious to me /b that b the stone with which /b the condemned man b is stoned and the tree on which /b his corpse b is hung /b after his execution, b or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these /b come b from /b the property of b the community. What is the reason /b for this? b We do not tell /b the condemned man to b go and bring /b these items b from his own /b property b and /b effectively b kill himself. /b , b Rav Huna raised /b a dilemma: With regard to b the cloth that is waved and the horse that races /b off after the court agents b to stop /b the latter from carrying out the execution, b from whose /b property b do they come, /b that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: b Since /b they are needed to b save /b the man being led to his execution, these items should be taken b from his /b property. b Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to /b take all possible measures to b save him /b from death, they should be taken b from them, /b i.e., the community., b And furthermore, /b another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to b that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says /b that b Rav Ḥisda says: /b The court b gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [ i koret /i ] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind /b and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, b as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” /b (Proverbs 31:6). b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate /b this drink b and bring /b it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If b these prominent women did not donate /b this drink, b from whom /b is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to b this /b question, it b is certainly reasonable /b that this drink should be taken b from the community, as it is written: “Give [ i tenu /i ] /b strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come b from them, /b the community.,§ b Rav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: /b If b one of the students /b sitting before the judges b said: I can teach /b a reason to b acquit him, and he became mute /b and cannot explain himself, b what is /b the i halakha /i in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? b Rav Sheshet waved his hands /b in scorn and said: If the student b became mute, /b the court certainly does not pay attention to him, as were the court to concern themselves with what he said, they would have to be concerned b even /b that perhaps there is b someone at the end of the world /b who can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. b There, no one said /b that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. b Here, /b the student already b said /b that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. b What /b is the i halakha /i in such a case?,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b an answer: b As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: /b In a case where there was b one of the students who /b argued to b acquit /b the defendant b and /b then b died, /b the court b views him as if /b he were b alive and standing in his place /b and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if b he /b argued to b acquit /b the defendant and explained his reasoning, b yes, /b the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if b he did not /b actually argue to b acquit /b the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is b not /b counted as though he were still alive.,The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student b argued /b to b acquit /b the defendant, it is b obvious to me /b that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only b says /b that he wishes to propose such an argument, b let the dilemma be raised /b whether or not he should be regarded as having presented a convincing argument in favor of acquittal. The question is left unresolved.,The mishna teaches: And b even /b if b he, /b the condemned man himself, says: I can teach a reason to acquit myself, he is returned to the courthouse even four or five times, provided that there is substance to his words. The Gemara asks: b And /b is the i halakha /i that there must be substance to his words b even the first and second time /b that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The first and second times /b that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, b they return him /b to the courthouse and consider b whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this /b point b forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him /b to the courthouse, but if b there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. /b This appears to contradict the mishna., b Rav Pappa said: Explain /b that the mishna’s ruling applies only b from /b after b the second time forward, /b that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.,The Gemara asks: b How do we know /b whether or not there is substance to his words? b Abaye said: /b If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, b we send a pair of rabbis with him /b to evaluate his claim. b If /b they find that b there is substance to his statement, yes, /b he is returned once again to the courthouse; b if not, /b he is b not /b returned.,The Gemara asks: b But /b why not b send /b a pair of rabbis b with him from the outset, /b even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: b Since /b a man facing execution b is frightened /b by the thought of his impending death, b he is not able to say all that he has /b to say, and perhaps out of fear he will be confused and not provide a substantial reason to overturn his verdict. Therefore, the first two times he is returned to the courthouse without an initial examination of his arguments. Once he has already been returned on two occasions, the court allows for no further delay, and they send two rabbis to evaluate his claim before returning him a third time., strong MISHNA: /strong If, after the condemned man is returned to the courthouse, the judges b find /b a reason to b acquit him, they /b acquit him and b release him /b immediately. b But if /b they do b not /b find a reason to acquit him, b he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him /b and publicly proclaims: b So-and-so, son of so-and-so, is going out to be stoned because he committed such and such a transgression. And so-and-so and so-and-so are his witnesses. Anyone who knows /b of a reason to b acquit him should come /b forward b and teach /b it b on his behalf. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Abaye says: And /b the crier b must /b also publicly b proclaim /b that the transgression was committed b on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, /b as b perhaps there are those who know /b that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, b and they will come /b forward b and render /b the witnesses b conspiring witnesses. /b ,The mishna teaches that b a crier goes out before /b the condemned man. This indicates that it is only b before him, /b i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that b yes, /b the crier goes out, but b from the outset, /b before the accused is convicted, he does b not /b go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On Passover Eve they hung /b the corpse of b Jesus the Nazarene /b after they killed him by way of stoning. b And a crier went out before him /b for b forty days, /b publicly proclaiming: b Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited /b people to idol worship, b and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows /b of a reason to b acquit him should come /b forward b and teach /b it b on his behalf. And /b the court b did not find /b a reason to b acquit him, and /b so b they /b stoned him and b hung his /b corpse b on Passover eve. /b , b Ulla said: And /b how can b you understand /b this proof? Was b Jesus the Nazarene worthy of /b conducting b a search /b for a reason to b acquit /b him? b He /b was b an inciter /b to idol worship, b and the Merciful One states /b with regard to an inciter to idol worship: b “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9). b Rather, Jesus was different, as he /b had b close /b ties b with the government, /b and the gentile authorities were interested in his acquittal. Consequently, the court gave him every opportunity to clear himself, so that it could not be claimed that he was falsely convicted.,Apropos the trial of Jesus, the Gemara cites another i baraita /i , where b the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in /b to stand trial. Mattai b said to /b the judges: b Shall Mattai be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “When [ i matai /i ] shall I come and appear before God?” /b (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. b They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [ i matai /i ] shall he die, and his name perish?” /b (Psalms 41:6).,Then b they brought Nakai in /b to stand trial. Nakai b said /b to the judges: b Shall Nakai be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “And the innocent [ i naki /i ] and righteous you shall not slay” /b (Exodus 23:7)? b They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [ i naki /i ]” /b (Psalms 10:8).,Then b they brought Netzer in /b to stand trial. b He said /b to the judges: b Shall Netzer be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “And a branch [ i netzer /i ] shall grow out of his roots” /b (Isaiah 11:1)? b They said to him: Yes, Netzer shall be executed, as it is written: “But you are cast out of your grave like an abhorred branch [ i netzer /i ]” /b (Isaiah 14:19).,Then b they brought Buni in /b to stand trial. Buni b said /b to the judges: b Shall Buni be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “My firstborn son [ i beni /i ] is Israel” /b (Exodus 4:22)? b They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [ i binkha /i ]” /b (Exodus 4:23).,Then b they brought Toda in /b to stand trial. Toda b said /b to the judges: b Shall Toda be executed? /b But b isn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [ i toda /i ]” /b (Psalms 100:1)? b They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [ i toda /i ] honors Me” /b (Psalms 50:23). |
|
110. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 19b. וחכמים מטהרין,תנאי היא דתניא הימים האלו הכתובין במגילת תענית בין בזמן שבית המקדש קיים בין בזמן שאין בהמ"ק קיים אסורין דברי ר"מ רבי יוסי אומר בזמן שבהמ"ק קיים אסורין מפני ששמחה היא להם אין בית המקדש קיים מותרין מפני שאבל הוא להם,והלכתא בטלו והלכתא לא בטלו קשיא הלכתא אהלכתא לא קשיא כאן בחנוכה ופורים כאן בשאר יומי:,על אלול מפני ר"ה ועל תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות: כיון דנפקי להו אאלול אתשרי למה להו,וכי תימא דלמא עברוה לאלול והאמר רבי חיננא בר כהנא א"ר מימות עזרא ואילך לא מצינו אלול מעובר,לא מצינו דלא איצטריך הא איצטריך מעברינן ליה,הא מיקלקל ר"ה מוטב תיקלקל ראש השנה ולא יתקלקלו כולהו מועדות,דיקא נמי דקתני על תשרי מפני תקנת המועדות ש"מ:,ועל כסליו מפני חנוכה ועל אדר מפני הפורים: ואילו נתעברה השנה יוצאין אף על אדר שני מפני הפורים לא קתני מתניתין דלא כר' דתניא רבי אומר אם נתעברה השנה יוצאין אף על אדר השני מפני הפורים,לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר כל מצות הנוהגות בשני נוהגות בראשון ומר סבר כל מצות הנוהגות בשני אין נוהגות בראשון,לא דכולי עלמא מצות הנוהגות בשני אין נוהגות בראשון והכא בעיבור שנה קמיפלגי דתניא כמה עיבור שנה ל' יום רשב"ג אומר חדש,מאי שנא ל' דידעי חדש נמי ידעי א"ר פפא מ"ד חדש רצה חדש רצה שלשים,העיד ר' יהושע בן לוי משום קהלא קדישא דירושלים על שני אדרים שמקדשין אותם ביום עיבוריהן,למימרא דחסרין עבדינן מלאין לא עבדינן לאפוקי מדדרש רב נחמן בר חסדא העיד רבי סימאי משום חגי זכריה ומלאכי על שני אדרים שאם רצו לעשותן שניהן מלאין עושין שניהן חסרין עושין אחד מלא ואחד חסר עושין וכך היו נוהגין בגולה ומשום רבינו אמרו לעולם אחד מלא ואחד חסר עד שיוודע לך שהוקבע ר"ח בזמנו,שלחו ליה למר עוקבא אדר הסמוך לניסן לעולם חסר,מתיב רב נחמן על שני חדשים מחללין את השבת על ניסן ועל תשרי אי אמרת בשלמא זמנין מלא זמנין חסר משום הכי מחללינן | 19b. b whereas the Sages declare it pure. /b According to them, it is still considered a broken utensil. Rabbi Meir himself lived after the destruction of the Second Temple. The festive day commemorating the annulling of the decree of Rome was instituted as a result of an incident involving his student, Rabbi Yehuda ben Shammua. From this, it is clear that i Megillat Ta’anit /i had not yet been nullified.,The Gemara answers: The question whether or not i Megillat Ta’anit /i has been nullified is the subject of a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b These days, which are written in i Megillat Ta’anit /i , both when the Temple is standing and when the Temple is not standing, are /b days on which fasting is b prohibited; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yosei says: When the Temple is standing, /b these days b are prohibited /b for fasting b because /b these days b are /b a source of b joy for /b Israel. But when b the Temple is not standing, /b these days b are permitted /b for fasting b because these /b days b are /b a source of b mourning for them. /b ,The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is /b that these days b were nullified, and the i halakha /i is /b that b they were not nullified. /b The Gemara asks: This b is difficult, /b as one b i halakha /i /b contradicts b the /b other b i halakha /i . /b The Gemara answers: b It /b is b not difficult. Here, /b it is referring to b Hanukkah and Purim. /b These Festival days were never nullified, and Hanukkah is listed among the Festivals of i Megillat Ta’anit /i . b There, /b the i halakha /i is referring to b the rest of the days /b listed in i Megillat Ta’anit /i , all of which were nullified.,§ The mishna taught: Messengers go out to inform about the sanctification of the New Moon b in Elul, due to Rosh HaShana, and in Tishrei, due to the /b need to establish the b correct /b dates on which to celebrate b the Festivals /b of Tishrei. The Gemara asks: b Once /b the messengers b have gone out in /b the month of b Elul /b to inform the people when the New Moon was declared, b why do they /b need to go out again b in Tishrei, /b as the New Moon of Tishrei always falls on the thirtieth day after the New Moon of Elul?, b And if you say /b that messengers must go out for Tishrei as well, as b perhaps the /b court b added /b another day to the month of b Elul, /b so that Rosh HaShana occurs on the thirty-first day after the New Moon of Elul, there is a difficulty. b Didn’t Rabbi Ḥina bar Kahana say /b that b Rav said: From the days of Ezra and onward, we have never found that /b the month of b Elul /b had b an additional /b day. Consequently, it is simple to calculate the days on which the Festivals of Tishrei occur, and there should be no need to send out messengers in Tishrei.,The Gemara answers: When we say: b We have not /b found that the month of Elul ever had an additional day, this does not mean that Elul cannot have an additional day, but only that it never happened b because it was not necessary /b to add a day. b But /b if it had been b necessary, they would /b have added b an additional /b day. Since it is possible that the month of Elul could have had another day added, there is reason to send out messengers for the month of Tishrei, so that all will know when to celebrate the Festivals.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if Elul has an additional day b Rosh HaShana will be ruined, /b because people will celebrate it thirty days after the New Moon of Elul, when its real date is on the thirty-first day. The Gemara answers: b Better that Rosh HaShana be ruined, and all the Festivals, /b i.e., Yom Kippur, i Sukkot /i , and the Eighth Day of Assembly, b not be ruined. /b ,The language of the mishna b is also precise, as it teaches: /b Messengers go out b in /b the month of b Tishrei due to the /b need to establish the b correct /b dates on which to celebrate b the Festivals /b of Tishrei. The Gemara summarizes: Indeed, b conclude from here /b that this is the correct understanding.,§ The mishna taught: Messengers go out b in Kislev, due to Hanukkah, and in Adar, due to Purim. Whereas, it is not taught: If the year was a leap year, /b with an additional month of Adar, the messengers b go out also in the second Adar due to Purim, /b which is celebrated in the second Adar. This indicates that b the mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: If the year was a leap year, /b the messengers b go out also in the second Adar, due to Purim. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say that they disagree about this. /b One b Sage, /b the author of this mishna, b holds /b that b all the mitzvot observed in the second /b Adar, i.e., the special Torah readings and the mitzvot of Purim, b are /b also b observed in the first /b Adar. If they were observed in the first Adar and not in the second, the people have fulfilled their obligation. Therefore, there is no need to send messengers in the second Adar. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b holds /b that b all the mitzvot observed in the second /b Adar b are not observed in the first. /b It is therefore necessary to send messengers in the second Adar, so that people will know when to keep the mitzvot of Adar.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b No, everyone agrees that the mitzvot observed in the second /b Adar b are not observed on the first, and here they disagree about /b the length of the additional month in the b leap year, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How long is /b the additional month in b a leap year? Thirty days. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: A month. /b Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and since the additional month does not have a fixed number of days, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar, so that people will know when to celebrate Purim. However, according to the first i tanna /i , since the first Adar is always a fixed length, there is no need to send messengers.,The Gemara asks: b What is different about thirty days? /b It is different b because /b people can count thirty days and b know /b when the month ends and when Purim occurs. b A month also, /b people b know /b the length of it. The term month implies that it is a month of twenty-nine days, and based on that they know when to celebrate Purim. b Rav Pappa said: The one who said /b that b a month /b is added does not mean necessarily a month of twenty-nine days. Rather, b if /b the judges of the court b wish, /b they add b a month /b of twenty-nine days; and b if it wishes, /b they add b thirty /b days. Therefore, it is necessary to send messengers also for the second Adar., b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi testified in the name of the holy community of Jerusalem about the two /b months of b Adar, that they are sanctified on the day that /b could have been added to make them b a full /b month, i.e., the thirtieth day after the previous New Moon. That is to say, the thirtieth day after the New Moon of the first Adar is always the New Moon of the second Adar, and thirty days after the New Moon of the second Adar is always the New Moon of Nisan.,The Gemara comments: b That is to say /b that b they make /b the two months of Adar b short /b months, of twenty-nine days, but b they do not make them full /b months, of thirty days. This is b to the exclusion of what Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda taught, /b as Rav Naḥman bar Ḥisda taught: b Rabbi Simai testified in the name of Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi about two /b months of b Adar /b in a leap year, b that if /b the members of the court b wish to make them both full, they may do /b so; and if they wish to make them both b short, they may do /b so; and if they wish to b make one full and one short, they may do /b so. b And this is what they would do in the Diaspora, /b when they did not know which day was established as the New Moon. b And in the name of our teacher, /b Rav, b they said: /b The two months of Adar are b always /b observed, b one full and one short, unless it is known to you that /b the b New Moon was fixed in its /b proper b time, /b i.e., the first Adar is also short.,A ruling b was sent /b from Eretz Yisrael b to Mar Ukva, /b the Exilarch in Babylonia: b The Adar that /b immediately b precedes Nisan is always short, /b both in a regular year and in a leap year. But the first Adar in a leap year, which does not immediately precede Nisan, is sometimes full., b Rav Naḥman raised an objection /b from what was taught in a mishna: Witnesses who saw the new moon b may desecrate Shabbat for /b the fixing of the New Moon of b two months, for /b the month of b Nisan and for /b the month of b Tishrei, /b due to the important Festivals that occur in them. b Granted, if you say /b that the Adar immediately preceding Nisan is b sometimes full and sometimes short, due to that /b reason the witnesses b may desecrate /b Shabbat, as if the witnesses come on the thirtieth, the month will be made short and that day will be declared the New Moon; otherwise, the month will be made full and the next day will be declared the New Moon. |
|
111. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 47a. חייבת בחלה ואינה נפסלת בטבול יום דברי ר"מ ור' יהודה ר' יוסי ור"ש פוטרין מן החלה,סברוה מאן דאמר תרומה דאורייתא חלה דאורייתא מאן דאמר תרומה דרבנן חלה דרבנן אי אמרת בשלמא קסבר רבי יוסי חלה בזמן הזה דרבנן אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דרבנן,אלא אי אמרת חלה דאורייתא אתי דמוע דרבנן ומפקע חלה דאורייתא,ודלמא קסבר רבי יוסי תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא וחלה דרבנן,וכדאהדר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע דאמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע אשכחתינהו לרבנן דבי רב דיתבי וקאמרי אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דרבנן חלה דאורייתא,שהרי שבע שכבשו ושבע שחלקו נתחייבו בחלה ולא נתחייבו במעשר,ואמינא להו אנא אפילו למ"ד תרומה בזמן הזה דאורייתא חלה דרבנן דתניא אי בבואכם יכול משנכנסו לה שנים ושלשה מרגלים ת"ל בבואכם בביאת כולכם אמרתי ולא בביאת מקצתכם,וכי אסקינהו עזרא לא כולהו סלוק, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big משל משלו חכמים באשה פגה בוחל וצמל פגה עודה תנוקת בוחל אלו ימי נעוריה,בזו ובזו אמרו אביה זכאי במציאתה ובמעשה ידיה ובהפרת נדריה צמל כיון שבגרה שוב אין לאביה רשות בה,איזהו סימנין ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט תחת הדד ר"ע אומר משיטו הדדים בן עזאי אומר משישחיר הפיטומת רבי יוסי אומר כדי שיהא נותן ידו על העוקץ והוא שוקע ושוהא לחזור, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big פגה עודה תנוקת כדכתיב {שיר השירים ב׳:י״ג } התאנה חנטה פגיה בוחל אלו ימי הנעורים כדתנן התאנים משיבחלו ואמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רב משילבין ראשיהן,ואיבעית אימא מהכא (זכריה יא, ח) ותקצר נפשי בהם וגם נפשם בחלה בי צמל כמ"ד יצתה מלאה,ואיזהו סימנים ר' יוסי הגלילי אומר משיעלה הקמט אמר שמואל לא משיעלה הקמט ממש אלא כדי שתחזיר ידיה לאחוריה ונראית כמי שיעלה הקמט תחת הדד,שמואל בדק באמתיה ויהב לה ד' זוזי דמי בושתה שמואל לטעמיה דאמר שמואל (ויקרא כה, מו) לעולם בהם תעבודו לעבודה נתתים ולא לבושה,שמואל מייחד להן רב נחמן מחליף להן רב ששת מסר להן לערבי ואמר להן אזדהרו מישראל,רבי יוסי אומר כו' מאי עוקץ אמר שמואל עוקצו של דד,ת"ר אלו הן סימני בגרות ר"א בר' צדוק אומר משיתקשקשו הדדין ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר משיכסיף ראש החוטם משיכסיף אזקונה לה אלא א"ר אשי משיפציל ראש החוטם ר' יוסי אומר משתקיף העטרה ר"ש אומר משנתמעך | 47a. it is b subject to the obligation /b of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b the portion of the dough designated for the priest. b And /b although i teruma /i fell into it, that produce does not have the status of i teruma /i , as the i teruma /i was nullified by a majority of non-sacred produce. Consequently, b it is not rendered unfit /b for consumption, i.e., rendered ritually impure, b by one /b who was ritually impure b who immersed that day /b and is waiting for nightfall for his purification process to be completed. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon deem /b the dough b exempt from the /b obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b as this obligation does not apply to i teruma /i , and the entire dough is exempt due to the mixture of i teruma /i it contains.,The Sages b assumed /b that b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law /b maintains that b i ḥalla /i /b likewise applies in the present b by Torah law, /b whereas b the one who said /b that b i teruma /i /b in the present applies b by rabbinic law /b holds that b i ḥalla /i /b also applies b by rabbinic law. /b If so, b granted, if you say /b that b Rabbi Yosei holds /b that b i ḥalla /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b one can understand that b a mixture /b which has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law comes and abrogates /b the obligation of separating b i ḥalla /i , /b which also applies b by rabbinic law. /b , b But if you say /b that b i ḥalla /i /b in the present applies b by Torah law, /b can b a mixture /b that has the status of i teruma /i b by rabbinic law come and abrogate /b the mitzva of b i ḥalla /i /b which is b by Torah law? /b Evidently, according to Rabbi Yosei the obligation of separating i ḥalla /i in the present is by rabbinic law, and therefore i teruma /i likewise applies by rabbinic law. If so, Rabbi Yosei does not agree with the opinion he cites in i Seder Olam /i , according to which i teruma /i applies in the present by Torah law.,The Gemara rejects this proof: b But perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law and /b yet b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b and therefore the mixture discussed in the above i baraita /i , which has the status of i teruma /i by Torah law, abrogates the obligation of i ḥalla /i , which is by rabbinic law.,The Gemara adds: b And /b this answer is b as Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, responded /b to the statement of the other Sages. b As Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: I /b once b found the Sages of the study hall of Rav sitting and saying: Even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by rabbinic law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b is b by Torah law. /b ,The reason is b that /b during the b seven /b years b that /b the Jewish people b conquered /b Eretz Yisrael led by Joshua b and /b during the b seven /b years b that they divided /b the land, b they were obligated to /b separate b i ḥalla /i but they were not obligated to /b separate i teruma /i and b tithe. /b In the present as well, although there is no obligation to set aside i teruma /i in Eretz Yisrael by Torah law, the obligation to separate i ḥalla /i applies by Torah law.,Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, continued: b And I said to them: /b On the contrary, b even according to the one who said /b that b i teruma /i in the present /b applies b by Torah law, /b the obligation to separate b i ḥalla /i /b applies b by rabbinic law, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to i ḥalla /i : “When you come into the land where I bring you…from the first of your dough you shall set apart a cake for a gift” (Numbers 15:18–20). b If /b the obligation applies b “when you come” /b into the land, one b might /b have thought that it took effect b from /b the moment b that two or three spies entered /b the land. Therefore b the verse states: “When you come,” /b from which it is derived that the Torah is saying: b I said /b that the obligation applies b when all of you come, and not when some of you come. /b ,According to this i baraita /i , the separation of i ḥalla /i is an obligation by Torah law only when the entire Jewish people come to Eretz Yisrael. b And when Ezra brought /b the Jewish people to Eretz Yisrael at the beginning of the Second Temple period, b not all of them ascended. /b Since the majority of the Jewish people stayed behind, separating i ḥalla /i was not restored to the status of an obligation by Torah law., strong MISHNA: /strong b The Sages stated a parable /b based on the development of the fruit of a fig tree with regard to the three stages of development b in a woman: /b Minority, young womanhood, and grown womanhood. b An unripe fig, a ripening fig, and a ripe fig. An unripe fig /b represents the stage when b she is still a child /b and has not yet developed the signs of puberty; b a ripening fig /b represents b the days of her young womanhood, /b when she reaches twelve years and one day and has developed two pubic hairs.,With regard to the periods both b during this /b stage, minority, b and during that /b stage, young womanhood, the Sages b said /b that b her father is entitled to /b any lost object that b she finds /b that cannot be returned to its owner, b and to her earnings, and to nullification of her vows. A ripe fig /b represents the stage of grown womanhood: b Once she has reached her majority, her father no longer has authority over her. /b He can no longer nullify her vows, and he does not have a claim to lost objects found by her and her earnings belong to her., b What are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears b below the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: /b It begins b from when the breasts sag /b onto the chest. b Ben Azzai says: /b It begins b from when the areola /b at the tip of the breast b darkens. Rabbi Yosei says: /b It begins when the breasts have developed to b a size where /b a person b places his hand on the nipple and it depresses and slows to return. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that b an unripe fig [ i paga /i ] /b represents the stage when a woman b is still a child. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of the word i paga /i is b as it is written: “The fig tree puts forth her green fruits [ i fageha /i ]” /b (Song of Songs 2:13). The mishna further teaches that b a ripening fig [ i boḥal /i ] /b represents b the days of her young womanhood. /b The Gemara explains that the meaning of this word is b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 1:2): The obligation of tithes applies to b the figs from when they begin to ripen [ i misheyyibaḥalu /i ]; and Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rav says /b that this means b from when the heads /b of the figs b whiten. /b ,The Gemara adds: b And if you wish, say /b instead that the source is b from here: “For My soul became impatient of them, and their soul also grew in disgust [ i baḥala /i ] toward Me” /b (Zechariah 11:8). The verse indicates that this word denotes growth. As for the third term in the mishna, b a ripe fig [ i tzemel /i ], /b it is b as one would say: /b A fruit b has come forth complete [ i yatzeta mele’a /i ]. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: b And what are the signs /b that indicate grown womanhood? b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili says: /b Grown womanhood begins b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that b a fold /b appears below the breast. b Shmuel says: /b This does b not literally /b mean b from when /b her breast b grows /b sufficiently so that a permanent b fold /b appears below the breast. b Rather, /b it means that the breast has grown enough b so that /b if she were to b stretch her hand behind her /b back, b it would appear as though /b her breast has b grown /b sufficiently that there is b a fold below the breast. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Shmuel examined /b these stages b in his /b Canaanite b maidservant, and /b subsequently b gave her four dinars /b as b payment for her humiliation. /b The Gemara notes that in this regard b Shmuel /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning, as Shmuel said /b that the verse: b “You may enslave them forever” /b (Leviticus 25:46) teaches: b I gave them /b to you b for /b the b service /b of slaves, b but not for humiliation. /b Consequently, if a master humiliated his Canaanite slave, he must pay him damages.,The Gemara further relates, with regard to the attitude toward maidservants, that b Shmuel /b would b designate /b a particular slave b for /b each of his maidservants for intercourse, and he would not allow his slaves to engage in intercourse with whichever maidservant they chose. By contrast, b Rav Naḥman /b would b exchange /b his maidservants between his slaves, while b Rav Sheshet handed /b his maidservants b to an Arab, and said to them: /b You may engage in intercourse with whomever you choose, but b take care /b not to engage in intercourse b with a Jew. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Grown womanhood begins when the breasts have developed to a size where if a person places his hand on the nipple [ i oketz /i ] it depresses and slows to return. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of b i oketz /i ? Shmuel said: /b It means b the protrusion [ i oketz /i ] of the breast, /b i.e., the nipple., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b What are the signs of maturity? Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: From when the breasts knock against each other, /b due to their size. b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka says: From when the head /b of the protrusion in the center b of the nipple darkens. /b The Gemara asks with regard to this suggestion: b From when it darkens? One /b thereby b renders her old, /b i.e., if one accepts this sign, the beginning of maturity is delayed significantly. b Rather, Rav Ashi said: From when the head of the protrusion splits. Rabbi Yosei says: From when the nipple /b grows to such an extent that it b is surrounded by a circle. Rabbi Shimon says: From when /b there is b a softening /b |
|
112. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 118| 145b. אלא לעדות אשה בלבד,איבעיא להו עד מפי עד לעדות בכור מהו רב אמי אסיר ורב אסי שרי,א"ל רב אמי לרב אסי והא תנא דבי מנשיא אין עד מפי עד כשר אלא לעדות אשה בלבד אימא לעדות שהאשה כשרה לה בלבד רב יימר אכשר עד מפי עד לבכור קרי עליה מרימר יימר שרי בוכרא והלכתא עד מפי עד כשר לבכור:,חלות דבש: כי אתא רב הושעיא מנהרדעא אתא ואייתי מתניתא בידיה זיתים וענבים שריסקן מע"ש ויצאו מעצמן אסורין ור"א ור"ש מתירין,אמר רב יוסף גברא יתירא אתא לאשמעינן א"ל אביי טובא קמ"ל דאי ממתניתין הוה אמינא התם הוא דמעיקרא אוכלא ולבסוף אוכלא אבל הכא דמעיקרא אוכלא ולבסוף משקה אימא לא קמ"ל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל שבא בחמין מערב שבת שורין אותו בחמין בשבת וכל שלא בא בחמין מערב שבת מדיחין אותו בחמין בשבת חוץ מן המליח הישן (ודגים מלוחין קטנים) וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big כגון מאי אמר רב ספרא כגון תרנגולתא דר' אבא ואמר רב ספרא זימנא חדא איקלעית להתם ואוכלן מיניה ואי לא רבי אבא דאשקיין חמרא בר תלתא טרפי איתנסי,רבי יוחנן רייק מכותח דבבלאי אמר רב יוסף ולירוק אנן מתרנגולתא דרבי אבא ועוד אמר רב גזא זימנא חדא איקלעית להתם ועבדית כותח דבבלאי שאילו מיניה כל בריחי מערבא:,כל שלא בא בחמין וכו': הדיח מאי אמר רב יוסף הדיח חייב חטאת אמר מר בריה דרבינא אף אנן נמי תנינא חוץ ממליח ישן וקולייס האיספנין שהדחתן זו היא גמר מלאכתן שמע מינה,יתיב רבי חייא בר אבא ורבי אסי קמיה דרבי יוחנן ויתיב רבי יוחנן וקא מנמנם אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא לרבי אסי מפני מה עופות שבבבל שמנים א"ל כלך למדבר עזה ואראך שמנים מהן מפני מה מועדים שבבבל שמחים מפני שהן עניים מפני מה ת"ח שבבבל מצויינין לפי שאינן בני תורה מפני מה עובדי כוכבים מזוהמי' מפני שאוכלין שקצי' ורמשי',איתער בהו רבי יוחנן אמר להו דרדקי לא כך אמרתי לכם (משלי ז, ד) אמור לחכמה אחותי את אם ברור לך הדבר כאחותך שהיא אסורה לך אומרהו ואם לאו לא תאמרהו אמרו ליה ולימא לן מר איזה מהן מפני מה עופות שבבבל שמנים מפני שלא גלו שנאמר (ירמיהו מח, יא) שאנן מואב מנעוריו ושקט הוא אל שמריו ובגולה לא הלך,והכא מנלן דגלו דתניא רבי יהודה אומר נ"ב שנה לא עבר איש ביהודה שנאמר (ירמיהו ט, ט) על ההרים אשא בכי ונהי וגו' מעוף השמים ועד בהמה נדדו הלכו בהמ"ה בגימטריא חמשין ותרתין הוו,א"ר יעקב א"ר יוחנן כולן חזרו חוץ מקולייס האיספנין דאמר רב הני מדרי דבבל מהדרי מיא לעין עיטם והאי כיון דלא שריר שדריה לא מצי סליק,מפני מה מועדים שבבבל שמחים מפני שלא היו באותה קללה דכתיב (הושע ב, יג) והשבתי כל משושה חגה חדשה ושבתה וכל מועדה וכתיב (ישעיהו א, יד) חדשיכם ומועדיכם שנאה נפשי היו עלי לטורח מאי היו עלי לטורח א"ר אלעזר אמר הקב"ה לא דיין לישראל שחוטאין לפני אלא שמטריחין אותי לידע איזו גזירה קשה אביא עליהן א"ר יצחק אין לך כל רגל ורגל שלא באתה בולשת לציפורי ואמר רבי חנינא אין לך כל רגל ורגל שלא בא לטבריה אגמון וקמטון ובעל זמורה,מפני מה ת"ח שבבבל מצויינין לפי שאינן בני מקומן דאמרי אינשי במתא שמאי בלא מתא תותבאי (ישעיהו כז, ו) הבאים ישרש יעקב יציץ ופרח ישראל תני רב יוסף אלו תלמידי חכמים שבבבל שעושין ציצין ופרחים לתורה,מפני מה עובדי כוכבים מזוהמין שלא עמדו על הר סיני שבשעה | 145b. b only for testimony /b that b a woman’s /b husband died, enabling her to remarry. Only in that case can a ruling rely on hearsay testimony, and that is specifically so the woman will be allowed to remarry., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages about a related matter: With regard to b hearsay testimony in testimony /b permitting a priest to eat b a firstborn /b animal, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? After the destruction of the Temple, the Sages decreed that if a priest has the firstborn offspring of a kosher animal and it becomes blemished, he must bring witnesses to testify that he did not cause the blemish. Priests were suspected of violating the prohibition against inflicting a wound on firstborn animals to enable them to eat the animals. The question here pertains to a case in which there is no one available who can testify that he saw firsthand how the animal was blemished, but there is someone who heard from an eyewitness how the blemish was caused. b Rav Ami prohibited /b accepting hearsay testimony in this case, b and Rav Asi permitted /b doing so., b Rav Ami said to Rav Asi: Didn’t the school /b of b Menashya teach /b that b hearsay testimony is only valid in testimony /b enabling b a woman /b to remarry, indicating that it is not accepted in the case of a firstborn animal? Rav Asi answered: Emend the previously cited ruling and b say: /b Hearsay testimony is b only /b valid b in testimony for which /b the testimony of b a woman is valid. /b A woman’s testimony is accepted with regard to the death of a man, enabling his wife to remarry, and it is also accepted with regard to a firstborn animal. b Rav Yeimar deemed hearsay testimony /b valid in permitting the slaughter of a firstborn animal that developed a blemish. b Mareimar called him: Yeimar who permits the firstborn; /b Mareimar was of the opinion that testimony of that kind is invalid and cannot provide the basis to allow the animal to be slaughtered. The Gemara concludes: b And the i halakha /i is /b that b hearsay testimony is valid with regard to a firstborn /b animal.,We learned in the mishna that according to Rabbi Eliezer, honey that flows on its own from b honeycombs /b is permitted on Shabbat. b When Rav Hoshaya came from Neharde’a, he came and brought a i baraita /i with him: /b With regard to b olives and grapes that one crushed before Shabbat and /b their juices b seeped out on their own /b on Shabbat, the juices b are prohibited /b for use on Shabbat; b and Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Shimon permit /b using them., b Rav Yosef said /b rhetorically: b Did he /b merely b come to teach us an additional person? /b This opinion already appears in the mishna in the name of Rabbi Elazar. Did Rav Hoshaya cite the i baraita /i merely to add the name of Rabbi Shimon? b Abaye said to him: He is teaching us a great deal, as if /b we learned this matter b from the mishna /b alone, b I would have said: It is there that it is /b permitted, because b initially /b it was b food and ultimately /b it remained b food, /b since it is possible to assert that the honey that seeped is a food rather than a liquid. b However, here, /b with regard to olives and grapes, b which initially /b were b food and ultimately /b became b liquid, say /b that it is b not /b permitted even according to Rabbi Elazar. Therefore, b he is teaching us /b that Rabbi Elazar rules leniently even in the case of olives and grapes., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any /b salted food item b that was /b already b placed in hot water, /b i.e., cooked, b before Shabbat, one may soak it in hot water /b even b on Shabbat. And anything that was not placed in hot water before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat /b but may not soak it, b with the exception of old salted /b fish b and small salted fish and /b the b i kolyas ha’ispanin /i /b fish, b for which rinsing /b with hot water b itself is completion of the prohibited labor /b of cooking., strong GEMARA: /strong We learned in the mishna that an item that was cooked before Shabbat may be soaked in hot water on Shabbat. The Gemara asks: b In what case /b would soaking in hot water be required after the item was already cooked? b Rav Safra said: In the case of the chicken of Rabbi Abba, /b which for medical reasons was cooked so thoroughly that it completely dissolved. b And Rav Safra said: One time I happened to come there and he fed me /b chicken prepared that way, b and if not /b for the fact that b Rabbi Abba gave me three-leaf-, /b i.e., year, b old wine to drink, I would have been forced /b to vomit., b The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yoḥa would spit from the thought of Babylonian i kutaḥ /i , /b because he found it so disgusting. b Rav Yosef said: Then we should spit from /b the thought of b Rabbi Abba’s chicken, /b which is even more disgusting to people from Babylonia. b And furthermore, Rav Gaza said: /b On b one occasion I happened to come there, /b to Eretz Yisrael, b and I prepared Babylonian i kutaḥ /i , /b and b all of the sick people of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b asked me for it. /b Apparently, not everyone in Eretz Yisrael found it disgusting.,We learned in the mishna: b Anything that was not /b cooked b in hot water /b before Shabbat, one may rinse it in hot water on Shabbat except for salted fish and i kolyas ha’ispanin /i . The Gemara asks: If b one /b unwittingly b rinsed /b it, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Rav Yosef said: /b If b one rinsed /b these foods, he is b liable to /b bring b a sin-offering /b for having performed the prohibited labor of cooking. b Mar, son of Ravina, said: We, too, have also learned /b this ruling in the mishna, which states: b Except for old salted fish and i kolyas ha’ispanin /i , rinsing itself is completion of their prohibited labor /b of cooking. One who rinses these items is considered to have performed a prohibited labor. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, b learn from this /b that this is the ruling.,Apropos relations between the Jews of Eretz Yisrael and Babylonia, the Gemara relates: b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥa, and Rabbi Yoḥa was sitting and dozing. /b In the meantime the two of them conversed. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to Rabbi Asi: For what /b reason b are the fowl in Babylonia fatter /b than those in Eretz Yisrael? b He said to him: /b This is not at all the case; b go to the desert of Gaza /b in Eretz Yisrael, b and I will show you /b fowl that are b fatter than them. /b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba then asked: b For what /b reason are b Festivals in Babylonia more joyous /b than those in Eretz Yisrael? Rabbi Asi answered him: b Because /b in Babylonia b they are poor, /b and it is only on Festivals that they have a lot to eat, which causes them to rejoice. Rabbi Ḥiyya then asked: b For what /b reason b are Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguished /b by their special rabbinic garb? Rabbi Asi answered: b Because they are not well-versed in Torah. /b If they would not distinguish themselves by dressing differently, they would not be respected for their Torah knowledge. He then asked: b For what /b reason b are gentiles /b ethically b contaminated? /b He answered: b Because they eat abominable creatures and crawling things, /b and that causes bad character traits., b Rabbi Yoḥa woke up /b due to their discussion b and said to them: /b You b children, did I not tell you this, /b that the verse b “Say to wisdom: You are my sister, /b and call understanding your kin” (Proverbs 7:4) means that b if the matter is as clear to you as /b the fact that b your sister is forbidden to you, say it, and if not, do not say it; /b and these explanations that you offered are unfounded. b They said to him: Then will the Master tell us /b the answers to b some of them? /b He said to them: b Why are /b the b fowl in Babylonia fatter /b than those in Eretz Yisrael? b Because they were not exiled, as it says: “Moab has been at ease since his youth and he has settled on his lees, /b and he was not emptied from vessel to vessel b and did not go into captivity; /b therefore his taste remained in him and his scent did not change” (Jeremiah 48:11). Apparently, one who is not exiled retains his strength., b And here /b in Eretz Yisrael, b from where do we /b derive b that /b even the animals and birds b were exiled? As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that b no person passed through /b the land of b Judea /b for b fifty-two years, as it is stated: “I will raise crying and wailing for the mountains /b and a lamentation for the pastures of the wilderness, for they have been burned, with no person passing through, and they do not hear the voice of the cattle, b from the bird of the heavens to the beast [ i behema /i , /b spelled i beit /i , i heh /i , i mem /i , i heh /i ], b all have fled and gone” /b (Jeremiah 9:9). b i Behema /i has a numerical value of fifty-two, /b alluding to the fact that no one passed through for fifty-two years. From the verse cited in this i baraita /i , it is clear that even the animals and birds were exiled, as it states: “All have fled and gone.”, b Rabbi Ya’akov said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: They all returned except for the i kolyas ha’ispanin /i , as Rav said: Those inclines of Babylonia return the water /b through underground watercourses b to the spring of Eitam /b in Eretz Yisrael, and the fish also returned through these watercourses. b And this /b fish, the i kolyas /i , b because its spine is not strong, it could not ascend /b these watercourses and did not return to Eretz Yisrael.,Rabbi Yoḥa continued to answer the questions of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba and Rabbi Asi: b For what /b reason are the b Festivals in Babylonia more joyous /b than those in Eretz Yisrael? b Because they were not /b included b in that curse /b with which Eretz Yisrael was cursed, b as it is written: “And I will cause all of her happiness to cease, her Festival, her New Moon, and her Shabbat and all her Festivals” /b (Hosea 2:13). b And it is /b also b written: “My soul hates your New Moons and your Festivals; they are a burden to Me; /b I am weary to bear them” (Isaiah 1:14). b What is /b the meaning of the phrase: b “They are a burden to me”? Rabbi Elazar said /b that b the Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Is it not enough for the Jewish people that they sin before Me, that they /b also b burden Me to know which harsh decree I will bring upon them? Rabbi Yitzḥak said: /b Because of this curse, b there is not a single Festival on which troops did not come to Tzippori /b to conduct searches or to collect taxes. b And Rabbi Ḥanina said: There is not a single Festival on which an i egmon /i and a i kamton /i and a branch bearer, /b Roman officials, b did not come to Tiberias /b to collect taxes, thereby disrupting the festive celebrations., b For what /b reason are b the Torah scholars in Babylonia distinguished /b by special garb? b Because they are not native to that place /b and therefore require special dress to distinguish themselves, b as people say /b in the folk expression: b In /b my own b city, /b I am honored for b my name; in /b a place that is b not /b my own b city, /b I am honored for b my clothing. /b The Gemara then praised the Sages of Babylonia by interpreting the verse “In days b to come Jacob will take root, Israel will bud and blossom” /b (Isaiah 27:6). b Rav Yosef taught: These are the Torah scholars in Babylonia, who add buds and blossoms to the Torah. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa then explained to them: b Why are gentiles /b ethically b contaminated? /b It is because b they did not stand on Mount Sinai. As when /b |
|
113. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120 | 53a. b “And this is the law of the meal offering: The sons of Aaron shall sacrifice it before the Lord in front of the altar…And that which is left of it Aaron and his sons shall eat; it shall be eaten as i matzot /i ” /b (Leviticus 6:7–9). These verses demonstrate that there is a general requirement that meal offerings must be brought as i matza /i . Rabbi Perida b said to /b Rabbi Ami: b I do not raise the dilemma /b with regard to the source of the b mitzva /b i ab initio /i , as that is clearly derived from these verses. b Where I raise the dilemma, /b it is b with regard to /b the source that indicates this requirement is b indispensable, /b i.e., that if one violated the mitzva and brought a meal offering not as i matza /i the offering is not valid.,Rabbi Ami b said to /b Rabbi Perida: b With regard to /b the i halakha /i that the requirement that meal offerings must come as i matza /i is b indispensable, it is also written: “It shall not be baked as leavened bread” /b (Leviticus 6:10), b but /b rather must come as b i matza /i . /b This additional verse indicates that even after the fact, if a meal offering was not made as i matza /i it is not valid.,Rav b Ḥisda objects to this: But /b one can b say /b that the verse should be interpreted as follows: b “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” /b i.e., fully leavened, b but /b it can be brought even if it has been leavened slightly with b leavening [ i siur /i ] /b dough. Although it does not have the status of leavened bread and is therefore not prohibited by the verse, it also does not have the status of i matza /i .,The Gemara analyzes Rav Ḥisda’s objection, as there is a dispute among the Sages with regard to the definition of i siur /i (see i Pesaḥim /i 48b). According to Rabbi Meir, i siur /i is dough at the beginning of the leavening process, when its surface has become pale. Conversely, Rabbi Yehuda maintains that i siur /i is dough that has been leavened to the point that it has cracks that look like the antennae of locusts. In this light, the Gemara inquires: This b i siur /i , /b mentioned by Rav Ḥisda in his suggested interpretation of the verse, is in accordance b with whose /b opinion? b If /b he is referring to i siur /i as defined b by Rabbi Meir, /b then b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda /b Rav Ḥisda’s objection does not arise, as Rabbi Yehuda maintains this b is full-fledged i matza /i . /b And b if /b Rav Ḥisda is referring to i siur /i as defined b by Rabbi Yehuda, /b then b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b Rav Ḥisda’s objection does not arise either, as Rabbi Meir holds that it b is full-fledged leavened bread. /b ,Furthermore, b if /b Rav Ḥisda is referring to i siur /i as defined b by Rabbi Meir, /b then even b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir /b himself the objection does not arise. The reason is that b from /b the fact that Rabbi Meir rules b that /b one who eats this i siur /i on Passover b is flogged for it, /b this indicates that b it is /b deemed b full-fledged leavened bread. Rather, /b Rav Ḥisda’s objection arises with regard to leavening dough as defined b by Rabbi Yehuda, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who maintains that this dough is not considered full-fledged leavened bread., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak /b also b objects to /b Rabbi Ami’s explanation: b But /b one can b say /b that the verse can be interpreted as follows: b “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” but /b one may bring a meal offering that has been b boiled, /b as this is not leavened bread; although it is also not i matza /i . The Gemara asks: This b boiled /b dough, b what is it? /b It is b poached [ i revikha /i ], /b as described in the verse: “In a pan it shall be made of oil, when it is soaked [ i murbekhet /i ]” (Leviticus 6:14). If so, there is no need to derive the i halakha /i of boiled dough from the verse: “It shall not be baked as leavened bread.” b If /b it is a meal offering that must be b poached, it is /b explicitly b written with regard to it /b that it must be b poached. And /b if it is a meal offering that is not to be poached, b it is not written with regard to it /b that it is b poached. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b one can b say /b that the verse: “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” indicates that with regard to a meal offering b about which it is written /b explicitly that it must be b poached, /b it is a b mitzva that /b it be b poached, and /b with regard to a meal offering b about which it is not written /b that it must be b poached, /b the one who brings the offering can decide: b If he wants, let him bring /b it b poached, /b and b if he wants, let him bring /b it as b i matza /i . /b Accordingly, Rabbi Ami’s proof from the verse is inconclusive., b Ravina /b also b objects to /b Rabbi Ami’s explanation: b But /b one can b say /b that the verse: b “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” /b serves b to determine /b that this b man /b who brings a meal offering as leavened bread b is /b liable b for /b violating b a mere prohibition, but /b the meal offering itself is b not invalid. /b ,All these objections indicate that the verse: “It shall not be baked as leavened bread,” can be interpreted in ways other than that suggested by Rabbi Ami. Accordingly, the Gemara asks: b Rather, from where do we /b derive that all meal offerings not brought as i matza /i are not valid? The Gemara answers: We derive it b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i discussing a verse concerning meal offerings: “It shall be of b i matza /i ” /b (Leviticus 2:5): One b might /b have thought that it is only b a mitzva /b i ab initio /i for a meal offering to be of i matza /i . Therefore, b the verse states: “It shall be,” /b which indicates that b the verse established it /b as b an obligation, /b i.e., if the meal offering was not brought as i matza /i it is not valid.,§ b Rabbi Perida raised /b another b dilemma before Rabbi Ami: From where /b is it derived with regard b to all the meal offerings /b that must be brought as i matza /i b that they are kneaded with lukewarm /b water so that the dough will be baked well, as only a small amount of oil is added, b and /b that b one must watch over them /b to ensure b that they do not /b become b leavened /b while kneading and shaping them? Shall b we derive this /b i halakha /i b from /b the prohibition concerning leavened bread on the festival of b Passover, as it is written: “And you shall watch over the i matzot /i ” /b (Exodus 12:17), which indicates that one must watch over any dough that is supposed to be made into i matza /i , to ensure that it does not become leavened?,Rabbi Ami b said to /b Rabbi Perida: The i halakha /i of meal offerings is not derived from Passover, as b it is written in /b the context of a meal offering b itself: “It shall be [ i tehiye /i ] of i matza /i ” /b (Leviticus 2:5), which can be read as meaning: b Preserve [ i haḥaye /i ] /b i matza /i , i.e., preserve the i matza /i as it is, and do not let it become leavened.,The Gemara asks: b But didn’t you /b already b derive /b from the term “it shall be” that the requirement that a meal offering must be made as i matza /i b is indispensable? /b The Gemara answers: b If so, /b that this term serves to teach only one i halakha /i , b let the verse write: It is i matza /i . What /b is the reason that it writes: b “It shall be /b of i matza /i ”? b Learn from it two /b conclusions, both that the requirement that it be made as i matza /i is indispensable and that one must watch over the i matza /i to ensure that it does not become leavened.,§ The Gemara relates an incident that involves the aforementioned Rabbi Perida. b The Sages said to Rabbi Perida: /b The Sage b Rabbi Ezra, /b who is of especially fine lineage, b a grandson of Rabbi Avtolus, who /b in turn b is a /b tenth-generation descendant b of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, who is a /b tenth-generation descendant b of Ezra /b the Scribe, b is standing /b and waiting b at the gate /b of the house and seeks entry. Rabbi Perida b said /b to the Sages: b What is /b the need for b all this /b detail about Rabbi Ezra’s lineage?,Rabbi Perida elaborated: b If he is a man of Torah /b study, he is b worthy /b of entry on his own account, regardless of his ancestors. And b if he is /b both b a man of Torah /b study b and a man of lineage, /b he is also b worthy /b of entry. b But if /b he is b a man of lineage and not a man of Torah, /b better for b fire to devour him /b than for him to enter my house. In this case, his lineage is to his detriment, as it highlights his failure to become a Sage like his ancestors. The Sages b said to /b Rabbi Perida: Rabbi Ezra b is a man of Torah /b study. Rabbi Perida b said to them: /b If so, b let him enter and come. /b ,When Rabbi Ezra entered his house, Rabbi Perida b saw that /b Rabbi Ezra’s b mind was troubled /b with embarrassment at having to wait outside. Therefore, Rabbi Perida taught a homily to comfort Rabbi Ezra. b He began and said /b an interpretation of the verse: b “I have said to the Lord: You are my Lord; I have no good but in You [ i tovati bal alekha /i ]” /b (Psalms 16:2). Rabbi Perida interpreted: b The congregation of Israel said before the Holy One, Blessed be He: Master of the Universe, give me credit, as I made Your /b Name b known in the world, /b as indicated by the phrase: “You are my Lord.”,God b said to /b the congregation of Israel: b I give no credit to you [ i tovati bal alekha /i ]. /b God explained: b I give credit only to /b the three Patriarchs, b Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, who /b were the b first who made My /b Name b known in the world, as it is stated: “As for the holy that are in the earth, they are the excellent [ i ve’addirei /i ] in whom is all My delight” /b (Psalms 16:3). The holy in the earth are the Patriarchs, in whom God delights. In this manner Rabbi Perida alluded to the importance of the ancestors of the Jewish people, including Ezra the Scribe, from whom Rabbi Ezra was descended., b When /b Rabbi Ezra b heard /b Rabbi Perida b say /b the word: b Excellent [ i addir /i ], /b he too b began /b a homily, one that plays with different forms of this term, b and said: Let the i Addir /i come and exact punishment for the i addirim /i from the i addirim /i in the i addirim /i . /b ,Rabbi Ezra explained this statement: With regard to i Addir /i in the phrase: b Let the i Addir /i come, this is the Holy One, Blessed be He, as it is written: “The Lord on high is mighty [ i addir /i ]” /b (Psalms 93:4). In the phrase: b And exact punishment for the i addirim /i , these /b i addirim /i b are the Jews, as it is stated: “The excellent [ i ve’addirei /i ] in whom is all My delight” /b (Psalms 16:3). In the phrase: b From the i addirim /i , these /b i addirim /i b are the Egyptians, as it is written /b with regard to the splitting of the Red Sea: b “The mighty [ i addirim /i ] sank as lead in the waters” /b (Exodus 15:10). In the phrase: b In the i addirim /i , these /b i addirim /i b are the waters, as it is stated: “Above the voices of many waters, the mighty [ i addirim /i ] breakers of the sea” /b (Psalms 93:4).,Rabbi Ezra stated another, similar, homiletic interpretation: b Let i yadid /i , son of i yadid /i , come and build i yadid /i for i yadid /i in the portion of i yadid /i , and let i yedidim /i achieve atonement through it. /b ,Rabbi Ezra explained this statement: With regard to i yadid /i in the phrase: b Let i yadid /i , this is King Solomon, as it is written /b after Solomon’s birth: b “And He sent by the hand of Nathan the prophet, and he called his name Yedidya, for the Lord’s sake” /b (II Samuel 12:25). |
|
114. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 173| 52b. כמאן כרב יוסף ואליבא דר' יוסי בר יהודה,לא כרבה ואליבא דר' יהודה:,ר"מ אומר כל שיכול לערב כו': הא תנינא חדא זימנא ספק ר"מ ורבי יהודה אומרים הרי זה חמר גמל,אמר רב ששת לא תימא טעמא דר"מ ספק עירב ספק לא עירב הוא דהוי חמר גמל אבל ודאי לא עירב לא הוי חמר גמל,אלא אפילו ודאי לא עירב הוי חמר גמל דהא הכא ודאי לא עירב וקא הוי חמר גמל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שיצא חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס ר"א אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום לא יכנס דכתיב (ישעיהו נח, יג) אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגלך כתיב,והתניא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס הא מני אחרים היא דתניא אחרים אומרים למקום שרובו הוא נזקר,איכא דאמרי אמר ר' חנינא רגלו אחת בתוך התחום ורגלו אחת חוץ לתחום יכנס דכתיב אם תשיב משבת רגלך רגליך קרינן,והתניא לא יכנס הוא דאמר כאחרים דתניא למקום שרובו הוא נזקר:,ר"א אומר שתים יכנס שלש לא יכנס: והתניא ר"א אומר אחת יכנס שתים לא יכנס לא קשיא הא דעקר חדא וקם אתרתי הא דעקר תרתי וקם אתלת,והתניא ר"א אומר אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס כי תניא ההיא למודד דתנן ולמודד שאמרו נותנין לו אלפים אמה אפילו סוף מדתו כלה במערה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהחשיך חוץ לתחום אפילו אמה אחת לא יכנס ר"ש אומר אפילו חמש עשרה אמות יכנס שאין המשוחות ממצין את המדות מפני הטועין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מפני טועי המדה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך מי שהוציוהו /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongכיצד /strong /big מעברין את הערים בית נכנס בית יוצא פגום נכנס פגום יוצא היו שם גדודיות גבוהות עשרה טפחים | 52b. The Gemara comments: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav Natan bar Oshaya act? Apparently, it was b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Yosef /b that everyone agrees that he must set out on his way, b and in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda /b that he need not declare that he is establishing his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b No, /b that is not necessarily so, as it is possible to say that he acted b according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, and in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b and Rav Yehuda bar Ishtata declared that he establishes his residence at the end of his Shabbat limit.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Meir says: Anyone who can establish an i eiruv /i , /b and negated his residence in his original place, and did not establish an i eiruv /i , is likened to both a donkey driver and a camel driver. The Gemara asks: b Didn’t we have /b already b learned /b it b once /b before in another mishna: In a case of b uncertainty, Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda say: This /b person b is /b likened to both b a donkey driver /b and b a camel driver. /b Here too, it is obvious that the same applies, as that is Rabbi Meir’s opinion with regard to all uncertain cases., b Rav Sheshet said: /b It is necessary to state this ruling here as well, so that b you will not say the reason /b for b Rabbi Meir’s /b statement only applies in a case where there is b uncertainty whether /b one b established an i eiruv /i /b or b did not establish an i eiruv /i , /b and in b that /b case b he is /b in likened to both b a donkey driver /b and b a camel driver. However, /b in a case where there is b certainty /b that he b did not establish an i eiruv /i he is not /b likened to both b a donkey driver /b and b a camel driver, /b but his Shabbat limit is the same as the rest of the residents of his city., b Rather, /b say that b even /b in a case where there is b certainty /b that he b did not establish an i eiruv /i /b he is sometimes likened to both b a donkey driver /b and b a camel driver, as here he certainly did not establish an i eiruv /i , and /b yet b he is /b likened to both b a donkey driver /b and b a camel driver. /b It was therefore necessary to state that even in that case, where there is no uncertainty whether or not he established the i eiruv /i , but only with regard to the location of his residence, he nonetheless has the status of both a donkey driver and a camel driver., strong MISHNA: /strong b One who /b intentionally, not for the purpose of performing a mitzva, b went out beyond /b his Shabbat b limit, even /b if only b one /b cubit, b may not reenter. Rabbi Eliezer says: /b If he went out b two /b cubits b he may reenter; /b however, if he went out b three /b cubits b he may not reenter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b If b one of his feet was within the /b Shabbat b limit, and his other foot was beyond the /b Shabbat b limit, he may not reenter, as it is written: “If you turn away your feet [ i raglekha /i ] due to Shabbat” /b (Isaiah 58:13). The word i raglekha /i b is written /b in defective form without the letter i yod /i , and can therefore be read as b your foot /b in the singular, indicating that Shabbat can be desecrated by the reentry of even a single foot.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But wasn’t /b the opposite b taught /b in a i baraita /i ? If b one of his feet was within the /b Shabbat b limit, and his other foot was beyond the /b Shabbat b limit, he may reenter. /b The Gemara answers: In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b taught? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion b of i Aḥerim /i , as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Aḥerim /i say: He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body /b lies, and therefore, it is permitted for him to enter, as he stepped out with only one foot.,The Gemara cites a different version of the previous discussion. b Some say /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b If b one of his feet was within the /b Shabbat b limit, and his other foot was beyond the /b Shabbat b limit, he may reenter, as it is written: “If you turn away your feet due to Shabbat” /b (Isaiah 58:13). b We read /b the word i raglekha /i as b your feet, /b in the plural, indicating that the entry of a single foot is permitted.,The Gemara raises a difficulty. b But wasn’t /b the opposite b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b He may not reenter? /b The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥanina b stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b i Aḥerim /i , as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b He is attributed to the place where the majority of his body /b is located, and it is therefore permitted to enter, as most of his body remains within the Shabbat limit.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b If he went out b two /b cubits b he may reenter; /b however, if he went out b three /b cubits b he may not reenter. /b The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t it taught /b otherwise in a i baraita /i ? b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b If he went out b one /b cubit b he may reenter; /b however, if he went out b two /b cubits b he may not reenter. /b The Gemara answers: That is b not a difficulty. This, /b the mishna, is referring to a case where b he moved /b from b the first /b cubit b and is /b now b standing two /b cubits out, and therefore it is permitted for him to reenter; b however, that, /b the i baraita /i , is referring to a case where b he moved /b from b the second /b cubit b and is /b now b standing three /b cubits out. Consequently, it is prohibited for him to reenter.,The Gemara raises another difficulty. b But wasn’t it taught /b in a different i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: Even /b if he went b one cubit /b out, b he may not enter. /b The Gemara answers: b When that /b i baraita /i b was taught /b it was with regard to b one measuring /b his limit by counting two thousand steps. b As we learned /b in a mishna: b And /b for b one /b established residence in a particular place, and b is /b now b measuring /b his limit by counting out steps, b with regard to whom /b the Sages b said one provides him /b with b two thousand cubits, even if his measurement ended in a cave /b he may not walk even one cubit beyond his measurement., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to b one /b for b whom it grew dark /b while he was traveling b outside the /b Shabbat b limit /b of the town where he was heading, b even /b if he was only b one cubit /b outside the limit b he may not enter /b the town. b Rabbi Shimon says: Even /b if he was b fifteen cubits /b beyond the limit b he may enter /b the town, b because the surveyors do not precisely demarcate the measures; /b rather, they mark the Shabbat limit within the two thousand cubits, b due to those who err. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s statement: Due to those who err, it is b taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Due to those who err in their measurement. /b In other words, because the surveyors are concerned that they might have erred in their measurements, they are stringent and do not position the mark at the edge of the limit, but move it several cubits within the limit.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b How does one extend /b the boundaries of b cities /b in order to ensure that all its protrusions are included within the borders of the city? He extends a straight line across the edge of the city, and if b a house is recessed and /b another b house protrudes, /b or b a turret [ i pagum /i ] is recessed and /b another b turret protrudes /b from that line, and similarly, if b there were remts /b of walls b ten handbreadths high, /b |
|
115. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, strict nature of class boundaries Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 59a. אנא הואי במניינא דבי רבי ומינאי דידי מנו ברישא,והאנן תנן דיני ממונות והטהרות והטומאות מתחילין מן הגדול ודיני נפשות מתחילין מן הצד,אמר רבה בריה דרבא ואיתימא ר' הילל בריה דר' וולס שאני מנינא דבי רבי דכולהו מנינייהו מן הצד הוו מתחילין,ואמר רבה בריה דרבא ואיתימא רבי הילל בריה דרבי וולס מימות משה ועד רבי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד,ולא הא הוה יהושע הוה אלעזר הא הוה אלעזר הוה פנחס והא הוה פנחס הוו זקנים,הא הוה שאול הוה שמואל והא נח נפשיה כולהו שני קאמרינן והא הוה דוד הוה עירא היאירי,והא נח נפשיה כולהו שני בעינן הא הוה שלמה הוה שמעי בן גרא והא קטליה כולהו שני קאמרינן,הא הוה חזקיה הוה שבנא הא איקטיל כולהו שני קאמרינן והא הוה עזרא הוה נחמיה בן חכליה,אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא אף אני אומר מימות רבי ועד רב אשי לא מצינו תורה וגדולה במקום אחד ולא והא הוה הונא בר נתן שאני הונא בר נתן דמיכף הוה כייף ליה לרב אשי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big חרש רומז ונרמז ובן בתירא אומר קופץ ונקפץ במטלטלין הפעוטות מקחן מקח וממכרן ממכר במטלטלין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big א"ר נחמן מחלוקת במטלטלין אבל בגיטין דברי הכל ברמיזה,פשיטא במטלטלין תנן מהו דתימא אף במטלטלין קמ"ל,איכא דאמרי א"ר נחמן כמחלוקת במטלטלין כך מחלוקת בגיטין והאנן במטלטלין תנן אימא אף במטלטלין:,הפעוטות מקחן מקח וממכרן ממכר במטלטלין: ועד כמה מחוי רב יהודה לרב יצחק בריה כבר שית כבר שב רב כהנא אמר כבר שב כבר תמני במתניתא תנא כבר תשע כבר עשר,ולא פליגי כל חד וחד לפי חורפיה וטעמא מאי א"ר אבא בר יעקב א"ר יוחנן משום כדי חייו,(מלכים ב י, כב) ויאמר לאשר על המלתחה הוצא לבוש לכל עובדי הבעל מאי מלתחה א"ר אבא בר יעקב א"ר יוחנן דבר הנמלל ונמתח,כי אתא רב דימי א"ר יוחנן שיגר לו בוניים בן נוניים לרבי סיבני וחומס סלסלה ומלמלא סיבני וחומס כאמגוזא ופלגיה דאמגוזא סלסלה ומלמלא כפיסתקא ופלגי דפיסתקא מאי מלמלא דבר הנמלל ונמתח,וטעותן עד כמה א"ר יונה א"ר זירא עד שתות כגדול,בעי אביי מתנתו מאי רב יימר אמר אין מתנתו מתנה מר בר רב אשי אמר מתנתו מתנה,אפכוה ושדרוה לקמיה דרב מרדכי א"ל זילו אמרו לבר מר לאו הכי הוה עובדא כי הוה קאי מר חד כרעיה אארעא וחד כרעיה אדרגא ואמרנא ליה מתנתו מאי ואמר לן מתנתו מתנה אחת מתנת שכיב מרע ואחת מתנת בריא אחת מתנה מרובה ואחת מתנה מועטת:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אלו דברים אמרו מפני דרכי שלום כהן קורא ראשון ואחריו לוי ואחריו ישראל מפני דרכי שלום מערבין בבית ישן מפני דרכי שלום | 59a. b I was /b present b for the counting /b of the vote in the court set up b in the school of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi when they established this ordice, b and they would start with me first, /b asking for my opinion on the matter, although I was the youngest member of the court.,The Gemara asks: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna ( i Sanhedrin /i 32a): In cases of b monetary law and /b in cases involving b ritual purities and impurities, /b the judges b begin /b their deliberations with the opinion of b the most learned /b member sitting on the bench, as a demonstration of honor to him. b But in /b cases of b capital law, /b they b begin /b their deliberations with the opinion of the youngest member who sits b on /b one of b the side /b benches of the court, lest the junior members be unduly influenced by the opinion of their elders, and people come to be wrongfully executed as a result. The matter involving Rav was not a capital case. Why did they begin their deliberations with Rav, who was certainly not the most learned member of the court, as that designation clearly belonged to Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi?, b And Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say /b that it was b Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, /b who says: b The counting /b of the vote in the court b in the school of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b was different, as all of their /b deliberations and b countings /b of the vote b would begin /b with the junior members sitting b on the side. /b This was because Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi was held in such high esteem that once he expressed his opinion, nobody would be so brazen as to contradict him., b And /b apropos of the greatness of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, b Rabba, son of Rava, says, and some say /b that it was b Rabbi Hillel, son of Rabbi Volas, /b who says: b From the days of Moses and until /b the days of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b we do not find /b unparalleled greatness in b Torah /b knowledge b and /b unparalleled b greatness /b in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined b in one place, /b i.e., in a single individual.,The Gemara asks: b But /b was there b not /b such a person? b Wasn’t there Joshua, /b who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day b there was Elazar, /b who was Joshua’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there Elazar, /b who outlived Joshua? The Gemara answers: During his day, b there was Pinehas, /b who was Elazar’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: b Wasn’t there Pinehas, /b who outlived Elazar? The Gemara answers: b There were the Elders, /b who were equal to Pinehas in Torah knowledge.,The Gemara further objects: b Wasn’t there Saul, /b who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: b There was Samuel, /b who was Saul’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: b But didn’t /b Samuel b pass away /b in Saul’s lifetime, leaving Saul the leading figure in both domains? The Gemara answers: b We /b meant to b say /b that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness for b all the years /b that he was the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t there David, /b who was both the greatest Torah authority and the most powerful temporal authority of his day? The Gemara answers: b There was Ira the Jairite, /b who was David’s equal in Torah knowledge.,The Gemara objects: b But didn’t /b Ira the Jairite b pass away /b in David’s lifetime? The Gemara answers: In order to qualify for this designation, b we require /b that he be the leading figure in both Torah and high office for b all the years /b that he is the leader of the Jewish people. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t there Solomon, /b who was unparalleled in both domains? The Gemara answers: During his day b there was Shimi ben Gera, /b who was Solomon’s master in Torah knowledge. The Gemara objects: b But didn’t /b Solomon b kill him /b at the beginning of his reign (see I Kings, chapter 2)? The Gemara answers: b We /b meant to b say /b that from the days of Moses to the days of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi there was no other single individual who reigned supreme in Torah and greatness b all /b of his b years. /b ,The Gemara further objects: b Wasn’t there Hezekiah, /b who was both the leading Torah scholar of his age and also the king of his people? The Gemara answers: b There was Shebnah /b in that generation, who was Hezekiah’s equal in Torah knowledge. The Gemara asks: b Wasn’t he killed /b in the war against Sennacherib? The Gemara answers: b We /b meant to b say /b that there was no similar individual who reigned supreme in both Torah and high office b all /b of his b years. /b The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t there Ezra, /b who was the greatest Torah sage of his day and the leader of the Jewish people? The Gemara answers: b There was Nehemiah ben Hacaliah /b who was his equal., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, says: I also say /b something similar, that b from the days of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and until /b the days of b Rav Ashi, we do not find /b unparalleled greatness in b Torah /b knowledge b and /b unparalleled b greatness /b in secular matters, including wealth and high political office, combined b in one place, /b i.e., in a single individual. The Gemara asks: b But /b was there b not /b such a person? b But wasn’t there Huna bar Natan, /b who enjoyed both great Torah scholarship and great wealth, who lived during the time of Rav Ashi? The Gemara answers: b Huna bar Natan is different, as he /b himself b was subordinate to Rav Ashi, /b who was his superior in both domains., strong MISHNA: /strong The following enactments were also made for the betterment of the world: b A deaf-mute may express /b his wishes b through gestures [ i romez /i ]; /b that is to say, he can signal that he wishes to buy or sell a certain item, and the purchase or sale is valid. b And /b similarly b he may respond /b to others b through gestures; /b that is to say, he can signal that he agrees to a transaction initiated by another party, and the transaction is valid. b And ben Beteira says: /b Signals are not necessary, as even if b he expresses /b his wishes to buy or sell b through lip movements [ i kofetz /i ] or responds /b to others b through lip movements, /b the transaction is valid. These i halakhot /i apply b to /b transactions involving b movable property. /b It was similarly enacted that b a purchase /b made b by young children [ i paotot /i ] /b is a valid b purchase, and a sale /b made by them is a valid b sale. /b These i halakhot /i apply b to /b transactions involving b movable property. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Naḥman says /b in clarification of the scope of the dispute between the first i tanna /i and ben Beteira: The b dispute /b is only b with regard to /b the purchase or sale of b movable property. But with regard to bills of divorce, all agree, /b even ben Beteira, that a deaf-mute can communicate only b through gestures /b and not through lip movements.,The Gemara asks: It b is obvious /b that this is the case, as b didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: These i halakhot /i apply b to /b transactions involving b movable property? /b The Gemara answers: Rav Naḥman’s statement is necessary, b lest you say /b that the mishna means that these i halakhot /i apply b even /b to transactions involving b movable property, /b and they similarly apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce. Therefore, Rav Naḥman b teaches us /b that ben Beteira’s validation of lip movements applies only to transactions involving movable property, but not to bills of divorce., b There are /b those b who say /b an alternative version of the previous passage, that b Rav Naḥman says /b as follows: b Just as /b there is b a dispute /b between the first i tanna /i and ben Beteira b with regard to /b transactions involving b movable property, so too, /b there is b a dispute with regard to bills of divorce. /b The Gemara objects: b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: These i halakhot /i apply b to /b transactions involving b movable property? /b The Gemara answers: b Say /b that the mishna means as follows: These i halakhot /i apply b even to /b transactions involving b movable property, /b and similarly they apply to other matters, such as bills of divorce.,§ The mishna teaches that b a purchase /b made b by young children /b is a valid b purchase, and a sale /b made by them is a valid b sale. /b These i halakhot /i apply b to /b transactions involving b movable property. /b The Gemara asks: b And from what /b age are children included in this enactment? b Rav Yehuda pointed to Rav Yitzḥak, his son: /b From the age of b about six or seven. Rav Kahana said: /b From the age of b about seven or eight. It was taught in a i baraita /i : /b From the age of b about nine or ten. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And they do not disagree /b about the issue itself; rather, b each /b child is evaluated b according to his sharpness. /b Some children are gifted and understand the nature of business transactions from an earlier age, while others are slower and do not reach the requisite understanding until they are older. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that the Sages instituted this enactment for young children? b Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: In order to provide for /b the child’s b livelihood, /b as there may be times a child will have no other way to support himself but to engage in some type of business. If his transactions are not valid, he will go hungry.,Having cited a tradition reported by Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov, the Gemara cites another such statement with regard to a different matter: The verse states: b “And he said to him who was over the wardrobe [ i meltaḥa /i ]: Bring forth garments for all the worshippers of the Ba’al” /b (II Kings 10:22). b What /b is the meaning of the word b “ i meltaḥa /i ”? Rabbi Abba bar Ya’akov says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b It is b something that can be compressed and /b then b stretched [ i nimlal venimtaḥ /i ] /b back to its former size; i.e., a certain type of garment that can be folded up so that it is very small, and afterward unfolded so that it is very large., b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he said that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A wealthy man named b Bonyam ben Nunyam /b once b sent Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi a gift comprised of the following items: b i Sivni /i and i ḥoms /i , i salsela /i and i malmala /i , /b which were all special types of linen. The Gemara explains what was unique about each of these fabrics: When folded, the b i sivni /i and i ḥoms /i /b could be compressed to the size, respectively, b of a nut and half a nut. /b When the b i salsela /i and i malmala /i /b were folded, they could be compressed to the size, respectively, b of a pistachio nut and half a pistachio nut. /b These fabrics were so thin that they could be compressed to a small size, but when they were unfolded they were large enough to cover Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi’s body. The Gemara explains further: b What /b is the meaning of the term b i malmala /i ? /b It is b something that can be compressed and stretched. /b ,The Gemara returns to examine the matter of the transactions of young children and asks: b And up to how much is their mistake? /b What is the maximum amount a child can underpay or overcharge without the mistake canceling the sale? b Rabbi Yona says /b that b Rabbi Zeira says: Up to one-sixth /b of the article’s value, b like /b the mistake of b an adult. /b If the buyer or seller underpaid or overcharged up to one-sixth of the article’s true value, the wronged party can demand reimbursement. If the error in price was greater than one-sixth, the transaction is annulled., b Abaye raises a dilemma: What /b is the i halakha /i with regard to a young child’s b gift? Rav Yeimar says: His gift is not /b a valid b gift. Mar bar Rav Ashi says: His gift is /b a valid b gift. /b ,The Sages b reversed /b the attributions of these two statements b and sent /b word of this dispute b to Rav Mordekhai, /b leading him to understand that it was Mar bar Rav Ashi who said that the child’s gift is not valid. Rav Mordekhai b said to them: Go say to /b Mar b son of my Master, /b Rav Ashi: b Wasn’t the incident as follows? When the Master, /b Rav Ashi, b was standing /b with b one foot on the ground and one foot on the step, we said to him: What /b is the i halakha /i with regard to a young child’s b gift? And he said to us: His gift is /b a valid b gift, whether /b it is the b gift of a person on his deathbed, /b who gives instructions before his death concerning the disposal of his property, b or /b it is b the gift of a healthy person, whether /b it is b a large gift or /b it is b a small gift. /b In all cases the gift is valid., strong MISHNA: /strong Having mentioned a series of enactments instituted by the Sages for the sake of the betterment of the world, the Gemara continues: b These are the matters /b that the Sages b instituted on account of the ways of peace, /b i.e., to foster peace and prevent strife and controversy: At public readings of the Torah, b a priest reads first, and after him a Levite, and after him an Israelite. /b The Sages instituted this order b on account of the ways of peace, /b so that people should not quarrel about who is the most distinguished member of the community. Similarly, the Sages enacted that b a joining /b of courtyards b is placed in an old house /b where it had regularly been placed b on account of the ways of peace, /b as will be explained in the Gemara. |
|
116. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 36| 9b. כי קאמר רבי מאיר בנדר בנדבה לא קאמר והא קתני כנדבותם, נדר בנזיר ובקרבן תני נדב בנזיר ובקרבן,מאי שנא נודר דלא דלמא אתי בה לידי תקלה נדבה נמי לא דלמא אתי בה לידי תקלה,כהלל הזקן דתניא אמרו על הלל הזקן שלא מעל אדם בעולתו כל ימיו מביאה כשהיא חולין לעזרה ומקדישה, וסומך עליה ושוחטה,הניחא נדבה דקרבנות נדבה דנזירות מאי איכא למימר סבר לה כשמעון הצדיק,דתניא אמר (רבי) שמעון הצדיק מימי לא אכלתי אשם נזיר טמא אלא אחד פעם אחת בא אדם אחד נזיר מן הדרום וראיתיו שהוא יפה עינים וטוב רואי וקווצותיו סדורות לו תלתלים אמרתי לו בני מה ראית להשחית את שערך זה הנאה,אמר לי רועה הייתי לאבא בעירי הלכתי למלאות מים מן המעיין ונסתכלתי בבבואה שלי ופחז עלי יצרי ובקש לטורדני מן העולם אמרתי לו רשע למה אתה מתגאה בעולם שאינו שלך במי שהוא עתיד להיות רימה ותולעה העבודה שאגלחך לשמים,מיד עמדתי ונשקתיו על ראשו. אמרתי לו בני כמוך ירבו גוזרי נזירות בישראל עליך הכתוב אומר איש כי יפליא לנדור נדר נזיר להזיר לה',מתקיף לה רבי מני מאי שנא אשם נזיר טמא דלא אכל דאתי על חטא כל אשמות נמי לא ליכול דעל חטא אתו,אמר ליה רבי יונה היינו טעמא כשהן תוהין נוזרין וכשהן מטמאין ורבין עליהן ימי נזירות מתחרטין בהן ונמצאו מביאין חולין לעזרה,אי הכי אפילו נזיר טהור נמי נזיר טהור לא דאמודי אמיד נפשיה דיכול לנדור,ואיבעית אימא | 9b. b When Rabbi Meir said /b that one should abstain from making vows, he was referring only b to a vow; he did not say it with regard to a gift /b offering. The Gemara asks: b But it is taught /b in the mishna that if one said: b Like the gift offerings /b of the virtuous, b he has vowed with regard to /b becoming b a nazirite or /b bringing b an offering; /b this indicates that the virtuous vow to become nazirites and bring offerings. The Gemara answers: b Teach /b the mishna in the following emended formulation: b He has volunteered with regard to /b becoming b a nazirite or /b bringing b an offering. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is different about one who vows, /b i.e., one who says: It is incumbent upon me to bring an offering, b which is not /b proper to do due to the concern that b perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block /b and not bring b it /b promptly, thereby violating the prohibition against delaying? One should b also not /b designate a particular animal as a b gift /b offering due to the concern that b perhaps he will encounter a stumbling block with it. /b Once the animal is consecrated, anyone who unwittingly benefits from it, e.g., by shearing it or working with it, transgresses the prohibition against misusing consecrated property.,The Gemara answers: In the case of a gift offering, he can act b like Hillel the Elder. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b They said about Hillel the Elder that no person misused his burnt-offering in his lifetime. /b How did he ensure this? He was careful not to consecrate the animal in advance; rather, b he would bring it when it was unconsecrated to /b the Temple b courtyard and /b there he would b consecrate it, and /b then immediately he would b place his hand on its /b head b and slaughter it. /b Consequently, there was no opportunity to misuse it.,The Gemara asks: b This works out well /b with regard to voluntary b gifts /b in the context b of offerings, /b but with regard to the b voluntary /b acceptance b of naziriteship, what is there to say? /b There is still room for concern that he will not fulfill the obligations incumbent upon him as a nazirite. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir b holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Shimon HaTzaddik. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon HaTzaddik said: In all my days /b as a priest, b I never ate the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite except /b for b one /b occasion. b One time, a particular man who was a nazirite came from the South and I saw that he had beautiful eyes and was good looking, and the fringes of his hair were arranged in curls. I said to him: My son, what did you see /b that made you decide b to destroy this beautiful hair of yours /b by becoming a nazirite? A nazirite must shave off his hair at the completion of his term. If he becomes impure before the completion of his term, he shaves off his hair and starts his term of naziriteship again., b He said to me: I was a shepherd for /b my b father in my city, /b and b I went to draw water from the spring, and I looked at my reflection [ i babavua /i ] /b in the water b and my /b evil b inclination quickly overcame me and sought to expel me from the world. I said to /b myself: b Wicked one! Why do you pride yourself in a world that is not yours? /b Why are you proud b of someone who will eventually be /b food in the grave b for worms and maggots, /b i.e., your body? I swear b by the /b Temple b service that I shall shave you for /b the sake of b Heaven. /b ,Shimon HaTzaddik continues the narrative: b I immediately arose and kissed him on his head. I said to him: My son, may there be more who take vows of naziriteship like you among the Jewish people. About you the verse states: “When /b either b a man /b or a woman b shall clearly utter a vow, the vow of a nazirite, to consecrate himself to the Lord” /b (Numbers 6:2). This is an example of voluntary acceptance of naziriteship, i.e., becoming a nazirite with entirely pure intentions rather than as a rash statement, e.g., while in a fit of anger., b Rabbi Mani strongly objects to /b the statement of Shimon HaTzaddik. b What is different about the guilt-offering of a ritually impure nazirite that /b Shimon HaTzaddik b did not eat, because it came as a result of sin /b when the individual violated the terms of his naziriteship by becoming impure? b Let him also not eat all /b other b guilt-offerings, as they /b too b come as a result of sin. /b , b Rabbi Yona said to him: This is the reason: When they regret /b their misdeeds b they become nazirites, and when they become ritually impure and the days of /b their b naziriteship are increased, /b as they must become pure and then begin their terms of naziriteship again, b they regret /b having become nazirites. b They will then turn out to be bringing non-sacred /b animals b into /b the Temple b courtyard. /b Since they do not wish to bring the offerings of a nazirite, their offerings are undesirable, and it is as though the animals are non-sacred.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b then Shimon HaTzaddik should have abstained from eating b even /b the offerings of b a ritually pure nazirite as well /b for the same reason; perhaps he too regretted his decision to become a nazirite. The Gemara answers: In the case of b a pure nazirite /b there is b no /b concern b because he assessed himself /b and realized b that /b he was b able to vow /b and to keep his vow for the term of his naziriteship. However, in the case of a ritually impure nazirite, where the naziriteship was extended for longer than he had estimated due to his contracting impurity, there is concern that he regrets having become a nazirite.,The Gemara suggests a different answer to the question of the identity of the i tanna /i whose opinion is expressed in the mishna. b And if you wish, say: /b |
|
117. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 26a. במסיח לפי תומו כי הא דאמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל מעשה באדם אחד שהיה מסיח לפי תומו ואמר זכורני כשאני תינוק ומורכב על כתיפו של אבא והוציאוני מבית הספר והפשיטוני את כותנתי והטבילוני לאכול בתרומה לערב,ור' חייא מסיים בה וחבירי בדילין ממני והיו קורין אותי יוחנן אוכל חלות והעלהו רבי לכהונה על פיו,תניא ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר כשם שתרומה חזקה לכהונה כך מעשר ראשון חזקה לכהונה והחולק בבית דין אינה חזקה,מעשר ראשון דלוי הוא כר"א בן עזריה דתניא תרומה לכהן מעשר ראשון ללוי דברי ר"ע ר"א בן עזריה אומר מעשר ראשון אף לכהן אימור דאר"א בן עזריה אף לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי מי אמר,אין בתר דקנסינהו עזרא ודלמא איקרו ויהבו ליה אמר רב חסדא הכא במאי עסקינן כגון דמוחזק לן באבוה דהאי דכהן הוא ונפק עליה קלא דבן גרושה ובן חלוצה הוא וחלקו ליה לדידיה מעשר בבית הגרנות,לוי דלאו לוי הוא מאי איכא למימר בן גרושה או בן חלוצה הוא לא מיבעיא למאן דאמר מעשר ראשון אסור לזרים דלא הוו יהבי ליה אלא אפילו למ"ד מעשר ראשון מותר לזרים הני מילי למיספק להו אבל בתורת חלוקה לא יהבי ליה,והחולק בבית דין אינה חזקה אי בבית דין לא הויא חזקה היכא הויא חזקה אמר רב ששת הכי קאמר החולק תרומה בנכסי אביו עם אחיו בבית דין אינה חזקה,פשיטא מהו דתימא מדהנך לאכילה האי נמי לאכילה קמ"ל הנך לאכילה האי לזבוני:,רבי יהודה אומר אין מעלין לכהונה על פי עד אחד וכו': רשב"ג היינו רבי אליעזר וכי תימא ערער חד איכא בינייהו דרבי אליעזר סבר ערער חד ורשב"ג סבר ערער תרי האמר רבי יוחנן דברי הכל אין ערער פחות משנים,אלא הכא במאי עסקינן דמוחזק לן באבוה דהאי דכהן הוא ונפק עליה קלא דבן גרושה או בן חלוצה הוא ואחתיניה ואתא עד אחד ואמר ידענא ביה דכהן הוא | 26a. The Gemara answers: Rabbi Ḥiyya is speaking b of /b a case where the brother b speaks offhandedly /b in the context of a conversation about a different topic. It was understood from this that his brother is a Levite. This is b similar to that which Rav Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: /b There was b an incident involving a person who was speaking offhandedly and said: I remember when I was a child and /b still young enough to be b carried on my father’s shoulder, and they took me out of school, and removed my cloak, and immersed me /b to purify me from any possible ritual impurity, so that I would be able b to partake of i teruma /i that evening. /b , b And Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b who related that incident, b concluded /b the story and related that the man said: b And my friends distanced /b themselves b from me, and would call me: Yoḥa who partakes of i ḥallot /i , /b as it was prohibited for his friends, who were non-priests, to eat i ḥalla /i and i teruma /i . b And Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b elevated him to priesthood based on his /b statement. Just as one’s offhanded statement is reliable, so too, is the offhanded statement of one’s brother.,§ b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Just as i teruma /i /b establishes the b presumptive status for priesthood, so too /b the b first tithe /b establishes the b presumptive status for priesthood. And one who receives a share /b of i teruma /i b in court /b does b not /b establish the b presumptive status /b of priesthood.,The Gemara asks: b First tithe is /b given b to a Levite. /b How does it establish the presumptive status of priesthood? The Gemara answers: This is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b i Teruma /i is /b given b to a priest, first tithe is /b given b to a Levite; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya says: First tithe /b is given b to a priest as well. /b The Gemara asks: b Say /b that b Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya said: To a priest as well. Did /b actually b he say to a priest and not to a Levite? /b Since it is given to both a Levite and a priest, first tithe cannot establish the presumptive status of priesthood.,The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b first tithe can establish the presumptive status of priesthood. b After Ezra penalized /b the Levites for failure to return to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, he decreed that the people should not give them first tithe. Although by Torah law first tithe may be given to both Levites and priests, after that decree, it was given only to priests. The Gemara asks: How can the presumptive status of priesthood be established? b But perhaps /b in this case he was actually a Levite, and b by happenstance they gave him /b first tithe. b Rav Ḥisda said: With what are we dealing here? /b It is a case b where the father of that /b man established the b presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged /b about the son b that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a i ḥalutza /i . /b As a i ḥalal /i , who is disqualified from the priesthood, his legal status is that of an Israelite. b And /b it was seen that the son b himself received a share of /b first b tithe at the threshing floor. /b ,Therefore, with regard to b Levite /b status, it is clear b that he is not a Levite, /b as his father is a priest. The Gemara asks: b What /b then b is there to say? /b Is it that b he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a i ḥalutza /i ? It is not necessary to say that /b according b to the one who says /b that b first tithe is forbidden to non-priests, they would not have given /b first tithe to the son of the divorcée, as his legal status is that of a non-priest. b However, even according to the one who says that first tithe is permitted for non-priests, /b and therefore the fact that he received first tithe proves nothing, b that /b i halakha /i b applies only /b to the fact that it is permitted for one to whom first tithe produce was distributed b to provide /b it to non-priests. b However, in the form of a share /b of first tithe b at the threshing floor, one does not give /b it b to /b a non-priest. Therefore, according to Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, the fact that one receives a share at the threshing floor proves that he is a priest of unflawed lineage.,It is taught in the same i baraita /i : b And one who receives a share /b of i teruma /i b in court /b does b not /b establish the b presumptive status /b of priesthood. The Gemara asks: b If in court it /b does b not /b establish the b presumptive status, where does it /b establish the b presumptive status? /b Isn’t court the place where matters are optimally clarified? b Rav Sheshet said /b that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b is saying: One who receives a share of i teruma /i from his father’s property with his brothers in court /b as his portion of the inheritance, in doing so does b not /b establish b presumptive status /b of priesthood. Even if he is a i ḥalal /i and therefore a non-priest, it could be that he owns the i teruma /i as part of his inheritance.,The Gemara asks: It b is obvious /b that receiving i teruma /i in court does not establish the presumptive status. The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that b from /b the fact b that these /b brothers receive the i teruma /i b to partake /b of it, it can be deduced that b that /b brother b also /b receives the i teruma /i b to partake /b of it, the i tanna /i therefore b teaches us /b that b these /b brothers receive the i teruma /i b to partake /b of it and b that /b brother receives it b to sell it. /b The fact that he may not eat the i teruma /i does not prevent him from selling it.,§ We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says: One does not elevate /b a man b to priesthood on the basis of one witness. /b Rabbi Elazar says: In a case where there are no challengers, one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: One elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness. The Gemara asks: The opinion of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel is /b identical to the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, /b as they agree that one elevates a man to priesthood on the basis of one witness when there are no challengers. b And if you would say that there is /b a difference b between them /b in a case where there is b a challenge /b posed by b one /b witness, b as Rabbi Eliezer holds: A challenge /b posed by b one /b witness is sufficient to undermine one’s presumptive status of priesthood and two witnesses are required to overcome that challenge, b and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds: /b An effective b challenge /b requires b two /b witnesses, b didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: Everyone agrees /b that b there is no /b effective b challenge /b with b fewer than two /b witnesses?, b Rather, with what /b case b are we dealing here? /b It is in a case b where the father of that /b man established his b presumptive status of priesthood before us, and a rumor emerged about /b the son b that he is the son of a divorced woman or the son of a i ḥalutza /i , and /b therefore b we downgraded him /b from the presumptive status of priesthood. b And one /b witness b came and said: I know that he is a priest /b of unflawed lineage, |
|
118. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71| 84a. וליפרקינהו וליכסינהו בעינן העמדה והערכה,וכמאן אי כר"מ דאמר הכל היו בכלל העמדה והערכה האמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה שמה שחיטה,אי כר' שמעון דאמר שחיטה שאינה ראויה לא שמה שחיטה האמר לא היו בכלל העמדה והערכה,אמר רב יוסף רבי היא ונסיב לה אליבא דתנאי בשחיטה שאינה ראויה סבר לה כר' שמעון בהעמדה והערכה סבר לה כר"מ,ואיבעית אימא כולה ר"ש היא ושאני הכא דאמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) ושפך וכסה מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה פדייה וכסוי,והשתא דאתית להכי אפילו תימא קדשי מזבח מי שאינו מחוסר אלא שפיכה וכסוי יצא זה שמחוסר שפיכה גרירה וכסוי,מר בר רב אשי אמר אמר קרא (ויקרא יז, יג) חיה או עוף מה חיה אינה קדש אף עוף אינו קדש,אי מה חיה שאין במינו קדש אף עוף שאין במינו קדש אוציא תורין ובני יונה שיש במינן קדש,לא כחיה מה חיה לא חלקת בה אף עוף לא תחלוק בו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרבא קי"ל חיה בכלל בהמה לסימנין אימא נמי בהמה בכלל חיה לכסוי,אמר ליה עליך אמר קרא (דברים יב, טז) על הארץ תשפכנו כמים מה מים לא בעי כסוי אף האי נמי לא בעי כסוי,אלא מעתה יטבילו בו אמר קרא (ויקרא יא, לו) אך מעין ובור מקוה מים יהיה טהור הני אין מידי אחרינא לא,ואימא ה"מ למעוטי שאר משקין דלא איקרו מים אבל דם דאיקרי מים ה"נ,תרי מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים,אימא אידי ואידי למעוטי שאר משקין חד למעוטי זוחלין וחד למעוטי מכונסין,תלתא מיעוטי כתיבי מעין מים ובור מים מקוה מים,ת"ר (ויקרא יז, יג) אשר יצוד אין לי אלא אשר יצוד נצודין ועומדין מאליהן מנין כגון אווזין ותרנגולים,ת"ל ציד מ"מ א"כ מה ת"ל אשר יצוד למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא בהזמנה הזאת,ת"ר (דברים יב, כ) כי ירחיב ה' אלהיך את גבולך למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא יאכל אדם בשר אלא לתאבון,יכול יקח אדם מן השוק ויאכל ת"ל (דברים יב, כא) וזבחת מבקרך ומצאנך יכול יזבח כל בקרו ויאכל כל צאנו ויאכל ת"ל מבקרך ולא כל בקרך מצאנך ולא כל צאנך,מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מי שיש לו מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא ירק עשרה מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא דגים חמשים מנה יקח לפסו ליטרא בשר מאה מנה ישפתו לו קדרה בכל יום ואינך אימת מערב שבת לערב שבת,אמר רב צריכין אנו לחוש לדברי זקן א"ר יוחנן אבא ממשפחת בריאים הוה אבל כגון אנו מי שיש לו פרוטה בתוך כיסו יריצנה לחנווני א"ר נחמן כגון אנו לווין ואוכלין,(משלי כז, כו) כבשים ללבושך מגז כבשים יהא מלבושך (משלי כז, כו) ומחיר שדה עתודים לעולם ימכור אדם שדה ויקח עתודים ואל ימכור אדם עתודים ויקח שדה (משלי כז, כז) ודי חלב עזים דיו לאדם שיתפרנס מחלב גדיים וטלאים שבתוך ביתו,(משלי כז, כז) ללחמך ללחם ביתך לחמך קודם ללחם ביתך (משלי כז, כז) וחיים לנערותיך אמר מר זוטרא בריה דרב נחמן תן חיים לנערותיך מיכן למדה תורה דרך ארץ שלא ילמד אדם את בנו בשר ויין,אמר רבי יוחנן | 84a. The Gemara challenges: b But /b even if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b let one redeem them /b after they were slaughtered b and /b then b cover their /b blood. The Gemara responds: This is not feasible, because in order to redeem a consecrated animal b we require setting and valuating, /b i.e., the animal must be stood before a priest in order to evaluate it and only then is it redeemed (see Leviticus 27:11–12). A slaughtered bird cannot be stood before the priest; consequently, it cannot be redeemed.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the mishna is dealing with birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna? b If /b one suggests the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who says: Everything, /b i.e., animals consecrated both for the altar and for Temple maintece, b was included in /b the requirement of b setting and valuating, /b and therefore the slaughtered birds may not be redeemed, this cannot be so. b Doesn’t he /b also b say /b that b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is /b nevertheless b considered /b a halakhic act of b slaughter /b that requires the covering of the blood? If so, one should be obligated to cover the blood of the bird even if it is not redeemed.,The Gemara continues: And b if /b one suggests the mishna is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, who says: Slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b is not considered /b a halakhic act of b slaughter /b and therefore the bird would require redemption in order to cover its blood, this cannot be so. b Doesn’t /b he also b say /b that animals consecrated for Temple maintece b were not included in /b the requirement of b setting and valuating? /b If so, let one redeem the slaughtered birds and cover their blood., b Rav Yosef said /b in reconciliation of this dilemma: The mishna’s ruling b is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he formulates /b the mishna b in accordance with /b the opinions of different b i tanna’im /i : With regard to /b the status of an act of b slaughter that is not fit /b to render the meat permitted b he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b while b with regard to /b the requirement of b setting and valuating he holds in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir. /b Therefore, since one cannot redeem a bird that was consecrated for Temple maintece once it has been slaughtered, there is no obligation to cover its blood, as the slaughter was not fit to render the meat permitted., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire /b mishna b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon, /b who holds that birds consecrated for Temple maintece may be redeemed even after their slaughter. b And /b although it would seem that their slaughter is fit to render the meat permitted and that one should therefore be obligated in the mitzva of covering the blood, it is b different here, as the verse states: “And he shall pour out /b its blood b and cover /b it” (Leviticus 17:13). By juxtaposing “pour out” to “cover,” the verse indicates that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood b that is lacking only pouring and covering, /b without any intervening step. b Excluded /b is b this /b blood of birds consecrated for Temple maintece, b which is lacking pouring, redeeming, and covering. /b ,The Gemara notes: b And now that you have arrived at this /b explanation, b you /b may b even say /b that the mishna is referring to birds b consecrated for the altar. /b As for the question asked earlier: Why not let one scrape the blood from the altar and then cover it? The verse states: “And he shall pour out its blood and cover it,” indicating that the obligation to cover the blood applies only to blood that is b lacking only pouring and covering, /b without any intervening step. b Excluded /b is b this /b blood of bird offerings, b which is lacking pouring, scraping, and covering. /b ,The Gemara cites another source for the exclusion of consecrated animals from the requirement of covering their blood: b Mar bar Rav Ashi said /b that b the verse states /b with regard to the mitzva of covering the blood: b “An undomesticated animal or bird” /b (Leviticus 17:13). The juxtaposition of these two species intimates an analogy between them: b Just as /b the b undomesticated animal /b referred to in the verse b is not consecrated, /b as undomesticated animals are never fit for sacrifice, b so too, /b the b bird /b referred to in the verse b is not consecrated. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If /b it is so that the i halakhot /i of slaughtering a bird are derived from those of an undomesticated animal, then say: b Just as /b the verse is referring to b an undomesticated animal, whose species cannot be consecrated /b as an offering, b so too, /b the verse is referring only to b a bird whose species cannot be consecrated /b as an offering. Therefore, b I will exclude /b even non-sacred b doves and pigeons, whose species can be consecrated. /b ,The Gemara rejects this possibility: b No, /b the juxtaposition indicates that the i halakha /i with regard to the slaughter of birds is entirely b like /b that of b an undomesticated animal. /b Therefore, b just as /b in the case of b an undomesticated animal, you did not differentiate /b between its various species and all non-sacred animals are included in the mitzva, b so too, /b with regard to the b bird /b mentioned in the verse, b you should not differentiate /b between its various species.,§ Concerning the i halakha /i that covering the blood does not apply to a domesticated animal, the Gemara says that b Ya’akov the heretic said to Rava: We maintain /b that b an undomesticated animal, /b e.g., a deer, is b included /b in the category of b a domesticated animal with regard to /b the b characteristics /b necessary to determine whether the animal is kosher, i.e., it chews its cud and has split hooves (see Deuteronomy 14:4–6). If so, b I will also say /b that b a domesticated animal is included /b in the category of b an undomesticated animal with regard to /b the mitzva of b covering /b the blood.,Rava b said to him: With regard to your /b claim, b the verse states /b in reference to the blood of a domesticated animal: “You may slaughter of your cattle and of your sheep…but be strong not to eat the blood… b you shall pour it out on the ground, like water” /b (Deuteronomy 12:21–24). Accordingly, b just as water does not require covering, so too, this /b blood of a domesticated animal b does not require covering. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b that the verse equates the blood of a domesticated animal with water, then let one b immerse /b ritually impure items b in it /b to purify them, just as he can immerse them in water. The Gemara responds: b The verse states: “But a spring or a cistern, or a gathering of water shall be pure” /b (Leviticus 11:36). The exclusionary term: “But,” indicates that only concerning b these /b bodies of water, b yes, /b they render pure an impure item, while b something else, /b e.g., blood, does b not. /b ,The Gemara challenges: b But /b perhaps one can b say /b that b this matter, /b i.e., the exclusionary term in the verse, serves only b to exclude other liquids that are not called water. But /b with regard to b blood, which is called water, /b as the verse states: “You shall pour it out on the ground, like water,” one may b indeed /b immerse ritually impure items in it.,The Gemara responds: b Two exclusions are written /b in the verse discussing ritually purifying waters: b A spring of water, and: A cistern of water. /b The term “water” is understood as being attached to each of the bodies mentioned in the verse. The additional exclusion serves to exclude blood.,The Gemara challenges: b Say /b that both b this /b phrase, a spring of water, b and that /b phrase, a cistern of water, serve b to exclude other liquids, /b and not blood, whereby b one /b phrase is b to exclude flowing /b liquids that are not water from having the status of a spring, which renders an item ritually pure even when it is flowing; b and one /b phrase serves b to exclude gathered /b liquids that are not water from having the status of a ritual bath, which renders an item pure only when the water in the ritual bath is gathered.,The Gemara responds: b Three exclusions are written /b in the verse: b A spring of water, /b to exclude flowing liquids; b and: A cistern of water, /b to exclude gathered liquids; b and: A gathering of water, /b to exclude blood.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states with regard to covering the blood: “And any man of the children of Israel, or of the strangers that sojourn among them, b who traps /b a trapping of an undomesticated animal or bird that may be eaten, he shall pour out its blood and cover it with earth” (Leviticus 17:13). b I have /b derived b only /b that one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal or bird b that one traps. From where /b is it derived that undomesticated animals or birds that are b already /b considered b trapped on their own, such as geese and chickens /b that do not roam freely, are also included in the mitzva of covering the blood?, b The verse states “a trapping” /b to indicate that b in any case, /b one is obligated to cover the blood of an undomesticated animal. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states: “Who traps,” /b if it is not to be understood literally? The i baraita /i explains: b The Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat only with this mode of preparation. /b That is, just as the meat that one traps is not readily available, so too, one should not become accustomed to consuming meat.,In a similar vein, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse states: b “When the Lord, your God, expands your /b boundary…according to every craving of your soul you may eat meat” (Deuteronomy 12:20). b The Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should consume meat due only to appetite. /b That is, one should consume meat only when he feels a need to eat it.,The i baraita /i continues: One b might /b have thought that b a person may purchase /b meat b from the marketplace and consume /b it. Therefore, b the /b next b verse states: “And you may slaughter of your cattle and of your flock,” /b indicating that one should consume the meat of animals of his own flock, not those purchased in the marketplace. One b might /b have thought that a person b may slaughter all of his cattle, /b i.e., his only cow, b and consume /b the meat, or slaughter b all of his flock, /b i.e., his only sheep, b and consume /b the meat. Therefore, b the verse states: “of your cattle,” /b indicating some, b but not all of, your cattle; “of your flock,” but not all of your flock. /b , b From here, Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria said: One who has one hundred /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of vegetables for his stewpot [ i lefaso /i ]; /b one who has b one thousand /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of fish for his stewpot; /b one who has b five thousand /b dinars b should purchase a i litra /i of meat for his stewpot; /b and if one has b ten thousand /b dinars, his servants b should place a pot /b of meat on the stove b for him every day. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b these /b other individuals mentioned by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, b when, /b i.e., how often, should they consume meat? The Gemara responds: b Every Shabbat eve. /b , b Rav says: We must be concerned for the statement of the elder, /b i.e., Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria, and be thrifty with our expenditure on food items. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Abba, /b i.e., Rav, b was from a family of /b particularly b healthy /b individuals, and was able to subsist on the modest diet suggested by Rabbi Elazar ben Azaria. b But /b with regard to people b such as us, /b who are not as healthy, b one who has /b even b one i peruta /i in his pocket should hasten /b with b it to the storekeeper /b and purchase food. Two generations later, b Rav Naḥman said: /b With regard to people b such as us, /b who are physically weaker than those in previous generations, not only do we not delay the purchase of food items, we even b borrow /b money to purchase food b and eat. /b ,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to one’s livelihood: The verse states: “The lambs will be for your clothing, and goats the worth of a field. And there will be goats’ milk enough for your food, for the food of your household; and sustece for your maidens” (Proverbs 27:26–27). b “The lambs will be for your clothing” /b indicates that b your clothing should be /b produced b from the shearings of lambs, /b i.e., purchase lambs from whose wool you can produce clothing. b “And goats the worth of a field” /b indicates that b a person should always /b seek to b sell a field and purchase goats /b in order to benefit from their milk, wool, and offspring, b and a person should not sell goats and purchase a field /b instead. b “And there will be goats’ milk enough” /b indicates that b it is sufficient for a person that he be sustained from the milk of kids and lambs that are in his house. /b , b “For your food, for the food of your household” /b indicates that b your food comes before the food of your household, /b i.e., one must first ensure that he has food for himself before providing for others. With regard to the phrase: b “And sustece for your maidens,” Mar Zutra, son of Rav Naḥman, said: /b The verse indicates that you must b give sustece to your youth, /b i.e., to your children. b From here, the Torah taught /b that it is b a desired mode of behavior that a person should not accustom his son /b to eat b meat and /b drink b wine; /b rather, he should teach his children to eat less expensive foods., b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b |
|
119. Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 59, 120 | 71b. b Here, /b in the final clause, it is referring b to marrying /b a woman to b him, /b and the i halakha /i is that a family with no presumptive status requires investigation before one of them marries. b There, /b in the penultimate clause, it is referring b to /b the court b removing a woman from him. /b The husband is not forced to divorce her unless it has been proven that they may not remain married., b Rav Yosef says: Anyone whose speech is Babylonian, /b i.e., anyone who speaks the Babylonian language with a Babylonian accent, b is /b allowed b to marry a woman /b without having his lineage examined. The presumption is that he is Babylonian, and the lineage of Babylonian families is unflawed. The Gemara comments: b But nowadays, when there are swindlers /b who may speak with Babylonian accents in order to avoid scrutiny, b we are concerned /b even about those who speak like Babylonians.,The Gemara relates: The Sage b Ze’eiri, /b a Babylonian, b was avoiding Rabbi Yoḥa, /b who was from Eretz Yisrael, b since /b the latter kept b saying to him: Marry my daughter. One day, /b when b they were walking along the way, they arrived at /b a large b puddle of water. /b Ze’eiri b lifted Rabbi Yoḥa upon his shoulders and carried him over /b the puddle out of respect. Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: Our Torah is fit /b and worthy of honor in your eyes, and yet b our daughters are not fit? What is your reason /b for not wanting to marry my daughter?,Rabbi Yoḥa continued: b If we say a reason /b not to marry my daughter is b from that which we learned /b in a mishna (69a): There were b ten /b categories of b lineage /b among the Jews who b ascended from Babylonia: Priests, Levites, /b Israelites, as well as many of flawed lineage, and you are concerned about the i mamzerim /i among those who live in Eretz Yisrael, b is that to say /b that b all of the priests, Levites, and Israelites ascended /b to Eretz Yisrael? Certainly, Jews of unflawed lineage remained in Babylonia. b Just as there remained from these /b unflawed categories in Babylonia, b there also remained /b individuals b from these, /b the flawed categories. Therefore, marrying only Babylonians will not alleviate your concern. The Gemara comments: In fact, b this statement of Rabbi Elazar escaped /b Rabbi Yoḥa: b Ezra did not ascend from Babylonia until he made it like fine flour, and /b then b he ascended. /b Accordingly, the people who remained in Babylonia were all of unflawed lineage.,The Gemara relates another incident: b Ulla arrived in Pumbedita to the house of Rav Yehuda. He observed that Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda, was grown up and was unmarried. /b Ulla b said to /b Rav Yehuda: b What is the reason /b that b the Master does not marry a woman to his son? /b Rav Yehuda b said to him: Do I know from where I /b can find a woman b to marry /b him? I am concerned about flawed lineage. Ulla b said to him: Is that to say that we know where we come from? /b Can we be sure that our lineage is unflawed? b Perhaps /b we are b from those /b about b whom it is written: “They have ravished the women in Zion, the maidens in the cities of Judah” /b (Lamentations 5:11). Perhaps we are descended from women ravished by gentiles., b And if you would say /b that you are not concerned about that possibility, since you maintain that in the case of b a gentile or a slave who engaged in sexual intercourse with a Jewish woman, /b the lineage of b the offspring is unflawed, perhaps /b we come b from those about whom it is written: “That lie upon beds of ivory, and stretch themselves upon their couches” /b (Amos 6:4), b and Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says /b in explanation of this verse: b These are people who urinate naked before their couches. /b , b And Rabbi Abbahu ridiculed this /b interpretation and said: b If so, /b if this was their sin, b is this what is written: “Therefore now shall they go captive at the head of them that go captive” /b (Amos 6:7)? Could it be that b because they urinated naked before their couches /b that b they go captive at the head of them that go captive? /b That act is admittedly distasteful, but it is not so severe a transgression to warrant such a punishment., b Rather, Rabbi Abbahu says: These are people who eat and drink together, and attach their beds together, and exchange their wives with each other, and befoul their couches with semen that is not theirs. /b The Jewish people include the descendants of such people, who are full-fledged i mamzerim /i ., b Rav Yehuda said to /b Ulla: If so, b what shall we do? /b How can we clarify which families are of unflawed lineage? Ulla b said to him: Go after the silence, like the way the people of the West, /b Eretz Yisrael, b examine: When two /b people b quarrel with each other, they observe which of them becomes silent first. /b Then b they say: This /b silent party b is of finer lineage. /b , b Rav says: The silence of Babylonia is its lineage. /b In other words, this is an effective method of examining a person’s lineage in Babylonia as well. The Gemara asks: b Is that so? But Rav arrived at the house of the son of a vinegar strainer and examined them. What, is it not /b that he conducted an examination b into /b their b lineage? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b he conducted an examination b into their silence. This is /b what Rav b said to /b those conducting the examination: b Examine whether they become silent /b when they quarrel b or /b whether b they do not become silent. /b , b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: If you see two people feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them. /b In other words, there are grounds to suspect that the lineage of one of them is flawed. Consequently, that one b is prevented /b by Heaven b from joining the other /b through marriage, and that leads them to feud with each other. b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: If you see two families feuding with each other, there is a trace of unfitness in one of them, and /b that family b is prevented /b by Heaven b from joining the other. /b , b Rav Pappa the Elder says in the name of Rav: Babylonia /b is b healthy /b with regard to lineage and clear of suspicion. b Mishon /b is b dead, /b meaning that all its inhabitants have flawed lineage. b Media /b is b sick, /b and b Eilam /b is b moribund. /b The Gemara clarifies: b And what /b is the difference b between sick and moribund? Most sick /b people recover b to /b a healthy b life, /b whereas b most /b of those who are b moribund /b are destined b for death. /b Likewise, the majority of the residents of Media had unflawed lineage, while the majority of those living in Eilam had flawed lineage.,After having determined that those from Babylonia are presumed to have unflawed lineage, the Gemara clarifies what the borders of Babylonia are with regard to this issue. b Until where does /b the width of b Babylonia /b extend? b Rav said: Until the River Azak, /b which empties into the Euphrates. b And Shmuel said: Until the River Yo’ani, /b which also empties into the Euphrates. The Gemara asks: b Until where does /b the border extend b upward, /b meaning northward, b on the Tigris? Rav said: Until /b the places called b Bagda and Avna. And Shmuel said: Until Mushekanei. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b according to Shmuel, b isn’t Mushekanei included /b in Babylonia? b But didn’t Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba say /b that b Shmuel says: Mushekanei is like the exile, /b meaning it is like Pumbedita in central Babylonia, b with regard to lineage? Rather, /b Shmuel meant: b Until and including Mushekanei. /b ,The Gemara asks: b How far does /b the border extend b downward, /b meaning southward, b on the Tigris? Rav Shmuel said: Until /b the city of b Lower Appamya. /b The Gemara comments: b There are two /b cities called b Appamya, the upper one and the lower one. /b In terms of the lineage of their residents, b one is unflawed and the other is flawed, and they are separated by /b a distance of b a parasang [ i parsa /i ]. And they are particular with regard to one another. /b The residents of the two cities avoid each other to the extent that b they do not even loan each other fire, /b to prevent them from developing a closeness with each other. b And your mnemonic /b to remember which is which is that b the unfit one /b is b that /b one b that speaks the Mishon dialect. /b As stated above, Mishon is considered dead with regard to lineage.,The Gemara further clarifies: b How far does /b the border extend b upward, /b meaning northward, b on the Euphrates? Rav said: Until the fortress /b of b Tulbaknei. And Shmuel said: Until the bridge over the Euphrates. And Rabbi Yoḥa said: Until the crossing at Gizma. /b The Gemara relates: b Abaye would curse, and some say /b it was b Rav Yosef /b that would curse, b one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Rav, /b as he held that Rav extended the border too far north.,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: Why did he b curse one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Rav, /b but he b did not curse one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Shmuel? /b But the bridge over the Euphrates is further north than the fortress of Tulbaknei. b Rather, /b he b would curse one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Rav, and all the more so one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Shmuel. And if you wish, say: In fact, he cursed one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Rav, /b but b he did not curse one /b who ruled in accordance with the opinion b of Shmuel, and the bridge over the Euphrates /b actually b stood lower down, /b i.e., farther south. In their times the bridge was to the south of Tulbaknei, and Abaye agreed that it was in Babylonia. |
|
120. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71, 120| 23a. ורבא דמצלי אצלויי:,ביו"ט חמשה ביוה"כ ששה כו': מתני' מני לא ר' ישמעאל ולא רבי עקיבא דתניא ביו"ט חמשה וביוה"כ ששה ובשבת שבעה אין פוחתין מהן ואין מוסיפין עליהן דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר ביו"ט חמשה וביום הכפורים שבעה ובשבת ששה אין פוחתין מהן אבל מוסיפין עליהן,מני אי ר' ישמעאל קשיא תוספת אי ר"ע קשיא ששה ושבעה,אמר רבא תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל היא דתנא דבי ר' ישמעאל ביום טוב חמשה ביוה"כ ששה בשבת שבעה אין פוחתין מהן אבל מוסיפין עליהן דברי ר' ישמעאל,קשיא דר' ישמעאל אדר' ישמעאל תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי ישמעאל,מאן תנא להא דתניא ביו"ט מאחרין לבוא וממהרין לצאת ביום הכפורים ממהרין לבוא ומאחרין לצאת ובשבת ממהרין לבוא וממהרין לצאת לימא ר"ע דאית ליה גברא יתירא אפילו תימא רבי ישמעאל דנפיש סידורא דיומא,הני שלשה חמשה ושבעה כנגד מי פליגי בה רבי יצחק בר נחמני וחד דעמיה ומנו רבי שמעון בן פזי ואמרי לה ר' שמעון בן פזי וחד דעמיה ומנו רבי יצחק בר נחמני ואמרי לה ר' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר כנגד ברכת כהנים וחד אמר כנגד שלשה שומרי הסף חמשה מרואי פני המלך שבעה רואי פני המלך,תני רב יוסף ג' חמשה ושבעה שלשה שומרי הסף חמשה מרואי פני המלך שבעה רואי פני המלך אמר ליה אביי עד האידנא מאי טעמא לא פריש לן מר אמר ליה לא הוה ידענא דצריכתו ליה ומי בעיתו מינאי מילתא ולא אמרי לכו,אמר ליה יעקב מינאה לרב יהודה הני ששה דיוה"כ כנגד מי אמר ליה כנגד ששה שעמדו מימינו של עזרא וששה משמאלו שנאמר (נחמיה ח, ד) ויעמוד עזרא הסופר על מגדל עץ אשר עשו לדבר ויעמוד אצלו מתתיה ושמע ועניה ואוריה וחלקיה ומעשיה על ימינו ומשמאלו פדיה ומישאל ומלכיה וחשום וחשבדנה זכריה משלם,הני שבעה הוו היינו זכריה היינו משלם ואמאי קראו משלם דמישלם בעובדיה,ת"ר הכל עולין למנין שבעה ואפילו קטן ואפילו אשה אבל אמרו חכמים אשה לא תקרא בתורה מפני כבוד צבור,איבעיא להו מפטיר מהו שיעלה למנין שבעה רב הונא ור' ירמיה בר אבא חד אמר עולה וחד אמר אינו עולה מ"ד עולה דהא קרי,ומ"ד אינו עולה כדעולא דאמר עולא מפני מה המפטיר בנביא צריך שיקרא בתורה תחלה מפני כבוד תורה וכיון דמשום כבוד תורה הוא למנינא לא סליק,מיתיבי המפטיר בנביא לא יפחות מעשרים ואחד פסוקין כנגד שבעה שקראו בתורה ואם איתא עשרים וארבעה הויין כיון דמשום כבוד תורה הוא | 23a. b and Rava, who would bend /b their heads and not actually prostrate themselves on the ground.,We learned in the mishna: b On a Festival, five /b people read; b on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; and on Shabbat, seven people read. One may not decrease the number of readers, but one may add to them. The Gemara asks: b Who is /b the i tanna /i of b the mishna? /b It is b not Rabbi Yishmael and not Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b and on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; b and on Shabbat, seven /b people read. b One may not decrease or add to /b the required number of readers. This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akiva /b disagrees and b says: On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b and on Yom Kippur, seven /b people read; b and on Shabbat, six /b people read. b One may not decrease /b these numbers, b but one may add to them. /b , b Who is /b the i tanna /i of the mishna? b If /b you say it is b Rabbi Yishmael, /b it is b difficult /b due to the ruling with regard to b adding, /b as the mishna states that one may add additional readers but Rabbi Yishmael holds that one may not do so. b If /b you say it is b Rabbi Akiva, /b it is b difficult /b due to the ruling concerning the days on which there are b six and seven /b readers., b Rava said: /b It is b the i tanna /i of the school of Rabbi Yishmael, as it was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: On a Festival, five /b people read from the Torah; b on Yom Kippur, six /b people read; b on Shabbat, seven /b people read. b One may not decrease these /b numbers b but one may add to them. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The Gemara comments: If so, b there is a contradiction /b between the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael, /b as expressed in the mishna, and the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael /b himself, as recorded in the i baraita /i . The Gemara responds: b Two i tanna’im /i , /b students of Rabbi Yishmael, expressed different opinions b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yishmael. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who /b is the i tanna /i who b taught that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b On a Festival, one is slow to arrive /b at the synagogue because one is busy preparing for the festive meal, b and one is quick to leave /b in order to eat; b on Yom Kippur, one is quick to arrive /b at the synagogue b and slow to leave; and on Shabbat, one is quick to arrive, /b as the meal has been prepared before Shabbat, b and quick to leave /b in order to eat the Shabbat meal? b Let us say /b it is b Rabbi Akiva, who holds /b that b an additional man /b reads from the Torah on Yom Kippur, which prolongs the service on that day. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Even /b if b you say /b it is b Rabbi Yishmael, /b one leaves the synagogue late because b the order of the day, /b i.e., the prayer service, b is /b very b long, /b as it includes many supplications and confessions.,A question is raised with regard to the number of readers on different days. b Corresponding to what /b were b these three, five, and seven, /b readers instituted? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani and one /b other Sage b who was with him disagree about this. And who was /b that other scholar? b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi. And some say /b that this was a matter of dispute between b Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi and one /b other scholar b who was with him. And who was /b that other scholar? b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Naḥmani, and some say /b it was b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani. One said: /b These numbers b correspond /b to the number of Hebrew words in the three verses of b the Priestly Benediction. And one said: /b These numbers b correspond to the three guards of the door /b (II Kings 25:18), b five of /b the officers b who saw the king’s face /b (II Kings 25:19), b and the seven /b officers b who saw the king’s face /b (Esther 1:14).,Similarly, b Rav Yosef taught /b a i baraita /i : The b three, five, and seven /b people who read from the Torah correspond to the b three guards of the door, five of /b the officers b who saw the king’s face, /b and b the seven /b officers b who saw the king’s face. /b When Rav Yosef taught this, b Abaye said to him: What is the reason that until now the Master did not explain /b the matter b to us /b in this way? Rav Yosef b said to him: I did not know that you needed this /b information, as I thought that you were already familiar with the i baraita /i . b Have you /b ever b asked me something and I did not tell you? /b , b Ya’akov of Mina said to Rav Yehuda: Corresponding to whom were these six /b readers b on Yom Kippur /b instituted? Rav Yehuda b said to him: /b The number six b corresponds to the six /b people b who stood to Ezra’s right and the six /b people b who stood to his left, as it is stated: “And Ezra the Scribe stood upon a platform of wood, which they had made for the purpose, and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand, and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchiah, and Hashum, and Hashbadanah, Zechariah, Meshullam” /b (Nehemiah 8:4).,The Gemara challenges this answer: b Those /b that stood to his left b were seven /b and not six. The Gemara responds: b Zechariah is /b the same as b Meshullam, /b that is to say, they are not two separate people, but rather one person with two names. b And why was he called Meshullam? Because he was perfect [ i mishlam /i ] in his actions. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i Tosefta /i ( i Megilla /i 3:11): b All /b people b count toward the quorum of seven /b readers, b even a minor and even a woman. However, the Sages said /b that b a woman should not read the Torah, out of respect for the congregation. /b , b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to the reader who b concludes [ i maftir /i ] /b the Torah reading and reads from the Prophets [ i haftara /i ], b what is /b the i halakha /i ; does he b count toward the quorum of seven /b readers? b Rav Huna and Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba /b disagreed about this matter. b One said: He counts, and one said: He does not count. The one who said /b that b he counts /b toward the seven readers holds that opinion b because he reads /b from the Torah., b And the one who said /b that b he does not count /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Ulla, as Ulla said: For what /b reason b must /b the one b who concludes /b with a reading from b the Prophets read from the Torah first? /b It is b due to respect for the Torah, /b so that those present should not conclude that he was called up only to read from the Prophets because the honor due the Torah and the honor due the Prophets are equal. b And since /b he reads only b out of respect for the Torah, he is not included in the quorum /b of seven readers.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b based upon the following i baraita /i : b The one who concludes with /b a reading from b the Prophets may not /b read b fewer than twenty-one verses, corresponding to the seven who read from the Torah. /b Each one who reads from the Torah must read at least three verses, for a total of at least twenty-one verses. b And if it is so, /b that the one who reads the i haftara /i does not count toward the quorum of seven readers, and he is an eighth reader, the minimum number of verses that must be read from the Torah b is twenty-four /b and not twenty-one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the one who reads the i haftara /i reads from the Torah first only b due to respect for the Torah, /b |
|
121. Ammianus Marcellinus, History, 17.5.1, 22.9.5-22.9.7 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 410; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 342 | 17.5.1. In the consulship of Datianus and Cerealis, while all provisions in Gaul were being made with very careful endeavour, and dismay due to past losses halted the raids of the savages, the king of Persia was still encamped in the confines of the frontier tribes; and having now made a treaty of alliance with the Chionitae and Gelani, the fiercest warriors of all, he was on the point of returning to his own territories, when he received Tamsapor’s letter, stating that the Roman emperor begged and entreated for peace. 22.9.5. Having here also in a similar way generously furnished many things that were necessary for repairing the damage done by the earthquake, he went on past Nicaea to the borders of Gallograecia. Galatia (Gallacia); cf. Suet., Calig. 29, 2. From there he made a detour to the right and turned to Pessinus, in order to visit the ancient shrine of the Great Mother. It was from that town, in the second Punic war, that at the direction of the Cumaean verses The Sibylline Verses; see Livy, xxix. 10, 11. her image was brought to Rome by Scipio Nasica. In 204 B.C.; see Livy, l.c. 22.9.6. of its arrival in Italy, along with other matters relating to the subject, I have given a brief account by way of digression in telling of the acts of the emperor Commodus. In one of the lost books. But why the town was called by that name writers of history are not in agreement; 22.9.7. for some have maintained that since the image of the goddess fell from heaven, the city was named from πεσεῖν, which is the Greek word meaning to fall. Others say that Ilus, son of Tros, king of Dardania, Herodian, i. 11, 1. gave the place that name. But Theopompus of Chios, a pupil of Isocrates, and a rhetorician and historian. His works are lost. asserts that it was not Ilus who did it, but Midas, According to Diod. Sic. (iii. 59, 8), he was the first to build a splendid temple to Cybele at Pessinus. the once mighty king of Phrygia. |
|
| 122. Libanius, Letters, 331, 333 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Borg (2008), Paideia: the World of the Second Sophistic: The World of the Second Sophistic, 410 |
123. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 120| 32b. אמר אביי הכי קאמר עד גמלא בגליל עד גדוד בעבר הירדן וחדיד ואונו וירושלים ביהודה,רבא אמר גמלא בגליל לאפוקי גמלא דשאר ארצות גדוד בעבר הירדן לאפוקי גדוד דשאר ארצות אינך דלא איכא דכותייהו לא איצטריך ליה,וירושלים מי מיחלט בה והתניא עשרה דברים נאמרו בירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה,אמר רבי יוחנן כירושלים דמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון ולא כירושלים דאילו ירושלים אין הבית חלוט בה ואילו הכא הבית חלוט בהן רב אשי אמר לאו אמר רב יוסף תרי קדש הוו ה"נ תרי ירושלים הוו,תניא ישמעאל בר' יוסי למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום אבל ראשונות בטלו משבטלה קדושת הארץ קסבר קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא,ורמינהי א"ר ישמעאל בר' יוסי וכי אלו בלבד היו והלא כבר נאמר (דברים ג, ד) ששים עיר כל חבל ארגוב כל אלה ערים בצורות אלא למה מנו חכמים את אלו שכשעלו בני הגולה מצאו אלו וקידשום קידשום הא אמרינן דלא צריך לקדושינהו אלא מנאום,ולא אלו בלבד אלא כל שתעלה לך מסורת בידך מאבותיך שמוקפת חומה מימות יהושע בן נון כל מצות הללו נוהגות בה מפני שקדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה וקידשה לעתיד לבא,איבעית אימא תרי תנאי ואליבא דר' ישמעאל ואיבעית אימא חד מינייהו ר' אלעזר בר יוסי אמרה דתניא ר"א בר יוסי אומר אשר לוא חומה אע"פ שאין לו עכשיו והיה לו קודם לכן,מאי טעמא דמ"ד קדושה ראשונה קידשה לשעתה ולא קידשה לעתיד לבא דכתיב (נחמיה ח יז) ויעשו בני הגולה השבים מן השבי סוכות וישבו בסוכות כי לא עשו מימי יהושע בן נון כן בני ישראל וגו' ותהי שמחה גדולה מאד אפשר בא דוד ולא עשו סוכות עד שבא עזרא,אלא מקיש ביאתם בימי עזרא לביאתם בימי יהושע מה ביאתם בימי יהושע מנו שמיטין ויובלות וקדשו ערי חומה אף ביאתן בימי עזרא מנו שמיטין ויובלות וקדשו ערי חומה,ואומר (דברים ל, ה) והביאך ה' אלהיך אל הארץ אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה מקיש ירושתך לירושת אבותיך מה ירושת אבותיך בחידוש כל דברים הללו אף ירושתך בחידוש כל דברים הללו,ואידך דבעי רחמי על יצר דעבודה זרה ובטליה ואגין זכותא עלייהו כי סוכה,והיינו דקא קפיד קרא עילויה דיהושע דבכל דוכתא כתיב יהושע והכא כתיב (נחמיה ח, יז) ישוע בשלמא משה לא בעא רחמי דלא הוה זכותא דארץ ישראל אלא יהושע דהוה ליה זכותא דארץ ישראל אמאי לא ליבעי רחמי,והא כתיב אשר ירשו אבותיך וירשתה הכי קאמר כיון דירשו אבותיך ירשת את,ומי מנו שמיטין ויובלות השתא משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט מנשה בטלו יובלות עזרא דכתיב ביה (עזרא ב, סד) כל הקהל כאחד ארבע רבוא אלפים ושש מאות וששים הוה מני,דתניא משגלו שבט ראובן ושבט גד וחצי שבט המנשה בטלו יובלות שנאמר (ויקרא כה, י) וקראתם דרור בארץ לכל יושביה בזמן שכל יושביה עליה ולא בזמן שגלו מקצתן,יכול היו עליה והן מעורבין שבט בנימין ביהודה ושבט יהודה בבנימין יהא יובל נוהג תלמוד לומר לכל יושביה בזמן שיושביה כתיקונן ולא בזמן שהן מעורבין,א"ר נחמן בר יצחק מנו יובלות לקדש שמיטין | 32b. b Abaye said: This /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: Until Gamla in the Galilee, /b i.e., all towns in the Galilee from Gamla southward were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun; b and /b likewise, all towns b until Gedod in Transjordan, /b which is the easternmost city, were surrounded by a wall; b and Ḥadid and Ono and Jerusalem in Judea /b were surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun., b Rava said /b a different explanation: The i baraita /i is elucidating the mishna, which mentions these cities. The i baraita /i is teaching that the b Gamla /b referred to in the mishna is the one b in the Galilee, to the exclusion of /b any b Gamla /b found b in other lands, /b i.e., Judea and Transjordan. Likewise, b Gedod /b is the one b in Transjordan, to the exclusion of Gedod in other lands, /b Judea and the Galilee. In the same vein, Ḥadid, Ono, and Jerusalem are specifically the cities in Judea known by those names. With regard to b those other /b cities mentioned in the mishna, e.g., Yodfat, b since there are no /b cities in other lands b with similar /b names, b it was not necessary /b for the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i to state them.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is ownership of a house in b Jerusalem /b transferred in b perpetuity /b to the buyer after one year, in the manner of houses of walled cities? b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Ten matters were stated with regard to Jerusalem, /b one of which is that ownership of b a house /b situated in Jerusalem is b not /b transferred in b perpetuity /b one year after its sale?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b The i tanna /i means that ownership of a house may be transferred in perpetuity in any city that is b like Jerusalem, /b i.e., b which is surrounded by a wall from the era of Joshua, son of Nun, but /b the i halakha /i with regard to such a city is b not like Jerusalem /b itself, b since while /b with regard to b Jerusalem, /b ownership of b a house /b inside it is b not /b transferred in b perpetuity, here, /b with regard to cities similar to Jerusalem, b a house in them /b may be transferred in b perpetuity /b to the buyer. b Rav Ashi said /b a different answer: b Didn’t Rav Yosef say /b in resolution of another difficulty: b There were two /b places called b Kadesh? Here, too, /b one can say that b there were two /b places called b Jerusalem /b in Judea, and the mishna is referring to the one where ownership of houses transfers in perpetuity.,§ With regard to the cities listed in the mishna, b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, /b says: b Why did the Sages count /b specifically b these /b cities as those walled since the days of Joshua, son of Nun? They counted them b because when the exiles ascended /b to Eretz Yisrael from Babylonia, b they discovered these /b cities b and sanctified them; but /b the sanctity of the b first /b walled cities b was nullified when the sanctity of the land was nullified /b and the Jewish people were exiled. The Gemara notes: Apparently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, b holds /b that the b initial consecration /b of Eretz Yisrael in the days of Joshua b consecrated /b it b for its time, /b until the exile, b but did not consecrate /b Eretz Yisrael b forever. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But raise a contradiction /b from another i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, said: And were these /b cities enumerated in the mishna the b only /b walled cities from the days of Joshua? b But isn’t it already stated: /b “There was not a city that we took not from them; b sixty cities, all the region of Argob…all these cities were fortified with high walls, /b gates, and bars” (Deuteronomy 3:4–5)? b Rather, why did the Sages /b specifically b count these /b cities? They counted them b because when the exiles ascended /b from Babylonia b they discovered these and sanctified them. /b The Gemara interjects: Can the i baraita /i really mean that they b sanctified them? But we say /b later in the same i baraita /i that b it is not necessary to sanctify /b them. b Rather, /b the i baraita /i means that b they /b found these cities and b counted them /b in the mishna.,The i baraita /i continues: b And not only these; rather, /b with regard to b any /b city for b which you receive a tradition from your ancestors that it is surrounded by a wall from the days of Joshua, son of Nun, all these mitzvot /b of walled cities b are observed in it, due to /b the fact that the b initial consecration /b of Eretz Yisrael b consecrated /b it b for its time and consecrated /b it b forever. /b Evidently, Rabbi Yishmael, son of Rabbi Yosei, holds that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal.,The Gemara responds: b If you wish, say /b that this is a dispute between b two i tanna’im /i , and /b they disagree b with regard to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yishmael, /b son of Rabbi Yosei. b And if you wish, say /b instead that b one /b of the i baraitot /i , specifically the second one, was actually b said /b by b Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Elazar bar Yosei says: /b Since the verse states: b “Which has [ i lo /i ] a wall,” /b with i lo /i written with an i alef /i , according to which the verse may also be taken to mean: Which does not have a wall, this indicates that b even if /b a city b does not have /b a wall b now, but it had /b a wall b before, /b in the era of Joshua, son of Nun, it retains its status as a walled city.,§ The Gemara asks: b What is the reasoning of the one who says /b that the b initial consecration /b of Eretz Yisrael b consecrated /b it b for its time, but did not consecrate /b it b forever? As /b it is taught in a i baraita /i : b It is written /b with regard to the return from Babylonia: b “And all the congregation of those that were coming back out of the captivity made i sukkot /i , and dwelt in i sukkot /i , for since the days of Joshua, son of Nun, /b unto that day b the children of Israel had not done so. And there was very great joy” /b (Nehemiah 8:17). Now, is it b possible /b that King b David came and /b the Jews in his time and all subsequent generations b did not make i sukkot /i , until Ezra came? /b , b Rather, /b when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” it means to b compare their arrival /b in Eretz Yisrael b in the days of Ezra to their arrival in the days of Joshua: Just as /b with regard to b their arrival in the days of Joshua, they counted Sabbatical /b Years b and Jubilee /b Years b and they sanctified walled cities, so too, /b with regard to b their arrival in the days of Ezra, they counted Sabbatical /b Years b and Jubilee /b Years b and they sanctified walled cities. /b , b And /b so it b says /b with regard to the return of the Jews from exile: b “And the Lord your God will bring you into the land that your fathers possessed, and you shall possess it” /b (Deuteronomy 30:5). The verse b compares your possession to the possession of your fathers: Just as the possession of your fathers /b came b with the renewal of all these matters, /b i.e., the Sabbatical Year and the Jubilee Year, and i terumot /i and tithes, b so too your possession /b comes b with the renewal of all these matters, /b as the initial consecration was nullified.,The Gemara asks: b And /b the i tanna /i who maintains b the other /b opinion, that the initial consecration of Eretz Yisrael is eternal, how does he interpret the verse in Nehemiah? The Gemara answers that when the verse states: “For since the days of Joshua,” this is not referring to actual i sukkot /i ; rather, the verse means b that /b Ezra b prayed for mercy with regard to /b the evil b inclination of idol worship and nullified it, and the merit /b of his prayer b protected them like a i sukka /i . /b ,The Gemara adds: b And this is /b the reason b that the verse criticizes Joshua /b for not praying for the removal of this inclination himself. How is this criticism indicated in the verse? b As in every /b other b place /b in the Bible, his name b is written /b as: b Yehoshua, and here it is written: Yeshua. /b The Gemara explains why the verse singles out Joshua for criticism: b Granted, Moses, /b the first leader of the Jewish people, b did not pray for mercy /b that this inclination should be removed, b as /b at the time b there was no merit of Eretz Yisrael; but Joshua, who had the merit of Eretz Yisrael, why didn’t he pray for mercy /b that this inclination should be nullified?,The Gemara asks: b But /b according to the opinion that the initial consecration was not nullified, b isn’t it written: “Which your fathers possessed and you shall possess it”? /b This verse apparently indicates that it was necessary to sanctify Eretz Yisrael a second time. The Gemara answers: According to this opinion, b this /b is what the verse b is saying: Since your fathers possessed /b the land, b you /b too b possess /b it, and there is no need to sanctify it again.,The i baraita /i cited earlier teaches that the Jews began counting the Jubilee Year upon their return from exile. The Gemara asks: b But did they count Sabbatical /b Years b and Jubilee /b Years in the days of Ezra? b Now, /b if b from /b the time b that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled /b (see I Chronicles 5:26) the counting of b Jubilee /b Years was b nullified, /b despite the fact that a majority of Jews lived in Eretz Yisrael, then in the time of b Ezra, /b about b which it is written: “The whole congregation together was 42,360” /b (Ezra 2:64), b would /b they have b counted /b Jubilee Years?, b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From /b the time b that the tribe of Reuben and the tribe of Gad and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled, /b the counting of b Jubilee /b Years was b nullified, as it is stated: “And you shall proclaim liberty throughout the land to all its inhabitants; /b it shall be a Jubilee for you” (Leviticus 25:10), indicating that the i halakhot /i of the Jubilee Year apply only b when all its inhabitants are in /b Eretz Yisrael, b and not when some of them have been exiled. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: One b might /b have thought that if all the Jews b were /b living b in /b Eretz Yisrael, b but they are intermingled, /b e.g., b the tribe of Benjamin /b is living b in /b the portion of the tribe of b Judah, and the tribe of Judah in /b the portion of the tribe of b Benjamin, /b that the b Jubilee /b Year b should be in effect. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “To all its inhabitants,” /b which teaches that the Jubilee Year applies only b when its inhabitants /b are living b according to their /b proper b arrangment, and not when they are intermingled. /b How, then, could those who returned from exile have counted the Jubilee Years?, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: They counted Jubilee /b Years in order b to sanctify Sabbatical /b Years. That is, at the end of every seven cycles of the Sabbatical Year they would count the fiftieth year as a Jubilee Year, so that the next Sabbatical cycle would begin in its proper time, in the fifty-first year. Nevertheless, the i halakhot /i of the Jubilee Year were not in effect. |
|
| 124. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 17 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 150 |
| 125. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan B, 3 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •persia, persian empire, christian centers in Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 70 |
126. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 71| 28a. מכה של חלל אין מתרפאין מהן מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו גב היד וגב הרגל דאמר רב אדא בר מתנה אמר רב גב היד וגב הרגל הרי הן כמכה של חלל ומחללין עליהן את השבת,אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביה אמר רב כל מכה שצריכה אומד מחללין עליה את השבת אמר רב שמן בר אבא אמר ר' יוחנן והאי אישתא צמירתא כמכה של חלל דמי ומחללין עליה את השבת,מהיכן מכה של חלל פירש רבי אמי מן השפה ולפנים בעי רבי אליעזר ככי ושיני מאי כיון דאקושי נינהו כמכה דבראי דמו או דלמא כיון דגואי קיימי כמכה של חלל דמו,אמר אביי ת"ש החושש בשיניו לא יגמע בהן את החומץ חושש הוא דלא הא כאיב ליה טובא שפיר דמי דלמא תנא היכא דכאיב ליה טובא חושש נמי קרי ליה,ת"ש רבי יוחנן חש בצפדינא אזל לגבה דההיא מטרוניתא עבדה חמשא ומעלי שבתא א"ל למחר מאי אמרה ליה לא צריכת אי צריכנא מאי אמרה אשתבע לי דלא מגלית אישתבע לה לאלהא ישראל לא מגלינא גלייה ליה למחר נפק דרשה בפירקא,והא אישתבע לה לאלהא דישראל לא מגלינא אבל לעמיה ישראל מגלינא והאיכא חילול השם דגלי לה מעיקרא,אלמא כמכה של חלל דמיא אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק שאני צפדינא הואיל ומתחיל בפה וגומר בבני מעיים,מאי סימניה רמי מידי בי ככי ומייתי דמא מבי דרי ממאי הוי מקרירי קרירי דחיטי ומחמימי חמימי דשערי ומשיורי כסא דהרסנא מאי עבדא ליה א"ר אחא בריה דרבא מי שאור ושמן זית ומלח ומר בר רב אשי אמר משחא דאווזא בגדפא דאווזא,אמר אביי אנא עבדי כולהו ולא איתסאי עד דאמר לי ההוא טייעא אייתי קשייתא דזיתא דלא מלו תילתא וקלנהו אמרא חדתא ודביק ביה דדרי עבדי הכי ואיתסאי,ורבי יוחנן היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי יוחנן כל מכה שמחללין עליה את השבת אין מתרפאין מהן אדם חשוב שאני,והא רבי אבהו דאדם חשוב הוה ורמא ליה יעקב מינאה סמא אשקיה ואי לא רבי אמי ורבי אסי דלחכוהו לשקיה פסקיה לשקיה,דרבי יוחנן רופא מומחה הוה דרבי אבהו נמי רופא מומחה הוה שאני רבי אבהו דמוקמי ביה מיני בנפשייהו (שופטים טז, ל) תמות נפשי עם פלשתים,אמר שמואל האי פדעתא סכנתא היא ומחללין עליה את השבת מאי אסותא למיפסק דמא תחלי בחלא לאסוקי גרדא דיבלא וגירדא דאסנא או ניקרא מקילקלתא,אמר רב ספרא האי עינבתא פרוונקא דמלאכא דמותא היא מאי אסותא טיגנא בדובשא או כרפסא בטילייא אדהכי והכי ליתי עינבתא בת מינא וניגנדר עילוי חיורתי לחיורתי ואוכמתי לאוכמתי,אמר רבא האי סימטא פרוונקא דאשתא היא מאי אסותא למחייה שיתין איתקוטלי וליקרעיה שתי וערב והני מילי דלא חיור רישיה אבל חיור רישיה לית לן בה,רבי יעקב חש | 28a. b internal injury, one may not be treated by them. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is the difference b between /b the two versions of Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement? b There is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to the case of one who was injured on b the back of the hand or the back of the foot. As Rav Adda bar Mattana says /b that b Rav says: /b Injuries to b the back of the hand and the back, /b i.e., the top, b of the foot are like an internal injury, and one may desecrate Shabbat for /b their treatment., b Rav Zutra bar Toviyya says /b that b Rav says: /b With regard to b any injury that requires /b a medical b evaluation /b to determine whether or not it is fatal, b one may desecrate Shabbat for /b its treatment. b Rav Shemen bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: And a burning fever is similar to an internal injury, and /b therefore b one may desecrate Shabbat for /b its treatment.,The Gemara inquires: b From what point /b on the body is a wound considered b an internal injury? Rabbi Ami explained: From the lips inward. Rabbi Eliezer raises a dilemma: /b With regard to afflictions located in the b gums [ i kakhei /i ] or teeth, what /b is the i halakha /i ? Do we say that b since they are /b located in b firm /b parts of the body, b they are similar to external injuries, or perhaps /b we say that b since they are situated within /b the mouth, b they are similar to internal injuries? /b , b Abaye said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a mishna ( i Shabbat /i 111a): b One who is concerned /b about pain b in his teeth may not sip vinegar through them /b on Shabbat for medicinal purposes, as it is generally prohibited by rabbinic law to perform acts of healing on Shabbat. Abaye infers: b It is /b only when he is merely b concerned /b about pain in his teeth b that he may not /b treat them, which indicates that if b it hurts him greatly, /b it is b permitted /b to seek treatment. The Gemara rejects this inference: b Perhaps /b the b i tanna /i also characterizes /b a situation b where it hurts one greatly /b as one of mere b concern. /b ,The Gemara suggests a different proof: b Come /b and b hear /b the following incident: b Rabbi Yoḥa suffered /b from the illness b i tzafdina /i , /b which affects the teeth and gums. b He went to a certain /b gentile b matron /b who was a well-known healer. b She prepared /b a medicine for him on b Thursday and Friday. /b Rabbi Yoḥa b said to her: What /b shall I do b tomorrow, /b on Shabbat, when I cannot come to collect the medicine from you? b She said to him: You will not need /b it. Rabbi Yoḥa asked her: b If I do need /b it, b what /b shall I do? b She said to him: Take an oath to me that you will not reveal /b the remedy, and I will tell you, so that you can prepare it yourself should you need it. Rabbi Yoḥa b took an oath to her: To the God of the Jews, I will not reveal it. She revealed /b the remedy b to him. On the following day /b Rabbi Yoḥa b went out and taught it publicly, /b revealing the secret of the remedy.,The Gemara challenges: b But /b Rabbi Yoḥa b took an oath to her /b that he would not reveal her secret. The Gemara explains that his vow meant: b I will not reveal it to the God of the Jews, /b which indicates: b But I will reveal it to His people, the Jews. /b The Gemara challenges: b But /b even so, b isn’t there a desecration of God’s name, /b as the matron now thinks that a great man of Rabbi Yoḥa’s stature violated his vow? The Gemara answers b that he revealed /b it b to her at the outset. /b As soon as she disclosed the remedy to him, he informed her that his vow would not prevent him from publicizing it.,With regard to the issue at hand, the Gemara infers: b Apparently, /b an affliction that affects the gums b is similar to an internal injury, /b as it was permitted for Rabbi Yoḥa to prepare the remedy on Shabbat. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: i Tzafdina /i is different, since it begins in the mouth, and ends in the intestines, /b i.e., the disease spreads until it infects one’s intestines, and therefore it is considered an internal affliction even while it is only in the mouth. Consequently, the incident involving Rabbi Yoḥa affords no proof, and Rabbi Eliezer’s dilemma remains unresolved.,The Gemara inquires: b What are the symptoms of /b i tzafdina /i ? If b one places an item between /b his b teeth, blood flows from the rows /b of teeth. b From what does it /b result? It results b from /b the consumption of b very cold wheat /b foods, b and from very hot barley /b foods, b and from remains of fried fish [ i kasa deharsena /i ]. /b With b what /b remedy b did /b the gentile matron b treat /b Rabbi Yoḥa? b Rabbi Aḥa, son of Rava, said: /b It was b water /b in which b leaven /b was steeped, b olive oil, and salt. And Mar bar Rav Ashi said: /b She smeared b goose fat /b over his gums b with a goose feather. /b , b Abaye said: I prepared all of these /b medicines b and was not cured /b from this ailment b until a certain Arab told me /b the remedy for it: b Take olive seeds that are less than one-third ripe, and burn them /b in a fire b on top of a new hoe, and stick them along the row /b of gums. b I did this and was cured. /b ,§ It was stated above that Rabbi Yoḥa sought the medical attention of a gentile. The Gemara asks: b And how could Rabbi Yoḥa do so? But doesn’t Rabba bar bar Ḥana say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b With regard to b any injury for which Shabbat is desecrated, one may not be treated by /b gentiles. i Tzafdina /i is a disease for which Shabbat is desecrated, and yet Rabbi Yoḥa was treated by a gentile. The Gemara answers: b An important person /b such as Rabbi Yoḥa b is different, /b as gentiles would not dare to kill him.,The Gemara questions this: b But Rabbi Abbahu was an important person, and /b yet b Ya’akov the heretic placed upon his leg a salve /b that was actually a poison. b And if /b it were b not /b for b Rabbi Ami and Rabbi Asi, who licked his leg /b to remove the poison, b his leg /b would have had to be b amputated. /b Apparently, Ya’akov the heretic attempted to kill Rabbi Abbahu despite the fact that Rabbi Abbahu was an important person.,The Gemara explains: The healer b of Rabbi Yoḥa was an expert physician /b who would not jeopardize her reputation by harming him. The Gemara rejects this explanation: But the healer b of Rabbi Abbahu was also an expert physician. /b The Gemara answers: The case involving b Rabbi Abbahu is different, as heretics establish within themselves /b the attitude of: b “Let me die with the Philistines” /b (Judges 16:30), i.e., heretics are willing to risk their lives in order to hurt Jews, due to their religious disputes. By contrast, gentiles will not jeopardize their own reputation for this purpose, and therefore it was permitted for Rabbi Yoḥa to be treated by the matron.,§ The Gemara lists a series of afflictions and their remedies. b Shmuel said: This gash /b caused by a sword b is /b considered b a danger /b to one’s life, b and one may desecrate Shabbat for /b its treatment. The Gemara asks: b What /b is b the remedy /b for this wound? To b stop the blood /b flow one should consume b cress /b soaked b in vinegar. /b To cause flesh b to emerge /b over the gash, one applies a salve made of b i yavla /i scrapings and thornbush scrapings, or /b a salve made from b the worms of the trash. /b , b Rav Safra said: These grapelike /b boils b are the forerunners [ i parvanka /i ] of the Angel of Death, /b i.e., they often precede one’s death. The Gemara asks: b What is the remedy? /b The remedy is either b a i tigna /i /b plant soaked b in honey or parsley /b soaked b in wine. In the meantime, /b while the plants are soaking, one b should bring a grape of the same size and rub it on /b the boil, b a white /b grape b for a white /b boil, b and a black /b grape b for a black /b boil., b Rava said: This abscess [ i simta /i ] is the forerunner of fever. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b is b the remedy? /b One b should snap [ i itkutlei /i ] /b the boil b sixty times /b with his fingers, i.e., click one’s fingers on the boil, b and /b then he b should tear it vertically and horizontally. /b The Gemara comments: b And this statement /b applies only in a case b where the head of /b the abscess b has not whitened, but /b if b its head has whitened, we have no /b problem b with it, /b i.e., it is in the process of healing, and it does not pose any danger., b Rabbi Ya’akov suffered /b |
|
127. Curtius Rufus, Historiae Alexandri Magni, 6.9.18 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 304| 6.9.18. Hic, cum scripsissem ei pro iure tam familiaris usus atque amicitiae, qualis sors edita esset Iovis Hammonis oraculo, sustinuit rescribere, mihi se quidem gratulari, quod in numerum deorum receptus essem, ceterum misereri eorum, quibus vivendum esset sub eo, qui modum hominis excederet. | |
|
| 128. Ctesias, Fragments, 45 Tagged with subjects: •pottery, in persian empire Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 164 |
130. Vergil, Aeneis, 7.100-7.101 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Miltsios (2023), Leadership and Leaders in Polybius. 145 | 7.100. This omen dread and wonder terrible 7.101. was rumored far: for prophet-voices told |
|
| 134. Papyri, P.Berl., 13606, 15808, 15824, 13615 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schliesser et al. (2021), Alexandria: Hub of the Hellenistic World. 178, 179, 180 |
| 135. Papyri, P.Cair., 3.50153 Tagged with subjects: •persia/persians, period/empire Found in books: Schliesser et al. (2021), Alexandria: Hub of the Hellenistic World. 180 |
| 136. Papyri, P.Eleph., None Tagged with subjects: •persia/persians, period/empire Found in books: Schliesser et al. (2021), Alexandria: Hub of the Hellenistic World. 181 |
| 138. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), 13 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 162, 200 |
| 143. Epigraphy, Malay, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 161 |
| 144. Augustus, Syll.3, None Tagged with subjects: •persia/persians, ionian revolt and athenian empire in western and southern asia minor Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 143 |
| 145. Augustus, Seg, 26.1392 Tagged with subjects: •angareion (organization of message transmission in the persian empire) Found in books: Marek (2019), In the Land of a Thousand Gods: A History of Asia Minor in the Ancient World, 380 |
| 146. Lysias, Orations, a b c d\n0 26.8 26.8 26 8 \n1 13.11 13.11 13 11\n2 13.5 13.5 13 5 \n3 2. 2. 2 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 147. Heracleides of Cyme, Fgrh 689, 2-4, 1 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 20 |
| 148. Prodikos, Fr., Dk 84, None Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 124 |
| 149. Deinon, Fgrh 690, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 132 |
| 150. Epigraphy, Sng Ashmolean, None Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 151. Epigraphy, Price 1991, 3684, 5 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 152. Andocides, Orations, 1.77, 1.111, 3.29 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 324 |
| 153. Andocides, Orations, 1.77, 1.111, 3.29 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire •persia and persians, empire of Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303; Munn (2006), The Mother of the Gods, Athens, and the Tyranny of Asia: A Study of Sovereignty in Ancient Religion. 324 |
| 154. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, None Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 150 |
| 155. Eusebius of Caesarea, First Greek Life of Pachomius, 3.16 Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 227 |
156. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 121 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 121 | 121. in brief form. I shall describe the work of translation in the sequel. The High priest selected men of the finest character and the highest culture, such as one would expect from their noble parentage. They were men who had not only acquired proficiency in Jewish literature, but had studied most |
|
| 157. Anon., Semahot, 8.10 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 254 |
| 158. Papyri, Sb, 5.8008 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Vlassopoulos (2021), Historicising Ancient Slavery, 79 |
| 161. Epigraphy, Seg, 61.1316 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 162. Anon., Lexicon Artis Grammaticae (E Cod. Coislin. 345), 25.1 Tagged with subjects: •persian, empire Found in books: Nikolsky and Ilan (2014), Rabbinic Traditions Between Palestine and Babylonia, 228 |
| 169. Demosthenes, Orations, 14.2-14.3, 14.6, 15.4, 22.6 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire •persian, empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303; Papadodima (2022), Ancient Greek Literature and the Foreign: Athenian Dialogues II, 121 |
| 170. Epigraphy, Bernand, Inscr. M Tr., 71 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 171. Anon., Treat. Seth, 1.16 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 92 |
| 172. Epigraphy, Ig Ii2, 3277 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Brodd and Reed (2011), Rome and Religion: A Cross-Disciplinary Dialogue on the Imperial Cult, 93 |
| 173. Asterius, Pg, None Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
| 174. Athanasius, Expositiones In Psalmos, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Bar Asher Siegal (2018), Jewish-Christian Dialogues on Scripture in Late Antiquity: Heretic Narratives of the Babylonian Talmud, 184 |
| 175. Epigraphy, Ig Xii, 2.256 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 176. Epigraphy, Priene, 156 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire Found in books: Mackil and Papazarkadas (2020), Greek Epigraphy and Religion: Papers in Memory of Sara B, 303 |
| 177. Anon., Esther Rabbah, 5 Tagged with subjects: •persian empire/period Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 5 |
| 178. Strabo, Geography, 1.1.1, 2.5.31, 8.7.2, 11.14.9, 11.501, 12.3.3, 12.5.3, 13.4.12, 14.5.16 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kalmin (1998), The Sage in Jewish Society of Late Antiquity, 8 |
