1. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 4.46 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 155 | 4.46. and stored the stones in a convenient place on the temple hill until there should come a prophet to tell what to do with them. |
|
2. Septuagint, 2 Maccabees, 7 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 155 | 7. It happened also that seven brothers and their mother were arrested and were being compelled by the king, under torture with whips and cords, to partake of unlawful swine's flesh.',One of them, acting as their spokesman, said, 'What do you intend to ask and learn from us? For we are ready to die rather than transgress the laws of our fathers.',The king fell into a rage, and gave orders that pans and caldrons be heated.',These were heated immediately, and he commanded that the tongue of their spokesman be cut out and that they scalp him and cut off his hands and feet, while the rest of the brothers and the mother looked on.',When he was utterly helpless, the king ordered them to take him to the fire, still breathing, and to fry him in a pan. The smoke from the pan spread widely, but the brothers and their mother encouraged one another to die nobly, saying,',The Lord God is watching over us and in truth has compassion on us, as Moses declared in his song which bore witness against the people to their faces, when he said, `And he will have compassion on his servants.'',After the first brother had died in this way, they brought forward the second for their sport. They tore off the skin of his head with the hair, and asked him, 'Will you eat rather than have your body punished limb by limb?',He replied in the language of his fathers, and said to them, 'No.'Therefore he in turn underwent tortures as the first brother had done.',And when he was at his last breath, he said, 'You accursed wretch, you dismiss us from this present life, but the King of the universe will raise us up to an everlasting renewal of life, because we have died for his laws.',After him, the third was the victim of their sport. When it was demanded, he quickly put out his tongue and courageously stretched forth his hands,',and said nobly, 'I got these from Heaven, and because of his laws I disdain them, and from him I hope to get them back again.',As a result the king himself and those with him were astonished at the young man's spirit, for he regarded his sufferings as nothing.',When he too had died, they maltreated and tortured the fourth in the same way.',And when he was near death, he said, 'One cannot but choose to die at the hands of men and to cherish the hope that God gives of being raised again by him. But for you there will be no resurrection to life!',Next they brought forward the fifth and maltreated him.",But he looked at the king, and said, 'Because you have authority among men, mortal though you are, you do what you please. But do not think that God has forsaken our people.',Keep on, and see how his mighty power will torture you and your descendants!',After him they brought forward the sixth. And when he was about to die, he said, 'Do not deceive yourself in vain. For we are suffering these things on our own account, because of our sins against our own God. Therefore astounding things have happened.',But do not think that you will go unpunished for having tried to fight against God!',The mother was especially admirable and worthy of honorable memory. Though she saw her seven sons perish within a single day, she bore it with good courage because of her hope in the Lord.',She encouraged each of them in the language of their fathers. Filled with a noble spirit, she fired her woman's reasoning with a man's courage, and said to them,',I do not know how you came into being in my womb. It was not I who gave you life and breath, nor I who set in order the elements within each of you.',Therefore the Creator of the world, who shaped the beginning of man and devised the origin of all things, will in his mercy give life and breath back to you again, since you now forget yourselves for the sake of his laws.',Antiochus felt that he was being treated with contempt, and he was suspicious of her reproachful tone. The youngest brother being still alive, Antiochus not only appealed to him in words, but promised with oaths that he would make him rich and enviable if he would turn from the ways of his fathers, and that he would take him for his friend and entrust him with public affairs.',Since the young man would not listen to him at all, the king called the mother to him and urged her to advise the youth to save himself.',After much urging on his part, she undertook to persuade her son.',But, leaning close to him, she spoke in their native tongue as follows, deriding the cruel tyrant: 'My son, have pity on me. I carried you nine months in my womb, and nursed you for three years, and have reared you and brought you up to this point in your life, and have taken care of you.',I beseech you, my child, to look at the heaven and the earth and see everything that is in them, and recognize that God did not make them out of things that existed. Thus also mankind comes into being.',Do not fear this butcher, but prove worthy of your brothers. Accept death, so that in God's mercy I may get you back again with your brothers.',While she was still speaking, the young man said, 'What are you waiting for? I will not obey the king's command, but I obey the command of the law that was given to our fathers through Moses.',But you, who have contrived all sorts of evil against the Hebrews, will certainly not escape the hands of God.', For we are suffering because of our own sins.",And if our living Lord is angry for a little while, to rebuke and discipline us, he will again be reconciled with his own servants.',But you, unholy wretch, you most defiled of all men, do not be elated in vain and puffed up by uncertain hopes, when you raise your hand against the children of heaven.',You have not yet escaped the judgment of the almighty, all-seeing God.',For our brothers after enduring a brief suffering have drunk of everflowing life under God's covet; but you, by the judgment of God, will receive just punishment for your arrogance.',I, like my brothers, give up body and life for the laws of our fathers, appealing to God to show mercy soon to our nation and by afflictions and plagues to make you confess that he alone is God,',and through me and my brothers to bring to an end the wrath of the Almighty which has justly fallen on our whole nation.',The king fell into a rage, and handled him worse than the others, being exasperated at his scorn.',So he died in his integrity, putting his whole trust in the Lord.',Last of all, the mother died, after her sons.',Let this be enough, then, about the eating of sacrifices and the extreme tortures.' |
|
3. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, a b c d\n0 11.323 11.323 11 323\n1 11.326 11.326 11 326\n2 11.318 11.318 11 318\n3 11.344 11.344 11 344\n4 11.319 11.319 11 319\n5 11.309 11.309 11 309\n6 55 55 55 None\n7 None\n8 11.343 11.343 11 343\n9 15.425 15.425 15 425\n10 11.333 11.333 11 333\n11 11.340 11.340 11 340\n12 11.308 11.308 11 308\n13 11.330 11.330 11 330\n14 11.342 11.342 11 342\n15 11.314 11.314 11 314\n16 19.334 19.334 19 334\n17 11.325 11.325 11 325\n18 11.334 11.334 11 334\n19 11.336 11.336 11 336\n20 11.304 11.304 11 304\n21 11.331 11.331 11 331\n22 11.311 11.311 11 311\n23 11.315 11.315 11 315\n24 11.339 11.339 11 339\n25 11.341 11.341 11 341\n26 11.335 11.335 11 335\n27 19.332 19.332 19 332\n28 11.310 11.310 11 310\n29 11.327 11.327 11 327\n30 19.333 19.333 19 333\n31 11.305 11.305 11 305\n32 11.320 11.320 11 320\n33 11.322 11.322 11 322\n34 4.209 4.209 4 209\n35 1.1-11.296 1.1 1 1\n36 11.316 11.316 11 316\n37 11.302 11.302 11 302\n38 11.312 11.312 11 312\n39 11.307 11.307 11 307\n40 11.321 11.321 11 321\n41 11.317 11.317 11 317\n42 11.328 11.328 11 328\n43 11.324 11.324 11 324\n44 11.329 11.329 11 329\n45 11.345 11.345 11 345\n46 11.313 11.313 11 313\n47 11.337 11.337 11 337\n48 11.332 11.332 11 332\n49 11.338 11.338 11 338\n50 11.306 11.306 11 306\n51 11.303 11.303 11 303 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156| 11.323. τοῦτο δ' εἶναι καὶ τῷ βασιλεῖ συμφέρον εἰς δύο διῃρῆσθαι τὴν ̓Ιουδαίων δύναμιν, ἵνα μὴ ὁμογνωμονοῦν τὸ ἔθνος μηδὲ συνεστός, εἰ νεωτερίσειέν ποτε, χαλεπὸν ᾖ τοῖς βασιλεῦσιν, καθὼς καὶ πρότερον τοῖς ̓Ασσυρίων ἄρξασιν ἐγένετο. | 11.323. that it would be for the king’s advantage to have the strength of the Jews divided into two parts, lest when the nation is of one mind, and united, upon any attempt for innovation, it prove troublesome to kings, as it had formerly proved to the kings of Assyria. |
|
4. Mishnah, Middot, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 155| 1.6. וְאַרְבַּע לְשָׁכוֹת הָיוּ בְּבֵית הַמּוֹקֵד, כְּקִיטוֹנוֹת פְּתוּחוֹת לִטְרַקְלִין, שְׁתַּיִם בַּקֹּדֶשׁ וּשְׁתַּיִם בַּחֹל, וְרָאשֵׁי פִסְפָּסִין מַבְדִּילִין בֵּין קֹדֶשׁ לַחֹל. וּמֶה הָיוּ מְשַׁמְּשׁוֹת. מַעֲרָבִית דְּרוֹמִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת טְלָאֵי קָרְבָּן. דְּרוֹמִית מִזְרָחִית, הִיא הָיְתָה לִשְׁכַּת עוֹשֵׂי לֶחֶם הַפָּנִים. מִזְרָחִית צְפוֹנִית, בָּהּ גָּנְזוּ בְנֵי חַשְׁמוֹנַאי אֶת אַבְנֵי הַמִּזְבֵּחַ שֶׁשִּׁקְּצוּם מַלְכֵי יָוָן. צְפוֹנִית מַעֲרָבִית, בָּהּ יוֹרְדִים לְבֵית הַטְּבִילָה: | 1.6. There were four chambers inside the fire chamber, like sleeping chambers opening into a hall, two in sacred ground and two in non-holy, and there was a row of mosaic stones separating the holy from the non-holy. For what were they used? The one on the southwest was the chamber of sacrificial lambs, The one on the southeast was the chamber of the showbread. In the one to the northeast the Hasmoneans deposited the stones of the altar which the kings of Greece had defiled. Through the one on the northwest they used to go down to the bathing place. |
|
5. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 43a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 155 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:,| 43a. “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.”,The Gemara asks: If that is so, what do they do with the words in the verse: “And they stoned him with a stone”? 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: That phrase is necessary for that which is taught in a baraita: The verse states: “And they stoned him with a stone.” The word “him” teaches that they stoned him alone, while he was naked, but not while he was in his clothing. The verse uses the singular term “stone [aven]” rather than the plural term stones [avanim] to teach that if the condemned man died after being struck with one stone, the court has fulfilled its obligation.,The Gemara notes: And it was necessary to write with regard to the blasphemer that “they stoned him with a stone,” in the singular, and it was necessary to write with regard to the man who gathered sticks on Shabbat that “they stoned him with stones” (Numbers 15:36), in the plural. As, had the Merciful One written only “stone,” I would say that where the condemned man did not die after being struck with one stone, they do not bring other stones and kill him with them. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “stones.” And had the Merciful One written only “stones,” I would say that from the outset they should bring two or more stones. Therefore, the Merciful One writes “stone.”,The Gemara raises an objection to Rav Pappa’s derivation: But this tanna of the baraita cited above said: It is stated 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 amora, disagree and derive the halakha directly from the verse dealing with the blasphemer? The Gemara answers: According to Rav Pappa, the tanna of the baraita said: Had it not been stated, and this is what he is saying: Had a verse not been stated from which it can be directly derived that the condemned man is stoned outside all three camps, I would have said that this can be learned by way of a verbal analogy. But now that such a verse has been stated, the verbal analogy is not needed.,Rav Ashi said: The location of the place of stoning can be directly derived from the verse discussing the blasphemer but in a slightly different manner. Where was Moses sitting when the matter of the blasphemer was brought before him? In the Levite camp. And the Merciful One said to him: “Take out him who has cursed” (Leviticus 24:14), indicating that he should be taken outside the Levite camp into the Israelite camp. And God continued in that verse: “Outside the camp,” which is an additional command that he should be removed even further, to outside the Israelite camp. And the later verse, which says: “And they brought him that had cursed out of the camp…and the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses” (Leviticus 24:23), teaches us about the implementation of God’s instructions, i.e., that the children of Israel did in fact carry out His command.,The Gemara raises an objection: The implementation of God’s instructions is written explicitly in this context, as it is stated in the continuation of the verse: “And the children of Israel did as the Lord commanded Moses.” The Gemara answers: That verse is necessary 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 to the placing of the witnesses’ hands 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), and to the witnesses’ pushing of the condemned man from a platform the height of two stories.,The Sages said to Rav Ashi: According to you, that the expression “take out” by itself means outside the camp, and “outside the camp” means outside an additional camp, what do you learn from all those instances of “take out” that are written with regard to the bulls brought as sin-offerings that are burned? According to your explanation, there are many superfluous phrases in the verses. The Gemara comments: Indeed, this is difficult with regard to the opinion of Rav Ashi.,§ The mishna teaches that one man stands 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. Rav Huna says: It is obvious to me that the stone with which the condemned man is stoned and the tree on which his corpse is hung after his execution, or the sword with which he is killed, or the scarf with which he is strangled, all of these come from the property of the community. What is the reason for this? We do not tell the condemned man to go and bring these items from his own property and effectively kill himself.,Rav Huna raised a dilemma: With regard to the cloth that is waved and the horse that races off after the court agents to stop the latter from carrying out the execution, from whose property do they come, that of the condemned man or that of the community? The Gemara explains the two sides of the dilemma: Since they are needed to save the man being led to his execution, these items should be taken from his property. Or perhaps, since the court is obligated to take all possible measures to save him from death, they should be taken from them, i.e., the community.,And furthermore, another question is raised along similar lines: With regard to that which Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi says that Rav Ḥisda says: The court gives one who is being led out to be killed a grain [koret] of frankincense in a cup of wine in order to confuse his mind and thereby minimize his suffering from the fear of his impending death, as it is stated: “Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and wine to the bitter in soul” (Proverbs 31:6). And it is taught in a baraita: The prominent women of Jerusalem would donate this drink and bring it to those being led out to be killed. The question is: If these prominent women did not donate this drink, from whom is it taken? The Gemara answers: With regard to this question, it is certainly reasonable that this drink should be taken from the community, as it is written: “Give [tenu] strong drink,” in the plural, indicating that it should come from them, the community.,§ Rav Aḥa bar Huna asked Rav Sheshet: If one of the students sitting before the judges said: I can teach a reason to acquit him, and he became mute and cannot explain himself, what is the halakha in such a case? Does the court take heed of his words, or do they disregard him? Rav Sheshet waved his hands in scorn and said: If the student became mute, 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 even that perhaps there is someone at the end of the world who can propose an argument in the condemned man’s favor. The Gemara rejects this argument: The cases are not similar. There, no one said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. Here, the student already said that he had a reason to acquit the condemned man. The question, therefore, is appropriate. What is the halakha in such a case?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear an answer: As Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina says: In a case where there was one of the students who argued to acquit the defendant and then died, the court views him as if he were alive and standing in his place and voting to acquit the defendant. The implication is that if he argued to acquit the defendant and explained his reasoning, yes, the court counts his vote as if he were still alive. But if he did not actually argue to acquit the defendant, but only said that he wished to propose such an argument, his vote is not counted as though he were still alive.,The Gemara rejects this proof: If the student argued to acquit the defendant, it is obvious to me that he should be counted among those favoring acquittal. But if he only says that he wishes to propose such an argument, let the dilemma be raised 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 even if he, 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: And is the halakha that there must be substance to his words even the first and second time that the condemned man says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself? But isn’t it taught in a baraita: The first and second times that he says that he can teach a reason to acquit himself, they return him to the courthouse and consider whether there is substance to his statement or there is no substance to his statement. From this point forward, if there is substance to his statement they return him to the courthouse, but if there is no substance to his statement, they do not return him. This appears to contradict the mishna.,Rav Pappa said: Explain that the mishna’s ruling applies only from after the second time forward, that from that point on we examine whether there is substance to his words.,The Gemara asks: How do we know whether or not there is substance to his words? Abaye said: If the condemned man has already been returned twice to the courthouse, we send a pair of rabbis with him to evaluate his claim. If they find that there is substance to his statement, yes, he is returned once again to the courthouse; if not, he is not returned.,The Gemara asks: But why not send a pair of rabbis with him from the outset, even the first time, and have them make an initial assessment of his claim? The Gemara answers: Since a man facing execution is frightened by the thought of his impending death, he is not able to say all that he has 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.,find a reason to acquit him, they acquit him and release him immediately. But if they do not find a reason to acquit him, he goes out to be stoned. And a crier goes out before him and publicly proclaims: 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 of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf.,Abaye says: And the crier must also publicly proclaim that the transgression was committed on such and such a day, at such and such an hour, and at such and such a place, as perhaps there are those who know that the witnesses could not have been in that place at that time, and they will come forward and render the witnesses conspiring witnesses.,The mishna teaches that a crier goes out before the condemned man. This indicates that it is only before him, i.e., while he is being led to his execution, that yes, the crier goes out, but from the outset, before the accused is convicted, he does not go out. The Gemara raises a difficulty: But isn’t it taught in a baraita: On Passover Eve they hung the corpse of Jesus the Nazarene after they killed him by way of stoning. And a crier went out before him for forty days, publicly proclaiming: Jesus the Nazarene is going out to be stoned because he practiced sorcery, incited people to idol worship, and led the Jewish people astray. Anyone who knows of a reason to acquit him should come forward and teach it on his behalf. And the court did not find a reason to acquit him, and so they stoned him and hung his corpse on Passover eve.,Ulla said: And how can you understand this proof? Was Jesus the Nazarene worthy of conducting a search for a reason to acquit him? He was an inciter to idol worship, and the Merciful One states with regard to an inciter to idol worship: “Neither shall you spare, neither shall you conceal him” (Deuteronomy 13:9). Rather, Jesus was different, as he had close ties with the government, 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 baraita, where the Sages taught: Jesus the Nazarene had five disciples: Mattai, Nakai, Netzer, Buni, and Toda. They brought Mattai in to stand trial. Mattai said to the judges: Shall Mattai be executed? But isn’t it written: “When [matai] shall I come and appear before God?” (Psalms 42:3). Mattai claimed that this verse alludes to the fact he is righteous. They said to him: Yes, Mattai shall be executed, as it is written: “When [matai] shall he die, and his name perish?” (Psalms 41:6).,Then they brought Nakai in to stand trial. Nakai said to the judges: Shall Nakai be executed? But isn’t it written: “And the innocent [naki] and righteous you shall not slay” (Exodus 23:7)? They said to him: Yes, Nakai shall be executed, as it is written: “In secret places he kills the innocent [naki]” (Psalms 10:8).,Then they brought Netzer in to stand trial. He said to the judges: Shall Netzer be executed? But isn’t it written: “And a branch [netzer] shall grow out of his roots” (Isaiah 11:1)? 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 [netzer]” (Isaiah 14:19).,Then they brought Buni in to stand trial. Buni said to the judges: Shall Buni be executed? But isn’t it written: “My firstborn son [beni] is Israel” (Exodus 4:22)? They said to him: Yes, Buni shall be executed, as it is written: “Behold, I shall kill your firstborn son [binkha]” (Exodus 4:23).,Then they brought Toda in to stand trial. Toda said to the judges: Shall Toda be executed? But isn’t it written: “A psalm of thanksgiving [toda]” (Psalms 100:1)? They said to him: Yes, Toda shall be executed, as it is written: “Whoever slaughters a thanks-offering [toda] honors Me” (Psalms 50:23). | |
|
| 6. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 22b-23a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156 |
7. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 69a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic accounts, relationship to josephus works Found in books: Cohen, The Significance of Yavneh and other Essays in Jewish Hellenism (2010) 156| 69a. וסיפא איצטריכא ליה פושטין ומקפלין ומניחין תחת ראשיהם,פושטין ומקפלין ומניחין אותן תחת ראשיהן שמעת מינה בגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן אמר רב פפא לא תימא תחת ראשיהן אלא אימא כנגד ראשיהן אמר רב משרשיא שמעת מינה תפילין מן הצד שפיר דמי,הכי נמי מסתברא דכנגד ראשיהן דאי סלקא דעתך תחת ראשיהן ותיפוק לי משום כלאים דהא איכא אבנט ונהי נמי דניתנו ליהנות בהן הא מתהני מכלאים,הניחא למ"ד אבנטו של כהן גדול (בשאר ימות השנה) זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט אלא למאן דאמר אבנטו של כ"ג לא זה הוא אבנטו של כהן הדיוט מאי איכא למימר,וכי תימא כלאים בלבישה והעלאה הוא דאסור בהצעה שרי והתניא (ויקרא יט, יט) לא יעלה עליך אבל אתה מותר להציעו תחתיך אבל אמרו חכמים אסור לעשות כן שמא תיכרך נימא אחת על בשרו,וכ"ת דמפסיק ליה מידי ביני ביני והאמר ר"ש בן פזי אמר ר' יהושע בן לוי אמר רבי משום קהלא קדישא שבירושלים אפי' עשר מצעות זו על גב זו וכלאים תחתיהן אסור לישן עליהן אלא לאו שמע מינה כנגד ראשיהן שמע מינה,רב אשי אמר לעולם תחת ראשיהן והא קא מתהני מכלאים בגדי כהונה קשין הן כי הא דאמר רב הונא בריה דר' יהושע האי נמטא גמדא דנרש שריא,ת"ש בגדי כהונה היוצא בהן למדינה אסור ובמקדש בין בשעת עבודה בין שלא בשעת עבודה מותר מפני שבגדי כהונה ניתנו ליהנות בהן ש"מ,ובמדינה לא והתניא בעשרים וחמשה [בטבת] יום הר גרזים [הוא] דלא למספד,יום שבקשו כותיים את בית אלהינו מאלכסנדרוס מוקדון להחריבו ונתנו להם באו והודיעו את שמעון הצדיק מה עשה לבש בגדי כהונה ונתעטף בבגדי כהונה ומיקירי ישראל עמו ואבוקות של אור בידיהן וכל הלילה הללו הולכים מצד זה והללו הולכים מצד זה עד שעלה עמוד השחר,כיון שעלה עמוד השחר אמר להם מי הללו אמרו לו יהודים שמרדו בך כיון שהגיע לאנטיפטרס זרחה חמה ופגעו זה בזה כיון שראה לשמעון הצדיק ירד ממרכבתו והשתחוה לפניו אמרו לו מלך גדול כמותך ישתחוה ליהודי זה אמר להם דמות דיוקנו של זה מנצחת לפני בבית מלחמתי,אמר להם למה באתם אמרו אפשר בית שמתפללים בו עליך ועל מלכותך שלא תחרב יתעוך עובדי כוכבים להחריבו אמר להם מי הללו אמרו לו כותיים הללו שעומדים לפניך אמר להם הרי הם מסורין בידיכם,מיד נקבום בעקביהם ותלאום בזנבי סוסיהם והיו מגררין אותן על הקוצים ועל הברקנים עד שהגיעו להר גרזים כיון שהגיעו להר גריזים חרשוהו וזרעוהו כרשינין כדרך שבקשו לעשות לבית אלהינו ואותו היום עשאוהו יו"ט,אי בעית אימא ראויין לבגדי כהונה ואי בעית אימא (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך,חזן הכנסת נוטל ספר תורה ש"מ חולקין כבוד לתלמיד במקום הרב אמר אביי כולה משום כבודו דכ"ג היא,וכהן גדול עומד מכלל שהוא יושב והא אנן תנן | 69a. That mishna’s teaching highlighting the prohibition to sleep in priestly vestments is needed for the latter clause of that mishna, which states: They remove their priestly vestments and fold them and place them under their heads. Since they are allowed to sleep on them, it must be emphasized that they may not sleep while wearing them.,The Gemara considers resolving the dilemma from the latter clause: They remove their priestly vestments and fold them and place them under their heads. The Gemara suggests: Learn from this that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. Rav Pappa said: Do not say that the mishna means they may actually place the vestments under their heads as a pillow; rather, say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads. Rav Mesharshiyya said: Given this understanding of that mishna, one can learn from here that one who places phylacteries to the side of his head when he sleeps has done well; there is no concern that he will turn over in his sleep and lie upon them.,So too, it is reasonable to say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads and not under their heads; as, if it could enter your mind to say that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed under their heads, and I would derive that it is prohibited due to the fact the priestly vestments contain a forbidden mixture of diverse kinds, as among them there is the belt, which is woven from a mixture of wool and linen. And even if it is assumed that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments, it would still be prohibited to lie upon them because by doing so the priests would be deriving benefit from a garment made of diverse kinds.,The Gemara elaborates on the preceding argument: If one claims that the mishna permits priests to sleep upon their vestments, it works out well according to the one who said: The belt of the High Priest worn on Yom Kippur, which does not contain diverse kinds, is the same as the belt of a common priest. According to this view, the common priest’s belt does not contain diverse kinds, and therefore it may be permitted for a priest to sleep upon it. However, according to the one who said that the High Priest’s belt on Yom Kippur is not the same as the belt of a common priest, and that the belt of the common priest is made of diverse kinds, what is there to say? How could the mishna possibly permit priests to sleep upon their vestments?,And if you say that with regard to the prohibition of diverse kinds only wearing or placing the garment upon oneself is prohibited, but spreading them out and lying upon them on is permitted, and as such it should be permitted for the priests to sleep upon their vestments, this is incorrect. As, wasn’t it taught in a baraita that the verse states: “Neither shall there come upon you a garment of diverse kinds”(Leviticus 19:19), which implies: But you are permitted to spread it beneath you to lie upon. This is true according to Torah law, but the Sages said: It is prohibited to do so, lest a fiber wrap upon his flesh, which would lead to the transgression of the Torah prohibition.,And if you say that a priest could still avoid the prohibition of diverse kinds by placing a separation between himself and the belt containing diverse kinds, didn’t Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi say that Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said in the name of the holy community in Jerusalem: Even if there are ten mattresses piled one atop the other and a garment of diverse kinds is placed underneath them all, it is prohibited to sleep upon them? This is because the rabbinic decree is applied equally to all cases irrespective of whether the original concern exists. Therefore, there can be no way for the priests to sleep upon the vestments without transgressing the prohibition of diverse kinds. Rather, must one not conclude from the preceding discussion that the mishna permits the vestments to be placed only next to their heads? The Gemara concludes: Learn from it that this is indeed so.,Rav Ashi said: Actually, the mishna may be understood as permitting the vestments to be placed under their heads. One should not object that by doing so the priests would be deriving benefit from a garment made of diverse kinds because priestly vestments, and specifically the belt, are stiff, and therefore the prohibition of diverse kinds does not apply to them. This is in accordance with that which Rav Huna, son of Rabbi Yehoshua, said: This stiff felt [namta], made of diverse kinds, that is produced in the city of Neresh, is permitted, since a stiff object does not wrap around the body to provide warmth, and therefore the person wearing is not considered to have derived benefit from it.,Since the mishna’s intention is uncertain, it cannot provide a clear proof for the dilemma of whether it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. The Gemara therefore suggests another proof: Come and hear an explicit baraita concerning this issue: With regard to priestly vestments, it is prohibited to go out to the country, i.e., outside the Temple, while wearing them, but in the Temple it is permitted for the priests to wear them, whether during the Temple service or not during the service, due to the fact that it is permitted to derive benefit from priestly vestments. Learn from this that it is indeed permitted.,§ The baraita taught that the priestly vestments may not be worn outside the Temple. The Gemara challenges this: Is it really not permitted to wear priestly vestments in the country? Wasn’t it taught in another baraita, in Megillat Ta’anit: The twenty-fifth of Tevet is known as the day of Mount Gerizim, which was established as a joyful day, and therefore eulogizing is not permitted.,What occurred on that date? It was on that day that the Samaritans [kutim] requested the House of our Lord from Alexander the Macedonian in order to destroy it, and he gave it to them, i.e., he gave them permission to destroy it. People came and informed the High Priest, Shimon HaTzaddik, of what had transpired. What did he do? He donned the priestly vestments and wrapped himself in the priestly vestments. And the nobles of the Jewish People were with him, with torches of fire in their hands. And all that night, these, the representatives of the Jewish people, approached from this side, and those, the armies of Alexander and the Samaritans, approached from that side, until dawn, when they finally saw one another.,When dawn arrived, Alexander said to the Samaritans: Who are these people coming to meet us? They said to him: These are the Jews who rebelled against you. When he reached Antipatris, the sun shone and the two camps met each other. When Alexander saw Shimon HaTzaddik, he descended from his chariot and bowed before him. His escorts said to him: Should an important king such as you bow to this Jew? He said to them: I do so because the image of this man’s face is victorious before me on my battlefields, i.e., when I fight I see his image going before me as a sign of victory, and therefore I know that he has supreme sanctity.,He said to the representatives of the Jewish people: Why have you come? They said to him: Is it possible that the Temple, the house in which we pray for you and for your kingdom not to be destroyed, gentiles will try to mislead you into destroying it, and we would remain silent and not tell you? He said to them: Who are these people who want to destroy it? The Jews said to him: They are these Samaritans who stand before you. He said to them: If so, they are delivered into your hands to deal with them as you please.,Immediately, they stabbed the Samaritans in their heels and hung them from their horses’ tails and continued to drag them over the thorns and thistles until they reached Mount Gerizim. When they arrived at Mount Gerizim, where the Samaritans had their temple, they plowed it over and seeded the area with leeks, a symbol of total destruction. This was just as they had sought to do to the House of our Lord. And they made that day a festival to celebrate the salvation of the Temple and the defeat of the Samaritans.,It is apparent from the baraita that Shimon HaTzaddik wore the priestly vestments even outside the Temple. This would seem to be in contravention of the ruling of the other baraita prohibiting this. The Gemara resolves the contradiction: If you wish, say Shimon HaTzaddik did not wear a set of genuine, sanctified priestly vestments; rather, he wore garments that were fitting to be priestly vestments in that they were made of the same material and design. And if you wish, say instead that he indeed wore a set of genuine priestly vestments, but in times of great need, such as when one seeks to prevent the destruction of the Temple, it is permitted to violate the halakha, as indicated by the verse: “It is time to act for the Lord, they have nullified your Torah” (Psalms 119:126).,§ It was taught in the mishna: The synagogue attendant takes a Torah scroll and gives it to the head of the synagogue, who gives it to the deputy High Priest, who gives it to the High Priest. The Gemara suggests: Learn from here that honor may be given to a student in the presence of the teacher. Although the High Priest is considered everyone’s teacher and master, honor was nevertheless extended to other individuals without fear of impugning the High Priest’s honor. Abaye said: A proof may not be adduced from here because the entire process is for the honor of the High Priest. The passing of the Torah scroll to people of increasing importance demonstrates that the High Priest is considered the most important of all those present.,§ It was further taught in the mishna: The High Priest stands and receives the scroll from the Deputy. By inference, until that point he had been sitting. But didn’t we learn in a mishna: |
|
