1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 13.10, 17.7, 22.23-22.24 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, adaptations •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem •protevangelium of james Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 192, 193, 194| 17.7. "יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה־בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל־הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃", 22.23. "כִּי יִהְיֶה נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה מְאֹרָשָׂה לְאִישׁ וּמְצָאָהּ אִישׁ בָּעִיר וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ׃", 22.24. "וְהוֹצֵאתֶם אֶת־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֶל־שַׁעַר הָעִיר הַהִוא וּסְקַלְתֶּם אֹתָם בָּאֲבָנִים וָמֵתוּ אֶת־הנער [הַנַּעֲרָה] עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־צָעֲקָה בָעִיר וְאֶת־הָאִישׁ עַל־דְּבַר אֲשֶׁר־עִנָּה אֶת־אֵשֶׁת רֵעֵהוּ וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃", | 13.10. "but thou shalt surely kill him; thy hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.", 17.7. "The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterward the hand of all the people. So thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.", 22.23. "If there be a damsel that is a virgin betrothed unto a man, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;", 22.24. "then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die: the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife; so thou shalt put away the evil from the midst of thee.", |
|
2. Anon., Jubilees, 33.3-33.4, 33.7-33.12, 34.15-34.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, knowledge of law Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 124 | 33.3. And Reuben saw Bilhah, Rachel's maid, the concubine of his father, bathing in water in asecret place, and he loved her. br And he hid himself at night, and he entered the house of Bilhah [at night], and he found her sleeping alone on a bed in her house. 33.4. And he lay with her, and she awoke and saw, and behold Reuben was lying with her in the bed, and she uncovered the border of her covering and seized him, and cried out, 33.7. And Jacob did not approach her again because Reuben had defiled her. And as for any man who uncovereth his father's skirt. 33.8. his deed is wicked exceedingly, for he is abominable before the Lord. 33.9. For this reason it is written and ordained on the heavenly tables that a man should not lie with his father's wife, and should not uncover his father's skirt, for this is unclean: 33.10. they shall surely die together, the man who lieth with his father's wife and the woman also, for they have wrought uncleanness on the earth. 33.11. And there shall be nothing unclean before our God in the nation which He hath chosen for Himself as a possession. 33.12. And again, it is written a second time: "Cursed he be who lieth with the wife of his father, for he hath uncovered his father's shame"; and all the holy ones of the Lord said "So be it; so be it." 34.15. And the sons of Jacob slaughtered a kid, and dipped the coat of Joseph in the blood, and sent (it) to Jacob their father on the tenth of the seventh month. 34.16. And he mourned all that night, for they had brought it to him in the evening, and he became feverish with mourning for his death, and he said: "An evil beast hath devoured Joseph"; |
|
| 3. Anon., Testament of Reuben, 3.11-3.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, knowledge of law Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 124 |
| 4. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 55.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 194 |
5. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 6.4, 7.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181, 194| 6.4. "בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל: \n", 7.3. "מִצְוַת הַנֶּהֱרָגִים, הָיוּ מַתִּיזִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ בְסַיִף כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַמַּלְכוּת עוֹשָׂה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, נִוּוּל הוּא זֶה, אֶלָּא מַנִּיחִין אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ עַל הַסַּדָּן וְקוֹצֵץ בְּקוֹפִיץ. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אֵין מִיתָה מְנֻוֶּלֶת מִזּוֹ. מִצְוַת הַנֶּחֱנָקִין, הָיוּ מְשַׁקְּעִין אוֹתוֹ בַזֶּבֶל עַד אַרְכֻּבּוֹתָיו וְנוֹתְנִין סוּדָר קָשָׁה לְתוֹךְ הָרַכָּה וְכוֹרֵךְ עַל צַוָּארוֹ, זֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ וְזֶה מוֹשֵׁךְ אֶצְלוֹ, עַד שֶׁנַּפְשׁוֹ יוֹצְאָה: \n", | 6.4. "The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned.", 7.3. "Slaying by the sword was performed thus: they would cut off his head by the sword, as is done by the civil authorities. R. Judah says: “This is a disgrace! Rather his head was laid on a block and severed with an axe. They said to him: “No death is more disgraceful than this.” Strangulation was performed thus: the condemned man was lowered into dung up to his armpits, then a hard cloth was placed within a soft one, wound round his neck, and the two ends pulled in opposite directions until he was dead.", |
|
6. New Testament, Matthew, 5.32 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167| 5.32. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ἀπολύων τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ παρεκτὸς λόγου πορνείας ποιεῖ αὐτὴν μοιχευθῆναι[, καὶ ὃς ἐὰν ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσῃ μοιχᾶται]. | 5.32. but I tell you that whoever who puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery. |
|
| 7. Plutarch, Moralia, 70.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
8. Tosefta, Avodah Zarah, 9.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 9.4. "על שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח על הדינין ועל עבודת כוכבים ועל גלוי עריות ועל שפיכות דמים ועל הגזל ועל אבר מן החי על הדינין כיצד כשם שישראל מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיירות שלהן כך בני נח מצווין להושיב בתי דינין בעיר שלהם. על עבודת כוכבים ועל ברכת השם כיצד עובד כוכבים שעבד עבודת כוכבים וברך את השם לא נתנה מיתה לבני נח אלא בסייף בלבד. על גילוי עריות כיצד כל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה וכל ערוה שב\"ד של ישראל מוזהרים עליה בני נח מומתין עליה דברי ר\"מ וחכמים אומרים הרבה עריות שאין ב\"ד ממיתין עליה בני נח מוזהרים עליה בא על עריות ישראל נדון בדייני ישראל בא על עריות העובדי כוכבים נדון בדיני העובדי כוכבים ואין לי אלא נערה מאורסה בלבד. ועל שפיכות דמים כיצד עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל חייב ישראל בעובד כוכבים פטור. על הגזילה כיצד גנב גזל יפת תואר וכן כיוצא בו עובד כוכבים בעובד כוכבים עובד כוכבים בישראל אסור ישראל בעובד כוכבים מותר על אבר מן החי כיצד אבר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה בשר המדולדל בבהמה ואין בו להעלות ארוכה אסור לבני נח ואין צריך לומר לישראל ואם יש בו להעלות ארוכה מותר לישראל ואין צריך לומר לבני נח. נטל צפור שאין בה כזית ואכלה רבי פוטר ורבי אלעזר בר' שמעון מחייב ומה על אבר מן החי ממנו חייב כולו לא יהא חייב חנקה ואכלה פטור רבי חנניא בן גמליאל אומר אף על דם מן החי רבי חידקא אומר אף על הסירוס ר\"ש אומר אף על הכשפים רבי יוסי אומר כל האמור בפרשה בני נח מוזהרין עליה שנאמר (דברים י״ח:י׳) לא ימצא בך מעביר בנו ובתו באש וגו' וחובר חבר כי תועבת ה' איפשר שכתוב עונש עד שלא יזהיר אלא מזהיר ואח\"כ עונש מלמד שהזהיר ואח\"כ עונשן רבי אלעזר אומר על הכלאים מותר לבני נח לזרוע וללבוש כלאים אסור להרביע ולהרכיב אילנות. ", | |
|
| 9. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 10. Irenaeus, Refutation of All Heresies, 3.15.2, 4.15.2, 5.17.8 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication •protevangelium of james, exile Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 163, 167 |
| 11. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 12. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, 22.17 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 13. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Pesahim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
15. Theophilus, To Autolycus, 3.13 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 | 3.13. And concerning chastity, the holy word teaches us not only not to sin in act, but not even in thought, not even in the heart to think of any evil, nor look on another man's wife with our eyes to lust after her. Solomon, accordingly, who was a king and a prophet, said: Let your eyes look right on, and let your eyelids look straight before you: make straight paths for your feet. Proverbs 4:25 And the voice of the Gospel teaches still more urgently concerning chastity, saying: Whosoever looks on a woman who is not his own wife, to lust after her, has committed adultery with her already in his heart. Matthew 5:28 And he that marries, says [the Gospel], her that is divorced from her husband, commits adultery; and whosoever puts away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causes her to commit adultery. Matthew 5:32 Because Solomon says: Can a man take fire in his bosom, and his clothes not be burned? Or can one walk upon hot coals, and his feet not be burned? So he that goes in to a married woman shall not be innocent. Proverbs 6:27-29 |
|
| 16. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 151 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 194 |
| 17. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 114 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 194 |
| 18. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 7.93.7-94.1 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james Found in books: Ward (2022) 1 |
19. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 194| 33b. ואין מחזירין לחובה מחזירין לזכות זכות גרידתא ואין מחזירין לחובה לזכות שהיא חובה,חובתיה דמאן הא לא קשיא חובתיה דגואל הדם משום חובתיה דגואל הדם קטלינן ליה להאי ועוד מאי בין בין קשיא,רבינא אמר כגון שהיה לו בידו משכון ונטלו ממנו,טימא את הטהור דאגעי ביה שרץ טיהר את הטמא שעירבן בין פירותיו:,דיני נפשות כו': ת"ר מניין ליוצא מבית דין חייב ואמר אחד יש לי ללמד עליו זכות מניין שמחזירין אותו ת"ל (שמות כג, ז) נקי אל תהרג,ומניין ליוצא מב"ד זכאי ואמר אחד יש לי ללמד עליו חובה מניין שאין מחזירין אותו ת"ל (שמות כג, ז) צדיק אל תהרג,א"ר שימי בר אשי וחילופא למסית דכתיב (דברים יג, ט) לא תחמול ולא תכסה עליו רב כהנא מתני (דברים יג, י) מכי הרג תהרגנו,בעא מניה רבי זירא מרב ששת חייבי גליות (מניין) אתיא רוצח רוצח,חייבי מלקיות (מניין) אתיא רשע רשע,תניא נמי הכי חייבי גליות מניין אתיא רוצח רוצח חייבי מלקות מניין אתיא רשע רשע:,ואין מחזירין לחובה: אמר ר' חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן והוא שטעה בדבר שאין הצדוקין מודין בו אבל טעה בדבר שהצדוקין מודין בו זיל קרי בי רב הוא,בעא מיניה רבי חייא בר אבא מרבי יוחנן טעה בנואף ונואפת מהו א"ל אדמוקדך יקיד זיל קוץ קרך וצלי איתמר נמי א"ר אמי א"ר יוחנן טעה בנואף חוזר,אלא היכי דמי אין חוזרין א"ר אבהו אמר רבי יוחנן כגון שטעה שלא כדרכה:,דיני ממונות הכל כו': הכל ואפילו עדים נימא מתניתין ר' יוסי ברבי יהודה היא ולא רבנן,דתניא (במדבר לה, ל) ועד אחד לא יענה בנפש בין לזכות בין לחובה ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר עונה לזכות ואין עונה לחובה,אמר רב פפא באחד מן התלמידים ודברי הכל | 33b. b but /b they b do not bring /b him b back /b to be judged with a claim b to find /b him b liable. /b When the mishna says: The court b brings /b the accused b back to acquit /b him, this is b an acquittal alone /b and is not to anyone’s liability. When it says: b But /b they b do not bring /b him b back /b to be judged with a claim b to find /b him b liable, /b this is b an acquittal that is /b also b a liability. /b The court does not bring the accused back to acquit him if this entails a liability to another.,The Gemara clarifies: b A liability for whom? /b There is no other litigant in cases of capital law. The Gemara answers: b This /b is b not difficult, /b this is to b the liability, /b i.e., the detriment, b of the blood redeemer, /b as he desires that the murderer be killed, and he will no longer be allowed to kill him. The Gemara questions this explanation: Is it reasonable that b due to the liability of the blood redeemer, we kill this one /b and do not reverse the verdict to acquit him even when there is a reason to do so? b And further, what /b is the meaning of the term: b Whether /b with a claim to exempt the accused, or b whether /b with a claim to find him liable? It is clear that this is referring to two separate matters, not to two types of acquittal. The Gemara comments: This is b difficult. /b ,The Gemara cites another explanation of how one can find a judge giving the item from one to another with regard to the clause of: He exempts a liable party. b Ravina said: /b It is possible in a case b where /b the one who lodged the claim b had in his possession /b an item belonging to the other litigant that functioned as b collateral /b for a debt, b and /b when the judge issued a verdict in favor of the other he b took /b the collateral b from him, /b thereby physically transferring it to the wrong party.,In the case from the mishna in tractate i Bekhorot /i : He b ruled /b that b a pure /b item is b impure, /b how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is b where /b he b had /b the litigant’s ritually pure item b touch a creeping animal /b to emphasize that he believes it was already impure, and he thereby imparted impurity to it. In that mishna’s case of: He b ruled /b that b an impure /b item is b pure, /b how could he cause a loss with his own hands? It is b where /b he b mixed /b this impure produce of the litigant’s b with /b the litigant’s ritually pure b produce, /b and he thereby caused all of the produce to be considered impure.,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of b capital law, /b the court brings the accused back to be judged again with a claim to acquit him, but does not bring him back to be judged with a claim to find him liable. To explain the terms “innocent” and “righteous” in the verse: “And the innocent and the righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7), b the Sages taught: From where /b is it derived b that /b with regard to one who is b leaving the court /b having been found b liable, and someone said: I have /b the ability b to teach /b a reason to b acquit him, from where /b is it derived b that /b the court b brings /b the accused b back /b to be judged again? b The verse states: The innocent you shall not slay, /b and the accused may in fact be innocent., b And from where /b is it derived b that /b with regard to one who is b leaving the court, /b having been b acquitted, and someone says: I have /b the ability b to teach /b a reason to find b him liable, from where /b is it derived b that /b the court b does not bring /b the accused b back /b to be judged again? b The verse states: “The righteous you shall not slay,” /b and the accused was found righteous in his trial., b Rav Shimi bar Ashi says: And the opposite of this /b is the i halakha /i b with regard to one who entices /b others to engage in idol worship, b as it is written /b concerning him: b “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” /b (Deuteronomy 13:9). He is brought back to court to find him liable, but not to acquit him. b Rav Kahana teaches /b this last i halakha /i citing a different verse concerning the enticer: b “But you shall kill him [ i harog tahargennu /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 13:10). The repetition of the verb indicates that he is killed even in circumstances where transgressors of other prohibitions would not be., b Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: From where /b is it derived that the i halakha /i concerning b those liable /b to be b exiled /b to a city of refuge for killing unintentionally is the same with regard to retrying a court case as the i halakha /i concerning one who killed intentionally, who is found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? Rav Sheshet answered: It is b derived /b from a verbal analogy employing the term b “murderer” /b stated with regard to one who kills intentionally (see Numbers 35:16) and the term b “murderer” /b stated with regard to one who kills unintentionally (see Numbers 35:19).,Rabbi Zeira asked Rav Sheshet: b From where /b is it derived that the i halakha /i concerning b those liable /b to receive forty b lashes /b is the same with regard to retrying a court case as the i halakha /i concerning one who killed intentionally, who is found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? Rav Sheshet answered: It is b derived /b from a verbal analogy employing the term b “wicked” /b stated with regard to one who kills intentionally (see Numbers 35:31) and the term b “wicked” /b stated with regard to those liable to receive lashes (see Deuteronomy 25:2).,The Gemara comments: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 7:3): b From where /b is it derived that the i halakha /i concerning b those liable /b to be b exiled /b for killing unintentionally is the same with regard to retrying a court case as the i halakha /i concerning one who killed intentionally, who is found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? It is b derived /b from a verbal analogy employing the term b “murderer” /b stated with regard to one who kills intentionally and the term b “murderer” /b stated with regard to one who kills unintentionally. b From where /b is it derived that the i halakha /i concerning b those liable /b to receive forty b lashes /b is the same with regard to retrying a court case as the i halakha /i concerning one who killed intentionally, who is found liable to receive court-imposed capital punishment? It is b derived /b from a verbal analogy employing the term b “wicked” /b stated with regard to one who kills intentionally and the term b “wicked” /b stated with regard to those liable to receive lashes.,§ The mishna teaches concerning cases of capital law: b But /b the court b does not bring /b him b back /b to be judged with a claim b to find /b him b liable. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: And this /b is the i halakha /i only in a case b where /b the judge b erred with regard to a matter /b for b which the Sadducees do not admit to its /b validity, i.e., he erred in a matter learned from tradition or established by the Sages. b But /b if the judge b erred in a matter /b for b which the Sadducees admit to its /b validity, i.e., a matter that is written explicitly in the Torah, b it is /b a topic that you could b go learn in a children’s school, /b and such an error negates the verdict and is reversed., b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked of Rabbi Yoḥa: What is /b the i halakha /i in the case of a judge who b erred with regard to /b the judgment of b an adulterer and adulteress, /b by ruling that only the man is liable but not the woman? Rabbi Yoḥa b said to him: While your fire is burning, cut your squash and roast it, /b i.e., seize the opportunity to add this case to the principle I taught you earlier. It b was also stated: Rabbi Ami says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b Concerning a judge who b erred with regard to an adulterer, /b the court b revokes /b the verdict.,The Gemara asks: b Rather, what are the circumstances /b where the court b does not revoke /b the acquittal? b Rabbi Abbahu says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b In a case b where he erred /b and acquitted the adulterer who engaged in sexual intercourse b in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse. The i halakha /i that this is considered sexual intercourse is not explicit in a verse. Therefore, if a court acquits one so accused, the verdict is not revoked.,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of b monetary law, all /b those present at the trial may teach a reason to exempt a litigant or to find him liable. In cases of capital law, all those present at the trial may teach a reason to acquit the accused, but not all present may teach a reason to find him liable. The Gemara asks: In capital cases, may b all /b those present teach a reason to acquit, b and even witnesses? /b The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that b the mishna /b is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, and not /b in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara explains: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : The verse states: b “But one witness shall not testify against any person /b that he die” (Numbers 35:30). A witness cannot state anything other than his testimony, b whether /b to provide a reason b to acquit /b the accused b or /b to provide a reason b to /b find him b liable; /b this is the opinion of the Rabbis. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: /b A witness b may answer /b to provide a reason b to acquit, but /b a witness b may not answer /b to provide a reason b to /b find the accused b liable. /b The mishna here seems to be in accordance with the minority opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda., b Rav Pappa says: /b When the mishna refers to all those present at the trial, it is not referring to the witnesses but b to one of the students /b sitting before the court, b and /b therefore b all agree /b with the ruling of the mishna. |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 104| 7b. מיתיבי מברכין לבתולה שבעה ולאלמנה יום אחד מאי לאו אפילו אלמנה שנשאת לבחור לא לאלמון אבל לבחור מאי שבעה אי הכי ליתני מברכין לבתולה שבעה ולאלמנה שנשאת לבחור שבעה ולאלמנה יום אחד,מילתא פסיקתא קתני דליכא בתולה דבצרה משבעה וליכא אלמנה דבצרה מיום אחד:,גופא אמר רב נחמן אמר לי הונא בר נתן תנא מנין לברכת חתנים בעשרה שנאמר (רות ד, ב) ויקח עשרה אנשים מזקני העיר ויאמר שבו פה ורבי אבהו אמר מהכא (תהלים סח, כז) במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה' ממקור ישראל,ורב נחמן בהאי קרא דרבי אבהו מאי דריש ביה מיבעי ליה לכדתניא היה ר"מ אומר מנין שאפילו עוברים שבמעי אמן אמרו שירה על הים שנאמר במקהלות ברכו אלהים ה' ממקור ישראל ואידך אם כן לימא קרא מבטן מאי ממקור על עסקי מקור,ורבי אבהו בהאי קרא דרב נחמן מאי דריש ביה ההוא מיבעי ליה למידרש עמוני ולא עמונית מואבי ולא מואבית דאי סלקא דעתך לברכה לא סגיא דלאו זקנים,ואידך אי סלקא דעתך למידרש לא סגיא דלאו עשרה אין לפרסומי מילתא וכדאמר ליה שמואל לרב חנא בגדתאה פוק ואייתי לי בי עשרה ואימא לך באנפייהו המזכה לעובר קנה והלכתא המזכה לעובר לא קנה:,תנו רבנן מברכין ברכת חתנים בבית חתנים ר' יהודה אומר אף בבית האירוסין מברכין אותה,אמר אביי וביהודה שנו מפני שמתייחד עמה,תניא אידך מברכין ברכת חתנים בבית חתנים וברכת אירוסין בבית האירוסין ברכת האירוסין מאי מברך רבין בר רב אדא ורבה בר רב אדא תרוייהו משמיה דרב יהודה אמרי בא"י אמ"ה אשר קדשנו במצותיו וצונו על העריות ואסר לנו את הארוסות והתיר לנו את הנשואות על ידי חופה וקדושין רב אחא בריה דרבא מסיים בה משמיה דרב יהודה בא"י מקדש ישראל על ידי חופה וקדושין,מאן דלא חתים מידי דהוה אברכת פירות ואברכת מצות ומאן דחתים מידי דהוה אקידושא:,ת"ר מברכין ברכת חתנים בעשרה כל שבעה אמר רב יהודה והוא שבאו פנים חדשות,מאי מברך אמר רב יהודה בא"י אמ"ה | 7b. b The Gemara raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b One recites a benediction for a virgin /b who marries for b seven /b days b and for a widow /b who marries for b one /b day. b What, is it not even /b in the case of b a widow who is married to a bachelor, /b that one recites the benediction for one day? The Gemara answers: b No, /b it is only in the case of a widow who is married b to a widower /b that the benediction is recited for one day. The Gemara asks: b However, /b one may then infer that in the case of a widow who is married b to a bachelor, what /b is the i halakha /i ? The blessing is recited b seven /b days? b If so, let /b the i tanna /i b teach /b the i baraita /i : b One recites a benediction for a virgin /b who marries for b seven /b days, b and for a widow /b who marries b a bachelor seven /b days, b and for a widow /b marrying a widower for b one day. /b Why was the middle case omitted?,Although the i tanna /i could have included that case in the i baraita /i , b he taught categorical matters. /b He preferred to avoid entering into detail, b as there is no virgin /b for b whom /b the benediction is recited b fewer than seven /b days, b and there is no widow /b for b whom /b the benediction is recited for b less than one day. /b However, there are circumstances where even for a widow the benediction is recited for more than one day.,§ Apropos the source for the benediction of the grooms, the Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself. Rav Naḥman said: Huna bar Natan said to me /b that it was b taught: From where /b is it derived b that the benediction of the grooms /b is recited b in /b a quorum of b ten /b men? It is b as it is stated: “And he took ten men of the Elders of the city and said: Sit you here, /b and they sat” (Ruth 4:2). b And Rabbi Abbahu said /b that the source is b from here: “In assemblies [ i mak’helot /i ], bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel” /b (Psalms 68:27). This verse indicates that a congregation [ i kahal /i ], which contains at least ten men, blesses God when reciting a benediction related to the source of Israel, i.e., conjugal relations, which will lead to the birth of Jewish children., b And what does Rav Naḥman derive from this verse /b from b which Rabbi Abbahu /b derived that i halakha /i ? b He requires /b the verse b to /b derive b that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir would say: From where /b is it derived b that even fetuses in their mother’s womb recited /b the b song at the /b Red b Sea? /b It is b as it is stated /b in the chapter of Psalms that describes the exodus from Egypt: b “In assemblies, bless God, the Lord, from the source of Israel.” /b Even those fetuses that were still in the source, i.e., the womb, joined the assemblies in blessing God. b And the other /b Sage, Rabbi Abbahu says: b If that /b is the meaning, b let the verse say: From the belly of Israel. What is /b the meaning of the term b “source”? /b Clearly, it is referring b to matters /b related to b the source /b of Israel, i.e., the benediction of the grooms, which must be recited in a congregation, a quorum of ten., b And what does Rabbi Abbahu derive from this verse /b from b which Rav Naḥman /b derived his i halakha /i ? b He requires /b the verse stating that Boaz assembled ten men in order b to teach /b that the Torah prohibition with regard to marrying members of the nations of Ammon and Moab is limited to a male b Ammonite and not a female Ammonite, /b and to a male b Moabite and not a female Moabite, as, if it would enter your mind /b that Boaz gathered the men only b to /b recite b a benediction, /b would it b not /b have been b sufficient /b if they b were not Elders? /b From the fact that he convened a quorum of Elders, apparently it was to engage in halakhic discourse and to issue a halakhic ruling., b And the other /b Sage, Rav Naḥman, would reject that proof. b If it would enter your mind /b that he gathered the men b in order to teach /b a i halakha /i , would it b not /b have been b sufficient /b if they b were not ten? /b The Gemara answers: b Yes, /b in fact a quorum of ten is not necessary to issue a halakhic ruling. Nevertheless, Boaz convened ten Elders b to publicize the matter, as Shmuel said to Rav Ḥana of Baghdad: Go and bring me an assembly of ten /b men b and I will say to you before them /b a i halakha /i that I seek to disseminate: With regard to b one who transfers ownership /b of an object b to a fetus, /b the fetus b acquires /b it, although it has not yet entered the world. Boaz too assembled ten Elders to publicize the matter. Apropos the i halakha /i that Shmuel publicized, the Gemara rules: b And the i halakha /i /b is: With regard to b one who transfers ownership /b of an object b to a fetus, /b the fetus b does not acquire /b it., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One recites the benediction of the grooms in the house of the grooms, /b when the bride enters into the wedding canopy. b Rabbi Yehuda said: One recites it even in the house of the betrothal, /b at the time of the betrothal., b Abaye said: And /b the Sages b taught /b the statement of Rabbi Yehuda b in Judea because /b there the custom was b that /b the groom b be secluded with /b his betrothed, leading to the concern lest he engage in conjugal relations with her. Therefore, the blessing is recited already at that stage., b It is taught /b in b another /b i baraita /i : b One recites the benediction of the grooms in the house of the grooms, and the benediction of the betrothal in the house of the betrothal. /b With regard to b the benediction of the betrothal, what /b formula b does one recite? Ravin bar Rav Adda and Rabba bar Rav Adda both said in the name of Rav Yehuda: Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, Who sanctified us through His mitzvot, and commanded us concerning the forbidden relatives, and prohibited to us those women who are betrothed, and permitted to us /b those women b who are married by means of the wedding canopy and betrothal. Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, concludes /b the blessing b in the name of Rav Yehuda: Blessed are You, Lord, Who sanctifies Israel by means of the wedding canopy and betrothal. /b , b One who does not conclude /b the benediction of the betrothal in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa, but instead recites it without a concluding blessing, deems the formula of this blessing b just as /b the formula b is in the blessing /b recited over b fruits and the blessing /b recited over b mitzvot, /b in which the words: Blessed are You, Lord, appear only at the beginning of the blessing. b And one who concludes /b the benediction of the betrothal in accordance with the opinion of Rav Aḥa, deems the formula of this blessing b just as /b the formula b is /b in the blessing b of i kiddush /i , /b in which the words: Blessed are You, Lord, appears both at the beginning and the conclusion of the blessing.,§ b The Sages taught: One recites the benediction of the grooms in /b a quorum of b ten /b men b all seven /b days of the wedding celebration. b Rav Yehuda said: And that is /b the case only b when new faces /b who did not previously participate in the festivities b came /b to join the celebration.,The Gemara asks: b What blessings does one recite? Rav Yehuda said /b that these are the seven blessings: b Blessed are You, Lord our God, King of the universe, /b |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 21b. או צבור וצבור אבל יחיד לגבי צבור כמאן דלא צלי דמי קמ"ל ואי אשמעינן הכא משום דלא אתחיל בה אבל התם דאתחיל בה אימא לא צריכא,אמר רב הונא הנכנס לבית הכנסת ומצא צבור שמתפללין אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"ץ למודים יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל ריב"ל אמר אם יכול להתחיל ולגמור עד שלא יגיע ש"צ לקדושה יתפלל ואם לאו אל יתפלל,במאי קא מפלגי מר סבר יחיד אומר קדושה ומר סבר אין יחיד אומר קדושה,וכן אמר רב אדא בר אהבה מנין שאין היחיד אומר קדושה שנאמר (ויקרא כב, לב) ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל כל דבר שבקדושה לא יהא פחות מעשרה,מאי משמע דתני רבנאי אחוה דרבי חייא בר אבא אתיא תוך תוך כתיב הכא ונקדשתי בתוך בני ישראל וכתיב התם (במדבר טז, כא) הבדלו מתוך העדה הזאת מה להלן עשרה אף כאן עשרה,ודכולי עלמא מיהת מפסק לא פסיק,איבעיא להו מהו להפסיק ליהא שמו הגדול מבורך כי אתא רב דימי אמר ר' יהודה ור"ש תלמידי דרבי יוחנן אמרי לכל אין מפסיקין חוץ מן יהא שמו הגדול מבורך שאפילו עוסק במעשה מרכבה פוסק ולית הלכתא כותיה:,ר' יהודה אומר מברך לפניהם ולאחריהם: למימרא דקסבר רבי יהודה בעל קרי מותר בדברי תורה והאמר ריב"ל מנין לבעל קרי שאסור בדברי תורה שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וסמיך ליה יום אשר עמדת וגו' מה להלן בעלי קריין אסורין אף כאן בעלי קריין אסורין,וכי תימא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכים והאמר רב יוסף אפילו מאן דלא דריש סמוכים בכל התורה במשנה תורה דריש דהא רבי יהודה לא דריש סמוכין בכל התורה כולה ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובכל התורה כולה מנא לן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו לומר מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה נמי בסקילה,אמר ליה ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא לזה לסקילה אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל כל המכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להן ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנא לן דדריש דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו,ר' יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ובמפותת אביו ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מאי טעמא דר' יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה (את) כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסת אביו כתיב דסמיך ליה ונתן האיש השוכב עמה וגו',אמרי אין במשנה תורה דריש והני סמוכין מבעי ליה לאידך דריב"ל דאמר ריב"ל כל המלמד לבנו תורה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאלו קבלה מהר חורב שנאמר (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב,תנן זב שראה קרי ונדה שפלטה שכבת זרע המשמשת וראתה דם צריכין טבילה ורבי יהודה פוטר,עד כאן לא פטר רבי יהודה אלא בזב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב,וכי תימא ה"ה דאפילו בעל קרי גרידא נמי פטר רבי יהודה והאי דקא מפלגי בזב שראה קרי להודיעך כחן דרבנן אימא סיפא המשמשת וראתה דם צריכה טבילה,למאן קתני לה אילימא לרבנן פשיטא השתא ומה זב שראה קרי דמעיקרא לאו בר טבילה הוא מחייבי רבנן המשמשת וראתה דם דמעיקרא בת טבילה היא לא כל שכן אלא לאו ר' יהודה היא ודוקא קתני לה | 21b. b or /b a case where he prayed as part of b a congregation and /b began to repeat it as part of b a congregation; however, /b in a case where he initially prayed by himself and subsequently joined the congregation at the venue where it was praying, we might have said that b an individual vis-à-vis the congregation is /b considered b as one who has not prayed. /b Therefore, b he taught us /b that in this case, too, one may not repeat the prayer. b And, /b on the other hand, b if he had taught us here /b only with regard to one who entered a synagogue, we would have thought that the reason he may not pray again is b because he did not /b yet b begin /b to recite the prayer, b but there, in the case where he /b already b began /b to recite the prayer, b say /b that this is b not /b the case and he may continue to repeat the prayer. Therefore, both statements are b necessary. /b , b Rav Huna said: One who /b did not yet pray and b enters a synagogue and found that the congregation is /b in the midst of b reciting /b the i Amida /i b prayer, if he is able to begin and complete /b his own prayer b before the prayer leader reaches /b the blessing of b thanksgiving [ i modim /i ], he should /b begin to b pray, and, if not, he should not /b begin to b pray. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: If he is able to begin and complete /b his prayer b before the prayer leader reaches sanctification [ i kedusha /i ], then he should /b begin to b pray. If not, then he should not /b begin to b pray. /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The basis for their dispute is that one b Sage, /b Rav Huna, b holds: An individual /b is permitted to b recite i kedusha /i /b on his own, so he need not insist on reciting it along with the prayer leader; b and /b the other b Sage, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, b holds /b that b an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone, and, therefore he is required to complete his prayer before the communal prayer leader reaches i kedusha /i ., b Similarly, Rav Adda bar Ahava stated, /b in accordance with the second opinion: b From where is it derived that an individual may not recite i kedusha /i /b alone? b As it is stated: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel” /b (Leviticus 22:32), b any expression of sanctity may not be /b recited in a quorum of b fewer than ten /b men.,The Gemara asks: b How is this inferred /b from that verse? The Gemara responds: This must be understood in light of a i baraita /i , b which was taught by Rabbenai, the brother /b of b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba: It is inferred /b by means of a verbal analogy [ i gezera shava /i ] between the words b among, among. Here it is written: “And I shall be hallowed among the children of Israel,” and there, /b regarding Korah’s congregation, b it is written “Separate yourselves from among this congregation” /b (Numbers 16:21). b Just as there /b among connotes b ten, so too here, /b among connotes b ten. /b The connotation of ten associated with the word among written in the portion of Korah is, in turn, derived by means of another verbal analogy between the word congregation written there and the word congregation written in reference to the ten spies who slandered Eretz Yisrael: “How long shall I bear with this evil congregation?” (Numbers 14:27). Consequently, among the congregation there must be at least ten., b And, in any case, everyone /b agrees that b one may not interrupt /b his prayer in order to respond to i kedusha /i .,However, b a dilemma was raised /b before the Sages of the yeshiva: b What is /b the ruling? Is one permitted b to interrupt /b his prayer in order b to /b recite: b “May His great name be blessed” /b in i kaddish /i ? b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Shimon, disciples of Rabbi Yoḥa, said: One may not interrupt /b his prayer b for anything, except for: “May His great name be blessed,” as even /b if one was b engaged in /b the exalted study of the b Act of the /b Divine b Chariot /b [ b i Ma’aseh Merkava /i ] /b (see Ezekiel 1) b he stops /b to recite it. However, the Gemara concludes: b The i halakha /i is not in accordance with his /b opinion.,We learned in the mishna that b Rabbi Yehuda says /b with regard to one who experiences a seminal emission; b he recites a blessing beforehand and afterward /b in both the case of i Shema /i and in the case of food. The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that Rabbi Yehuda holds that one who experienced a seminal emission is permitted /b to engage b in matters of Torah? Didn’t Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi say: From where /b in the Torah is it derived b that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from /b engaging b in matters of Torah? As it is stated: /b “Just take heed and guard your soul diligently lest you forget the things your eyes have seen, and lest they depart from your heart, for all the days of your life, b and you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9), from which we derive, among other things, the obligation to study Torah. b And, juxtaposed to it, /b is the verse: b “The day that you stood /b before the Lord your God at Horeb” (Deuteronomy 4:10). This juxtaposition teaches us that b just as below, /b at the revelation at Mount Sinai, b those who experienced a seminal emission were prohibited /b and were commanded to refrain from relations with their wives and immerse themselves, b so too here, /b throughout the generations, b those who experience a seminal emission are prohibited /b from engaging in Torah study., b And if you say that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses, b didn’t Rav Yosef /b already say: b Even one who does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses throughout b the entire Torah, /b nevertheless, b derives /b them b in Deuteronomy [ i Mishne Torah /i ], as Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses b throughout the entire Torah and he does derive them in i Mishne Torah /i . /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b does not derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b throughout the entire Torah? As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the punishment of a sorceress, b ben Azzai says: It is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” /b (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, b and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” /b (Exodus 22:18). The fact that the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b was b to say: Just as one who lies with a beast /b is executed b by stoning /b (see Leviticus 20), b so too a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b ,With regard to this proof b Rabbi Yehuda said to him: And does /b the fact b that /b the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that warrant taking /b this person b out to be stoned? /b Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on that basis b Rather, /b the source is: b Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out /b from the rest, in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? In order to b draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard /b are executed b by stoning, so too is a sorceress /b executed b by stoning. /b , b And from where do we derive /b that Rabbi Yehuda b derives homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses b in i Mishne Torah /i ? As it was taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer said that a man /b may b wed /b a woman b raped by his father and /b one b seduced by his father; /b a woman b raped by his son and /b one b seduced by his son. /b Though one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, this prohibition does not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them., b And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits /b him from marrying b a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. And Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” /b (Deuteronomy 23:1). The last expression, “and shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” implies that: b A skirt that has been seen by his father, /b i.e., any woman who has had sexual relations with his father, b may not be uncovered /b by his son, i.e., his son may not marry her., b And from where /b do we know b that /b the verse b is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? As /b the previous section, b juxtaposed to it, /b deals with the laws of rape: b “And the man who lay with her must give /b her father fifty shekels…because he has violated her” (Deuteronomy 22:29).,At any rate, we see that in Deuteronomy, Rabbi Yehuda derives homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses. Why does he fail to derive that one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from engaging in matters of Torah from the juxtaposition of the verses? b They replied: Indeed, in i Mishne Torah /i /b Rabbi Yehuda b does derive homiletic interpretations /b from the juxtaposition of verses, b but /b he requires b these juxtaposed verses /b in order b to /b derive b another /b statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who teaches his son Torah, the verse ascribes to him /b credit b as if he received /b the Torah b from Mount Horeb. As it is stated: “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9) b after which it is written: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb.” /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehuda cannot derive from that same juxtaposition a prohibition banning one who experienced a seminal emission from engaging in matters of Torah., b We learned /b in a mishna that b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, and a menstruating woman who discharged semen, and a woman who engaged in intercourse /b with her husband b and she saw /b menstrual b blood, /b all of whom are ritually impure for at least seven days due to the severity of their impurity, nevertheless b require ritual immersion /b in order to purify themselves from the impurity of the seminal emission before they may engage in matters of Torah. b And Rabbi Yehuda exempts /b them from immersion.,However, b Rabbi Yehuda only exempted /b from immersion in the case b of a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission, who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b as even after immersion he would remain impure with the seven-day impurity of the i zav /i . b But, /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b with no concurrent impurity, even Rabbi Yehuda b requires /b immersion before he may engage in Torah matters., b And if you say: The same is true even /b in the case of b one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b that b Rabbi Yehuda also exempts /b him from immersion, b and the fact that they disagree /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission /b and not in the case of a person who experienced a seminal emission alone b is in order to convey the far-reaching /b nature of the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b who require immersion even in this case. If so, b say the last case /b of that same mishna: b A woman who was engaged in intercourse and she saw /b menstrual b blood requires immersion. /b ,The Gemara seeks to clarify: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b was this /b case in the mishna b taught? If you say /b that it is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis, that is obvious; if /b in the case of b a i zav /i who experienced a seminal emission who was unfit to immerse himself from the outset, /b when he experienced the seminal emission, b the Rabbis /b nevertheless b require immersion, all the more so /b wouldn’t they require immersion for b a woman who engaged in intercourse and /b only then b saw blood, /b who b was fit to immerse herself from the outset, /b when she came into contact with the seminal emission of her husband? b Rather, isn’t this Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion, b and /b this case b was taught specifically /b in order to teach |
|
| 22. Anon., Protevangelium of James, 14.1 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 192 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile •protevangelium of james, financial Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 181| 4a. דכתיב (דברים כב, יא) לא תלבש שעטנז גדילים תעשה לך,ואמר רבי אלעזר סמוכים מן התורה מנין שנאמר (תהלים קיא, ח) סמוכים לעד לעולם עשוים באמת וישר,ואמר רב ששת אמר ר' אלעזר משום רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מנין ליבמה שנפלה לפני מוכה שחין שאין חוסמין אותה שנאמר (דברים כה, ד) לא תחסום שור בדישו וסמיך ליה כי ישבו אחים יחדיו,ואמר רב יוסף אפילו למאן דלא דריש סמוכים בעלמא במשנה תורה דריש דהא ר' יהודה בעלמא לא דריש ובמשנה תורה דריש,ובעלמא מנלן דלא דריש דתניא בן עזאי אומר נאמר (שמות כב, יז) מכשפה לא תחיה ונאמר כל שוכב עם בהמה מות יומת סמכו ענין לו מה שוכב עם בהמה בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,א"ל ר' יהודה וכי מפני שסמכו ענין לו נוציא זה לסקילה,אלא אוב וידעוני בכלל מכשפים היו ולמה יצאו להקיש להם ולומר לך מה אוב וידעוני בסקילה אף מכשפה בסקילה,ובמשנה תורה מנלן דדריש דתנן נושא אדם אנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו אנוסת בנו ומפותת בנו רבי יהודה אוסר באנוסת אביו ומפותת אביו,ואמר רב גידל אמר רב מ"ט דרבי יהודה דכתיב (דברים כג, א) לא יקח איש את אשת אביו ולא יגלה כנף אביו כנף שראה אביו לא יגלה,וממאי דבאנוסה כתיב מעילויה דקרא דכתיב (דברים כב, כט) ונתן האיש השוכב עמה לאבי הנערה חמשים כסף וסמיך ליה לא יקח איש וגו',ורבנן אי הוה סמיך ליה כדקאמרת השתא דלא סמיך ליה (דכתיב לא יקח איש את אשת אביו בנתים),בשומרת יבם הכתוב מדבר ולעבור עליו בשני לאוין,ובמשנה תורה מאי טעמא דדריש איבעית אימא משום דמוכח ואיבעית אימא משום דמופני,איבעית אימא משום דמוכח דאם כן לכתביה רחמנא גבי עריות ואיבעית אימא משום דמופני דאם כן לכתוב רחמנא לא יקח איש את אשת אביו לא יגלה כנף אביו למה לי | 4a. b As it is written: “You shall not wear diverse kinds /b of wool and linen together. b You shall make for yourself twisted fringes /b on the four corners of your covering with which you cover yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:11–12). These verses teach that despite the prohibition against wearing diverse kinds of wool and linen, it is permitted to prepare ritual fringes of diverse kinds, e.g., sky-blue dyed threads of wool on linen garments. This shows that the positive mitzva of ritual fringes overrides the prohibition of diverse kinds., b And Rabbi Elazar said: From where /b in the Torah is it derived that one may draw homiletical interpretations from the b juxtaposition /b of verses? In other words, from where is it derived that the fact that certain verses are adjacent one to the other is a reason to apply the i halakhot /i from one verse to the other? b As it is stated: /b “The works of His hands in truth and justice, all His commandments are sure. b Juxtaposed forever and ever, made in truth and uprightness” /b (Psalms 111:7–8). This verse indicates that it is appropriate to draw inferences from the juxtaposition of God’s commandments., b And /b similarly, b Rav Sheshet said /b that b Rabbi Elazar said in the name of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya: From where /b is it derived with regard b to a i yevama /i who came before /b a i yavam /i b afflicted with boils that one may not muzzle her, /b i.e., she cannot be forced to enter into levirate marriage, and he is compelled to release her by i ḥalitza /i ? b As it is stated: “You shall not muzzle an ox while it treads out the corn” /b (Deuteronomy 25:4), b and, juxtaposed to it, /b is the verse: b “If brothers dwell together” /b (Deuteronomy 25:5), which begins the passage that deals with the i halakhot /i of levirate marriage. This teaches that just as it is prohibited to muzzle the ox, so too, one may not muzzle and ignore the complaints of a i yevama /i who does not wish to marry a i yavam /i afflicted with boils., b And Rav Yosef said: Even according to the one who does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed /b verses, nevertheless, he does b derive /b them b from Deuteronomy, as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses, b and /b yet b he does derive /b them b from Deuteronomy. /b ,§ The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive that Rabbi Yehuda b generally does not derive homiletic interpretations /b from juxtaposed verses? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the punishment of a sorceress that b ben Azzai says /b that b it is stated: “You shall not allow a sorceress to live” /b (Exodus 22:17), although the manner of her execution is not specified, b and it is stated: “Whoever lies with a beast shall surely be put to death” /b (Exodus 22:18). The Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b so as to say: b Just as one who lies with a beast /b is executed b by stoning /b (see Leviticus 20:16), b so too, a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b ,With regard to this proof, b Rabbi Yehuda said to /b ben Azzai: b And /b simply b due to /b the fact b that /b the Torah b juxtaposed this matter to that /b one, b shall we take this /b person b out to be stoned? /b Should he be sentenced to the most severe of the death penalties on the basis of a juxtaposition of passages?, b Rather, /b Rabbi Yehuda claims that the source is the following statement: b Mediums and wizards were included among all sorcerers. And why were they singled out /b from the rest in the verse: “And a man or a woman who is a medium or a wizard shall surely be put to death; they shall stone them with stones, their blood is upon them” (Leviticus 20:27)? It is to b draw an analogy to them and say to you: Just as a medium and a wizard /b are executed b by stoning, so too, a sorceress /b is executed b by stoning. /b This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does not derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses.,§ b And from where do we /b derive b that /b Rabbi Yehuda b does derive /b homiletic interpretations b in Deuteronomy? As we learned /b in a mishna: b A person may wed /b a woman b raped by his father and /b one b seduced by his father, /b despite the fact that his father’s wife is forbidden to him. Similarly, he may marry a woman b raped by his /b son b and /b one b seduced by his son. /b Although one is prohibited by Torah law from marrying the wife of his father or the wife of his son, these prohibitions do not apply to a woman raped or seduced by them. b And Rabbi Yehuda prohibits /b him from marrying b a woman raped by his father and a woman seduced by his father. /b , b And Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: What is the reason for Rabbi Yehuda’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife, and shall not uncover his father’s skirt” /b (Deuteronomy 23:1). The latter expression: “And shall not uncover his father’s skirt,” is referring to b a skirt that has been seen by his father, /b i.e., any woman who has had relations with his father b may not be uncovered /b by his son, meaning that his son may not marry her., b And from where /b is it known b that /b the verse b is written with regard to a woman raped by his father? /b It is b from the previous /b verse, which deals with the i halakhot /i of rape, b as it is written: “And the man who lay with her must give the maiden’s father fifty shekels of silver” /b (Deuteronomy 22:29), b and juxtaposed to it /b is the verse: b “A man shall not take his father’s wife /b and shall not uncover his father’s skirt.” This shows that Rabbi Yehuda does derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses in Deuteronomy.,§ The Gemara asks: b And /b how do b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, respond to this argument? They say: b If /b the two verses were fully b juxtaposed, /b it would be interpreted b as you said. /b However, b now /b that b it is not /b properly b juxtaposed, as it is written: “A man shall not take his father’s wife,” in between /b the i halakhot /i of rape and the pronouncement with regard to uncovering one’s father’s garment, this serves to break the juxtaposition.,Consequently, this particular b verse /b concerning the uncovering of one’s father’s garment b is speaking of a woman waiting for her i yavam /i , /b in this case one’s father. In other words, the i yevama /i of a father who is waiting for levirate marriage to the father is already considered “his father’s skirt,” and she is therefore forbidden to the son. Although this woman who is awaiting levirate marriage is in fact his uncle’s wife and explicitly prohibited to him in any case, this passage comes to teach that b he violates two prohibitions. /b In other words, were he to engage in relations with her he would be penalized both for relations with his uncle’s wife and relations with “his father’s skirt.”,§ The Gemara asks: b But /b as Rabbi Yehuda does not generally derive homiletic interpretations from juxtaposed verses, b what is the reason that he derives /b these interpretations b in Deuteronomy? /b The Gemara responds: b If you wish, say /b that it is b because /b it b is evident /b from the context; b and if you wish, say /b instead that it is b because /b this verse is extraneous and is therefore b free /b for this inference.,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b it is b because /b it b is evident; as, if /b it is b so /b that the verse did not intend to teach by juxtaposition, b let the Merciful One write /b this i halakha /i prohibiting marriage to a father’s wife b alongside /b the other women b with whom relations are forbidden, /b in Leviticus. Since this verse is out of place, it is certainly coming to teach by way of juxtaposition. b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is b because /b this verse is b free, as, if /b it is b so /b that the verse is not coming to teach an additional i halakha /i , b let the Merciful One write /b only: b “A man shall not take his father’s wife.” Why do I /b need the phrase: b “And shall not uncover his father’s skirt”? /b This phrase is superfluous, and therefore it teaches by juxtaposition. |
|
| 24. Isidore of Pelusium, Epistulae, 1303 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 25. Aphrahat, Demonstrations, 6, 8 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 124 |
| 26. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 188.3, 188.9, 199.21-199.22, 199.30, 199.38 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication •protevangelium of james, expulsion from ministry Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 96, 167 |
| 27. Ephrem, Sermons, 1 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, adaptations Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 193 |
| 28. Basil of Caesarea, Letters, 188.3, 188.9, 199.21-199.22, 199.30, 199.38 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication •protevangelium of james, expulsion from ministry Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 96, 167 |
| 29. Hilary of Poitiers, Commentary On Matthew, 1.3 (4th cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 192 |
| 30. Theodore of Mopsuestia, Commentary On Xii, Malachi, 2.14-2.16 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 31. Theodosius Ii Emperor of Rome, Theodosian Code, 3.16.1 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, exile Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 163 |
| 32. Jerome, Commentaria In Matthaeum (Commentaria In Evangelium S. Matthaei), 1.19 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 192 |
| 33. Jerome, Letters, 55.2 (5th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 34. Justinian, Digest, 23.2.26, 48.5.5, 48.9.9, 48.19.28 (5th cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 163 |
| 35. Gregory of Nazianzus, Orations, 37.8 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 36. Council of Elvira, Can., 65, 70 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 37. Anon., History of Joseph The Carpenter, 5 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, adaptations Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 193 |
| 38. Ps. Matthew, Sermons, 10 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, adaptations Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 193 |
| 39. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 35.19 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, jewish traditions •protevangelium of james, influence on ephrem Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 194 |
| 40. Eusebius of Caesarea, Syriac Questions, 9.1 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, adaptations Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 193 |
| 41. Ps. Matthew, Sanctam Christi Generationem, 4 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 192 |
| 42. Lactantius, Nativity of Mary, 10 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, adaptations Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 193 |
| 43. Jesubocht, Code, 2.12 Tagged with subjects: •protevangelium of james, excommunication Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
| 44. Jesubarnun, Code, 5, 7 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Monnickendam (2020) 167 |
