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

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database

   Search:  
validated results only / all results

and or

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



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

For a list of book indices included, see here.





82 results for "rabbinic"
1. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.10, 21.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60
21.22. "וְכִי־יִנָּצוּ אֲנָשִׁים וְנָגְפוּ אִשָּׁה הָרָה וְיָצְאוּ יְלָדֶיהָ וְלֹא יִהְיֶה אָסוֹן עָנוֹשׁ יֵעָנֵשׁ כַּאֲשֶׁר יָשִׁית עָלָיו בַּעַל הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן בִּפְלִלִים׃", 21.10. "If he take him another wife, her food, her raiment, and her conjugal rights, shall he not diminish.", 21.22. "And if men strive together, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart, and yet no harm follow, he shall be surely fined, according as the woman’s husband shall lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine.",
2. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 2.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 74, 81
2.16. "כִּי־שָׂנֵא שַׁלַּח אָמַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְכִסָּה חָמָס עַל־לְבוּשׁוֹ אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת וְנִשְׁמַרְתֶּם בְּרוּחֲכֶם וְלֹא תִבְגֹּדוּ׃", 2.16. "For I hate putting away, Saith the LORD, the God of Israel, And him that covereth his garment with violence, Saith the LORD of hosts; Therefore take heed to your spirit, That ye deal not treacherously.",
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44
21.7. "אִשָּׁה זֹנָה וַחֲלָלָה לֹא יִקָּחוּ וְאִשָּׁה גְּרוּשָׁה מֵאִישָׁהּ לֹא יִקָּחוּ כִּי־קָדֹשׁ הוּא לֵאלֹהָיו׃", 21.7. "They shall not take a woman that is a harlot, or profaned; neither shall they take a woman put away from her husband; for he is holy unto his God.",
4. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, None (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44
23.18. "לֹא־תִהְיֶה קְדֵשָׁה מִבְּנוֹת יִשְׂרָאֵל וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה קָדֵשׁ מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 23.18. "There shall be no harlot of the daughters of Israel, neither shall there be a sodomite of the sons of Israel.",
5. Homer, Odyssey, 17.48, 17.59 (8th cent. BCE - 7th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 112
6. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 3.8 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 74
3.8. "וָאֵרֶא כִּי עַל־כָּל־אֹדוֹת אֲשֶׁר נִאֲפָה מְשֻׁבָה יִשְׂרָאֵל שִׁלַּחְתִּיהָ וָאֶתֵּן אֶת־סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻתֶיהָ אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא יָרְאָה בֹּגֵדָה יְהוּדָה אֲחוֹתָהּ וַתֵּלֶךְ וַתִּזֶן גַּם־הִיא׃", 3.8. "And I saw, when, forasmuch as backsliding Israel had committed adultery, I had put her away and given her a bill of divorcement, that yet treacherous Judah her sister feared not; but she also went and played the harlot;",
7. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 2.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
2.3. "וְהָלְכוּ עַמִּים רַבִּים וְאָמְרוּ לְכוּ וְנַעֲלֶה אֶל־הַר־יְהוָה אֶל־בֵּית אֱלֹהֵי יַעֲקֹב וְיֹרֵנוּ מִדְּרָכָיו וְנֵלְכָה בְּאֹרְחֹתָיו כִּי מִצִּיּוֹן תֵּצֵא תוֹרָה וּדְבַר־יְהוָה מִירוּשָׁלִָם׃", 2.3. "And many peoples shall go and say: ‘Come ye, and let us go up to the mountain of the LORD, To the house of the God of Jacob; And He will teach us of His ways, And we will walk in His paths.’ For out of Zion shall go forth the law, And the word of the LORD from Jerusalem.",
8. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 36 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 121
9. Anon., 1 Enoch, 37-54, 56-71, 55 (3rd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38, 44, 48, 50, 54, 56, 60
55. And after that the Head of Days repented and said: ' In vain have I destroyed all who dwell",on the earth.' And He sware by His great name: ' Henceforth I will not do so to all who dwell on the earth, and I will set a sign in the heaven: and this shall be a pledge of good faith between Me and them for ever, so long as heaven is above the earth. And this is in accordance with My command.,When I have desired to take hold of them by the hand of the angels on the day of tribulation and pain because of this, I will cause My chastisement and My wrath to abide upon them, saith,God, the Lord of Spirits. Ye mighty kings who dwell on the earth, ye shall have to behold Mine Elect One, how he sits on the throne of glory and judges Azazel, and all his associates, and all his hosts in the name of the Lord of Spirits.'
10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 93, 592
11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Messianic Rule, 2.4-2.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
12. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 12.6-12.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 284
13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 12.6-12.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 284
14. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 7.2726, 25.2925, 28.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 81
28.15. Slander has driven away courageous women,and deprived them of the fruit of their toil.
15. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 7.2726, 25.2925, 28.15 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 81
16. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.591-3.593 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109
17. Philo of Alexandria, On The Migration of Abraham, 87-94, 86 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 321
86. What then is the fourth gift? The having a great name, for God says, "I will magnify thy Name;" and the meaning of this, as it appears to me, is as follows; as to be good is honourable, so also to appear to be so is advantageous. And truth is better than appearance, but perfect happiness is when the two are combined. For there are great numbers of people who apply themselves to virtue in genuine honesty and sincerity, and who admire its genuine beauty, having no regard to the reputation which they may have with the multitude, and who in consequence have been plotted against, being thought wicked though in reality they are good.
18. Philo of Alexandria, On The Special Laws, 2.162, 2.176, 3.36, 3.83-3.209 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50, 60, 112
2.162. There is also a festival on the day of the paschal feast, which succeeds the first day, and this is named the sheaf, from what takes place on it; for the sheaf is brought to the altar as a first fruit both of the country which the nation has received for its own, and also of the whole land; so as to be an offering both for the nation separately, and also a common one for the whole race of mankind; and so that the people by it worship the living God, both for themselves and for all the rest of mankind, because they have received the fertile earth for their inheritance; for in the country there is no barren soil but even all those parts which appear to be stony and rugged are surrounded with soft veins of great depth, which, by reason of their richness, are very well suited for the production of living Things.{20}{sections 163û174 were omitted in Yonge's translation because the edition on which Yonge based his translation, Mangey, lacked this material. These lines have been newly translated for this volume.} 2.176. The solemn assembly on the occasion of the festival of the sheaf having such great privileges, is the prelude to another festival of still greater importance; for from this day the fiftieth day is reckoned, making up the sacred number of seven sevens, with the addition of a unit as a seal to the whole; and this festival, being that of the first fruits of the corn, has derived its name of pentecost from the number of fifty, (penteµkosto 3.36. But those who marry women who have been previously tested by other men and ascertained to be barren, do merely covet the carnal enjoyment like so many boars or goats, and deserve to be inscribed among the lists of impious men as enemies to God; for God, as being friendly to all the animals that exist, and especially to man, takes all imaginable care to secure preservation and duration to every kind of creature. But those who seek to waste all their power at the very moment of putting it forth are confessedly enemies of nature.VII. 3.83. The name of homicide is that affixed to him who has slain a man; but in real truth it is a sacrilege, and the very greatest of all sacrileges, because, of all the possessions and sacred treasures in the whole world, there is nothing more holy in appearance, nor more godlike than man, the all-beautiful copy of an all-beautiful model, a representation admirably made after an archetypal rational idea. 3.84. We must therefore, without hesitation, pronounce the homicide or murderer an impious and atrociously wicked person, committing as he does the greatest of all atrocities and impieties, and he ought to be put to death as having done things which can never be pardoned, since, being worthy of ten thousand deaths, he escapes by one only, because the way to death being easy, does not permit his existence to be protracted, so as to endure a multitude of punishments; but there can be nothing wrong in his suffering the same treatment as that which he has inflicted on others, 3.85. and yet how can it be the same, if it be different as to its time, as to its mode of infliction, as to the intention, and as to the persons? Does not the beginning of acts of violence come first, and the repelling or retaliating them come subsequently? And is not murder the most lawless of all things, but the punishment of murderers the most lawful action possible? Again, he who has slain a man has satisfied his desire which he entertained when he slew him; but he who has been slain, inasmuch as he is now put out of the way, can neither attack him in retaliation, nor can be gratify himself by taking revenge. Moreover, the one was able by his own hands to carry out the designs which he conceived by himself; but the other can never succeed in procuring his punishment, unless his relations and friends become his champions, taking compassion on him for the calamity which has befallen him. 3.86. If now any one aims a blow with a sword at any one, with the intention of killing him, and does not kill him, he will still be guilty of murder, since he was a murderer in his intention, even though the end did not keep pace with his wish. Again, let that man be liable to the same punishment who, by previous contrivance and machinations (not daring to behave bravely, and to stand face to face with his enemy and attack him openly 3.87. for as, in my opinion, one must not only look upon those people as enemies who fight against us by sea or by land, but also those who are prepared for either kind of warfare, and who are erecting battering rams and engines against our harbours and our walls; and as we do in fact judge thus of them, even though they come to no actual conflict, so also we must consider murderers, not only those who perform the mere act of killing, but those who do anything which tends to slaying, whether openly or secretly, even if they do not eventually perpetrate the action. 3.88. And if out of fear or out of audacity, two very contrary feelings, but both blameable, they venture to flee to the temple as if they would there find an asylum, we must prevent their doing so, if we can: but if they are beforehand with us, and do effect their entrance, then we must take them out and give them up for execution, affirming the principle that the temple does not give an asylum to impious men; for every one who commits actions of incurable guilt is an enemy to God; and murderers do commit such actions, since those who are murdered have suffered disasters which are incurable. 3.89. Or shall we say that to those who have done no wrong the temple is still inaccessible until they have washed themselves, and sprinkled themselves, and purified themselves with the accustomed purifications; but that those who are guilty of indelible crimes, the pollution of which no length of time will ever efface, may approach and dwell among those holy seats; though no decent person, who has any regard for holy things would even receive them in his house?XVI. 3.90. Therefore, since they have heaped iniquity upon iniquity, adding lawlessness and impiety to murder, they must be dragged out of the temple to undergo their punishment, since, as I have said before, they have committed actions worthy of ten thousand deaths instead of one; as otherwise, the temple would be shut against the relations and friends of the man who has been so treacherously murdered, if the murderer were to be dwelling in it, since they could never endure to come into the same place with him. But it would be absurd that, for the sake of one man, and him the most lawless of men, a great number of persons, and those too the very persons who have been injured by him, should be excluded from the temple--men who, besides that they have done no wrong themselves, have even sustained an unseasonable affliction through his actions. 3.91. And perhaps, indeed, the lawgiver seeing far into futurity by the acuteness of his reasoning powers, was, by such commandments, providing against any bloodshed ever taking place in the temple by the entrance of any of the friends of the murdered man into it, whom natural affection, a very ungovernable feeling, would urge, full of enthusiasm and violent rage as they would be, almost to slay the murderer with their own hands, while if such an event were to take place it would be most impious sacrilege; for then the blood of the sacrifices would be mingled with the blood of murderers; that which has been consecrated to God with that which is wholly impure. It is on this account that Moses commands that the murderer shall be given up, even from the altar itself.XVII. 3.92. But some persons who have slain others with swords, or spears, or darts, or clubs, or stones, or something of that kind, may possibly have done so without any previous design, and without having for some time before planned this deed in their hearts, but may have been excited at the moment, yielding to passion more powerful than their reason, to commit the homicide; so that it is but half a crime, inasmuch as the mind was not for some long time before occupied by the pollution. 3.93. But there are others also of the greatest wickedness, men polluted both in hands and mind, who, being sorcerers and poisoners, devoting all their leisure and all their solitude to planning seasonable attacks upon others, who invent all kinds of contrivances and devices to bring about calamities on their neighbours. 3.94. On which account, Moses commands that poisoners and sorceresses shall not be allowed to live one day or even one hour, but that they shall be put to death the moment that they are taken, no pretext being for a moment allowed them for putting off or delaying their punishment. For those who attack one openly and to one's face, any body may guard against; but of those who plot against one secretly, and who disguise their attacks by the concealed approaches of poison, it is not easy to see the cunning beforehand. 3.95. It is necessary, therefore, to anticipate them, inflicting upon them that death which other persons would else have suffered by their means. And again, besides this, he who openly slays a man with a sword, or with any similar weapon, can only kill a few persons at one time; but one who mixes and compounds poisonous drugs with food, may destroy innumerable companies at once who have no suspicion of his treachery. 3.96. Accordingly, it has happened before now that very numerous parties of men who have come together in good fellowship to eat of the same salt and to sit at the same table, have suffered at such a time of harmony things wholly incompatible with it, being suddenly killed, and have thus met with death instead of feasting. On which account it is fitting that even the most merciful, and gentle, and moderate of men should approve of such persons being put to death, who are all but the same as murderers who slay with their own hand; and that they should think it consistent with holiness, not to commit their punishment to others, but to execute it themselves. 3.97. For how can it by anything but a most terrible evil for any one to contrive the death of another by that food which is given as the cause of life, and to work such a change in that which is nutritious by nature as to render it destructive; so that those who, in obedience to the necessities of nature, have recourse to eating and drinking, having no previous idea of any treachery, take destructive food as though it were salutary? 3.98. Again, let those persons meet with the same punishment who, though they do not compound drugs which are actually deadly, nevertheless administer such as long diseases are caused by; for death is often a lesser evil than diseases; and especially than such as extend over a long time and have no fortunate or favourable end. For the illnesses which arise from poisons are difficult to be cured, and are often completely incurable. 3.99. Moreover, in the case of men who have been exposed to machinations of this kind, it often happens that diseases of the mind ensue which are worse even than the afflictions of the body; for they are often attacked by delirium and insanity, and intolerable frenzy, by means of which the mind, the greatest blessing which God has bestowed upon mankind, is impaired in every possible manner, despairing of any safety or cure, and so is utterly removed from its seat, and expelled, as it were, leaving in the body only the inferior portion of the soul, namely, its irrational part, of which even beasts partake, since every person who is deprived of reason, which is the better part of the soul, is changed into the nature of a beast, even though the characteristics of the human form remain.XVIII. 3.100. Now the true magical art, being a science of discernment, which contemplates and beholds the books of nature with a more acute and distinct perception than usual, and appearing as such to be a dignified and desirable branch of knowledge, is studied not merely by private individuals, but even by kings, and the very greatest of kings, and especially by the Persian monarchs, to such a degree, that they say that among that people no one can possibly succeed to the kingdom if he has not previously been initiated into the mysteries of the magi. 3.101. But there is a certain adulterated species of this science, which may more properly be called wicked imposture, which quacks, and cheats, and buffoons pursue, and the vilest of women and slaves, professing to understand all kinds of incantations and purifications, and promising to change the dispositions of those on whom they operate so as to turn those who love to unalterable enmity, and those who hate to the most excessive affection by certain charms and incantations; and thus they deceive and gain influence over men of unsuspicious and innocent dispositions, until they fall into the greatest calamities, by means of which great numbers of friends and relations have wasted away by degrees, and so have been rapidly destroyed without any noise being made. 3.102. And I imagine that the lawgiver, having a regard to all these circumstances, would on that account not permit the punishments due to poisoners to be postponed to any subsequent occasion, but ordained that the executioners should at once proceed to inflict the due penalty on them; for delay rather excites the guilty to make use of the time that is allowed them to carry out their iniquities, inasmuch as they are already condemned to death, while it fills those who are already suspicious and apprehensive of misfortune with a more urgent fear, as they look upon the life of their enemies to be their own death. 3.103. Therefore, as if we only see snakes, and serpents, and any other venomous animals, we at once, without a moment's delay, kill them before they can bite, or wound, or attack us at all, taking care not to expose ourselves to any injury from them by reason of our knowledge of the mischief which is inherent in them; in the same manner it is right promptly to punish those men who, though they have had a gentle nature assigned to them by means of that fountain of reason which is the cause and source of all society, do nevertheless of deliberate purpose change it themselves to the ferocity of untameable beasts, looking upon the doing injury to as many people as they can to be their greatest pleasure and advantage.XIX. 3.104. This may be sufficient to say on the present occasion concerning poisoners and magicians. Moreover, we ought also not to be ignorant of this, that very often unexpected occasions arise in which a person slays a man without having ever prepared himself for this action, but because he has been suddenly transported with anger, which is an intolerable and terrible feeling, and which injures beyond all other feelings both the man who entertains and the man who has excited it; 3.105. for sometimes a man having come into the market-place on some important business, meeting with some one who is inclined precipitately to accuse him, or who attempts to assault him, or who begins to pick a quarrel with him and engages him in a conflict, for the sake of separating from him and more speedily escaping him, either strikes his opponent with his fist or takes up a stone and throws it at him and knocks him down. 3.106. And if the wound which the man has received is mortal, so that he at once dies, then let the man who has struck him also die, suffering the same fate himself which he inflicted on the other. But if the man does not die immediately after receiving the blow, but is afflicted by illness in consequence and takes to his bed, and having been properly attended to rises up again, even though he may not be able to walk well without support, but may require some one to support him or a stick to lean upon, in that case the man who struck him shall pay a double penalty, one as an atonement for the injury done, and one for the expenses of the cure. 3.107. And when he has paid this he shall be acquitted as to the punishment of death, even if the man who has received the blow should subsequently die; for perhaps he did not die of the blow, since he got better after that and recovered so far as to walk, but perhaps he died from some other causes, such as often suddenly attack those who are of the most vigorous bodily health, and kill them. 3.108. But if any one has a contest with a woman who is pregt, and strike her a blow on her belly, and she miscarry, if the child which was conceived within her is still unfashioned and unformed, he shall be punished by a fine, both for the assault which he committed and also because he has prevented nature, who was fashioning and preparing that most excellent of all creatures, a human being, from bringing him into existence. But if the child which was conceived had assumed a distinct Shape{7}{#ex 21:22.} in all its parts, having received all its proper connective and distinctive qualities, he shall die; 3.109. for such a creature as that is a man, whom he has slain while still in the workshop of nature, who had not thought it as yet a proper time to produce him to the light, but had kept him like a statue lying in a sculptor's workshop, requiring nothing more than to be released and sent out into the world.XX. 3.110. On account of this commandment he also adds another proposition of greater importance, in which the exposure of infants is forbidden, which has become a very ordinary piece of wickedness among other nations by reason of their natural inhumanity; 3.111. for if it is proper to provide for that which is not yet brought forth by reason of the definite periods of time requisite for such a process, so that even that may not suffer any injury by being plotted against, how can it be otherwise than more necessary to take similar care of the child when brought to perfection and born, and sent forth, as it were, into that colony which has been assigned to the human race, for the purpose of having a share of the bounties of nature which she sends forth from the land, and from the water, and from the air, and from the heaven? bestowing on men the sight of the heavenly bodies, and the power and supreme authority over all the things on earth, and supplying all the external senses with abundant supplies of all things, and presenting to the mind as the great king, by means of those outward senses as its body-guards, all the thing which are visible to them, and, without employing their agency, all those things which are appreciable only by reason. 3.112. Accordingly, let those parents who deprive their children of all these blessings, giving them no share of any one of them from the moment of their birth, know that they are violating the laws of nature, and accusing themselves of the very greatest enormities, of a devotion to pleasure, and a hatred of their species, and murder, and the very worst kind of murder, infanticide; 3.113. for those men are devoted to pleasure who are not influenced by the wish of propagating children, and of perpetuating their race, when they have connection with women, but who are only like boars or he-goats seeking the enjoyment that arises from such a connection. Again, who can be greater haters of their species than those who are the implacable and ferocious enemies of their own children? Unless, indeed, any one is so foolish as to imagine that these men can be humane to strangers who act in a barbarous manner to those who are united to them by ties of blood. 3.114. And as for their murders and infanticides they are established by the most undeniable proofs, since some of them slay them with their own hands, and stifle the first breath of their children, and smother it altogether, out of a terribly cruel and unfeeling disposition; others throw them into the depths of a river, or of a sea, after they have attached a weight to them, in order that they may sink to the bottom more speedily because of it. 3.115. Others, again, carry them out into a desert place to expose them there, as they themselves say, in the hope that they may be saved by some one, but in real truth to load them with still more painful suffering; for there all the beasts which devour human flesh, since there is no one to keep them off, attack them and feast on the delicate banquet of the children, while those who were their only guardians, and who were bound above all other people to protect and save them, their own father and other, have exposed them. And carnivorous birds fly down and lick up the remainder of their bodies, when they are not themselves the first to discover them; for when they discover them themselves they do battle with the beasts of the earth for the whole carcass. 3.116. And even suppose that some one passing by on his road is moved by a feeling of gentle compassion to take pity on and show mercy to the exposed infants, so as to take them up and give them food, and to show them other portions of the attention that is requisite, what do we think of such a humane action? Do we not look upon it as an express condemnation of the real parents, when those who are in nowise related to them show the tender foresight of parents, but the parents do not display even the kindness of strangers? 3.117. Therefore, Moses has utterly prohibited the exposure of children, by a tacit prohibition, when he condemns to death, as I have said before, those who are the causes of a miscarriage to a woman whose child conceived within her is already formed. And yet those persons who have investigated the secrets of natural philosophy say that those children which are still within the belly, and while they are still contained in the womb, are a part of their mothers; and the most highly esteemed of the physicians who have examined into the formation of man, scrutinising both what is easily seen and what is kept concealed with great care, by means of anatomy, in order that, if there should be any need of their attention to any case, nothing may be disregarded through ignorance and so become the cause of serious mischief, agree with them and say the same thing. 3.118. But when the children are brought forth and are separated from that which is produced with them, and are set free and placed by themselves, they then become real living creatures, deficient in nothing which can contribute to the perfection of human nature, so that then, beyond all question, he who slays an infant is a homicide, and the law shows its indignation at such an action; not being guided by the age but by the species of the creature in whom its ordices are violated. 3.119. If, indeed, it seemed reasonable to be at all influenced by the age, then I think that a person might very reasonably be even more indigt at those who slay infants. For when full-grown people are killed, there may be ten thousand plausible excuses for assaults upon or quarrels with them; but in the case of mere infants only just launched into human life and shown to the light of day, it is impossible for the greatest liar to invent an accusation against them, as they are wholly void of offence. On which account those ought to be looked upon as the most inhuman and pitiless of all men who entertain plots for the destruction of those infants, and justly does the sacred law detest such criminals and pronounce them worthy of death.XXI. 3.120. The sacred law says that the man, who has been killed without any intention that he should be so on the part of him who killed him, has been given up by God into the hands of his slayers; {8}{#ex 21:13.} in this way designing to make an excuse for the man who appears to have slain him as if he had slain a guilty person. 3.121. For the merciful and forgiving God can never be supposed to have given up any innocent person to be put to death; but whoever ingeniously escapes the judgment of a human tribunal by means of his own cunning and wariness, he is convicted when brought before the invisible tribunal of nature, by which alone the uncorrupted truth is discerned without being kept in the dark by the artifices of sophistical arguments. For such an investigation does not admit of arguments at all, laying bare all devices and intentions, and bringing the most secret counsels to light; and, in one sense, it does not look upon a man who has slain another as liable to justice, inasmuch as he has only sinned to be the minister of a divine judgment, but still he will have incurred an obscure and slight kind of defilement, which, however, may obtain allowance and pardon. 3.122. For God employs those who commit slight and remedial errors against those who have perpetrated enormous and unpardonable crimes as ministers of punishment; not, indeed, that he approves of them, but that he avails himself of them as suitable instruments of punishment, so that no one who is himself pure in his whole life and descended from virtuous parents may have homicide imputed to him, even if he be the greatest man in the world. 3.123. Therefore, the law has pronounced the sentence of banishment upon him who has slain a man, yet not of banishment any where, nor for ever; for it has assigned six cities, {9}{#nu 35:1.} one fourth portion of what the whole sacred tribe received as its inheritance, for those who were convicted of homicide; which, from the circumstances connected with them, it has named cities of refuge. And it fixed the time of this banishment as the length of the life of the high priest, permitting the exiles to return home after his death.XXII. 3.124. And the cause of the first of these injunctions was this. The tribe which has been mentioned received these cities as a reward for a justifiable and holy slaughter, which we must look upon as the most illustrious and important of all the gallant actions that were ever performed. 3.125. For when the prophet, after having been called up to the loftiest and most sacred of all the mountains in that district, was divinely instructed in the generic outlines of all the special laws, {10}{#ex 32:1.} and was out of sight of his people for many days; those of the people who were not of a peaceable disposition filled every place with the evils which arise from anarchy, and crowned all their iniquity with open impiety, turning into ridicule all those excellent and beautiful lessons concerning the honour due to the one true and living God, and having made a golden bull, an imitation of the Egyptian Typhos, and brought to it unholy sacrifices, and festivals unhallowed, and instituted profane and impious dances, with songs and hymns instead of lamentations; 3.126. then the tribe aforesaid, being very terribly indigt at their sudden departure from their previous customs, and being enflamed with zeal by reason of their natural disposition which hated iniquity, all became full of rage and of divine enthusiasm, and arming themselves, as at one signal, and with great contempt and one uimous attack, came upon the people, drunk thus with a twofold intoxication of impiety and of wine, beginning with their nearest and dearest friends and relations, thinking those who loved God to be their only relations and friends. And in a very small portion of the day, four-and-twenty thousand men were slain; the calamities of whom were a warning to those who would otherwise have joined themselves to their iniquity, but who now were alarmed lest they should suffer a similar fate. 3.127. Since then these men had undertaken this expedition of their own accord and spontaneously, in the cause of piety and holy reverence for the one true and living God, not without great danger to those who had entered in the contest, the Father of the universe received them with approbation, and at once pronounced those who had slain those men to be pure from all curse and pollution, and in requital for their courage he bestowed the priesthood on them.XXIII. 3.128. Therefore the lawgiver enjoins that the man who has committed an unintentional murder should flee to some one of the cities which this tribe has received as its inheritance, in order to comfort him and to teach him not to despair of any sort of safety; but to make him, while safe through the privilege of the place, remember and consider that not only on certain occasions is forgiveness allowed to those who have designedly slain any person, but that even great and preeminent honours and excessive happiness is bestowed on them. And if such honours can ever be allowed to those who have slain a man voluntarily, how much more must there be allowance made for those who have done so not with any design, so that, even if no honour be bestowed on them, they may at least not be condemned to be put to death in retaliation. By which injunctions the lawgiver intimates that every kind of homicide is not blameable, but only that which is combined with injustice; and that of other kinds some are even praiseworthy which are committed out of a desire and zeal for virtue; and that which is unintentional is not greatly to be blamed. 3.129. This, then, may be enough to say about the first cause; and we must now explain the second. The law thinks fit to preserve the man who, without intending it, has slain another, knowing that in his intention he was not guilty, but that with his hands he has been ministering to that justice which presides over all human affairs. For the nearest relations of the dead man are lying in wait for him in a hostile manner seeking his death, while others, out of their excessive compassion and inconsolable brief for the dead, are eager for their revenge; in their unreasoning impetuosity not regarding either the truth or the justice of nature. 3.130. Therefore, the law directs a man who has committed a homicide under these circumstances not to flee to the temple, inasmuch as he is not yet purified, nor yet into any place which is neglected and obscure, lest, being despised, he should be without resistance given up to his enemies; but to flee to the sacred city, which lies on the borders between the holy and profane ground, being in a manner a second temple; for the cities of those who are consecrated to the priesthood are more entitled to respect than the others, in the same proportion, I think, as the inhabitants are more venerable than the inhabitants of other cities; for the lawgiver's intention is by means of the privilege belonging to the city which has received them to give more complete security to the fugitives. 3.131. Moreover, I said before, he has appointed a time for their return, the death of the high priest, for the following Reason.{11}{#nu 35:25.} As the relations of each individual who has been slain treacherously lie in wait to secure themselves revenge and justice upon those who treacherously slew him; in like manner the high priest is the relation and nearest of kin to the whole nation; inasmuch as he presides over and dispenses justice to all who dispute in accordance with the laws, and offers up prayers and sacrifices every day on behalf of the whole nation, and prays for blessings for the people as for his own brethren, and parents, and children, that every age and every portion of the nation, as if it were one body, may be united into one and the same society and union, devoted to peace and obedience to the law. 3.132. Therefore, let every one who has slain a man unintentionally fear him, as the champion and espouser of the cause of those who have been slain, and let him keep himself close within the city to which he has fled for refuge, no longer venturing to advance outside of the walls, if he has any regard for his own safety, and for keeping his life out of the reach of danger. 3.133. When, therefore, the law says, let not the fugitive return till the high priest is dead, it says something equivalent to this: Until the high priest is dead, who is the common relation of all the people, to whom alone it is committed to decide the affairs of those who are living and those who are dead.XXIV. 3.134. Such, then, is the reason which it is fitting should be communicated to the ears of the younger men. But there is another which may be well set before those who are elder and settled in their characters, which is this. It is granted to private individuals alone to be pure from voluntary offences, or if any one chooses, he may add the other priests also to this list; but it can only be given as an especial honour to the high priest to be pure from both kinds, that is from both voluntary and involuntary offences; 3.135. for it is altogether unlawful for him to touch any pollution whatever, whether intentionally or out of some unforeseen perversion of soul, in order that he, as being the declarer of the will of God may be adorned in both respects, having a disposition free from reproach, and prosperity of life, and being a man to whom no disgrace ever attaches. 3.136. Now it will be consistent with the character of such a man to look with suspicion on those who have even unintentionally slain a man, not indeed regarding them as under a curse, but also not as pure and wholly free from offence, even though they may have appeared most completely to obey the intention of nature, who used them as her instruments to avenge herself on those whom they have slain, whom she had privately judged by herself and condemned to death.XXV. This is enough to say concerning free men and citizens. The lawgiver proceeds in due order to establish laws concerning slaves who are killed by violence. 3.137. Now servants are, indeed, in an inferior condition of life, but still the same nature belongs to them and to their masters. And it is not the condition of fortune, but the harmony of nature, which, in accordance with the divine law is the rule of justice. On which account it is proper for masters not to use their power over their slaves in an insolent manner, displaying by such conduct their insolence and overbearing disposition and terrible cruelty; for such conduct is not a proof of a peaceful soul, but of one which, out of an inability to regulate itself, covets the irresponsibility of a tyrannical power. 3.138. For the man who fortifies his own house like a citadel, and does not allow a single person within it to speak freely, but who behaves savagely to every one, by reason of his innate misanthropy and barbarity, which has perhaps even been increased by exercise, is a tyrant in miniature; and by his conduct now it is plainly shown that he will not stop even there if he should acquire greater power. 3.139. For then he will at once go forth to attack other cities and countries, and nations, after having previously enslaved his own native land, so as to prove that he is not inclined to behave mercifully to any one who shall ever become subject to him. 3.140. Let, then, such a man be well assured that he will not always escape punishment for his continual ill-treatment of many persons; for justice, which hates iniquity, will be his enemy, she who is the assistant and champion of those who are treated with injustice, and she will exact of him a strict account of, and reckoning for, those who have fallen into calamity through his means, 3.141. even if he should say that he had only inflicted blows on them to correct them, not designing to kill them. For he will not at once get off with a cheerful countece, but he will be brought before the tribunal and examined by accurate investigators of the truth, who will inquire whether he slew him intentionally or unintentionally. And if he be found to have plotted against him with a wicked disposition, let him die; not having any excuse made for him on the ground of his being the servants' master, so as to procure his deliverance. 3.142. But if the servants who have been beaten do not die at once after receiving the blows, but live one day or two, then the master shall no longer be liable to be accused of murder, having this strong ground of defence that he did not kill them on the spot by beating, nor afterwards when he had them in his house, but that he suffered them to live as long as they could, even though that may not have been very long. Besides that, no one is so silly as to attempt to distress another by conduct by which he himself also will be a loser. 3.143. But any one who kills his servant injures himself much more, since he deprives himself of the services which he received from him while alive, and, moreover, loses the price which he paid for him which, perhaps, was large. If, however, the servant turn out to have done any thing worthy of death, let him bring him before the judges and prove his offence, making the laws the arbiters of his punishment and not himself.CONCERNING THOSE BRUTE BEASTS WHICH ARE THE CAUSES OF A MAN'sDEATHXXVI. 3.144. If a bull gore a man and kill him, let him be Stoned.{12}{#ex 21:28.} For his flesh may not be either offered in sacrifice by the priests, nor eaten by men. Why not? Because it is not consistent with the law of God that man should take for food or for a seasoning to his food the flesh of an animal which has slain a man. 3.145. But if the owner of the beast knew that he was a savage and ferocious animal, and did not confine him, nor shut him up and take care of him, or if he had heard from others that he was not quiet, and still allowed him to feed at liberty, he shall be liable to a prosecution as guilty of the man's death. And then the animal which gored the man shall die, and his master shall be put to death also, or else shall pay a ransom and a price for his safety, and the court of justice shall devise what punishment he ought to suffer, what penalty he ought to pay. 3.146. And if it be a slave who has been killed then he shall pay his full value to his master; but if the bull have gored not a man but another animal, then the owner of the beast which killed him shall take the dead animal and give his master another like him instead of him, because he was aware beforehand of the fierceness of his own beast, and did not guard against it. And if the bull has killed a sheep which belonged to some one else, he shall again restore this man one like it instead of it, and be thankful to him for not exacting a greater penalty of him, since it was he who was the first to do any injury.CONCERNING PITSXXVII. 3.147. Some persons are accustomed to dig very deep pits, either in order to open springs which may bubble up, or else to receive rain water, and then they widen drains under ground; in which case they ought either to build round the mouths of them, or else to put a cover on them; but still they often, out of shameful carelessness or folly, have left such places open, by which means some persons have met with destruction. 3.148. If, therefore, any traveller passing along the road, not knowing beforehand that there is any such pit, shall step on the hole, and fall in, and be killed, any one of the relations of the dead man who chooses may bring an accusation against those who made the pit, and the tribunal shall decide what punishment they ought to suffer, or what penalty they ought to Pay.{13}{#ex 21:33.} But if a beast fall in and perish, then they who dug the pit shall pay its value to its owner as if it were still alive, and they shall have the dead body for themselves. 3.149. Again, those men also are committing an injury akin to and resembling that which has just been mentioned, who when building houses leave the roof level with the ground though they ought to protect them with a parapet, in order that no one may fall down into the hole made without perceiving it. For such men, if one is to tell the plain truth, are committing murder, as far as they themselves are concerned, even though no one fall in and perish; accordingly let them be punished equally with those who have the mouths of pits open.XXVIII. 3.150. The law expressly enjoins that it shall not be lawful to take any ransom from murderers who ought to be put to death, for the purpose of lessening their punishment, or substituting banishment for death. For blood must be atoned for by blood, the blood of him who has been treacherously slain by that of him who has slain him. 3.151. Since men of wicked dispositions are never wearied of offending, but are always committing atrocious actions in the excess of their wickedness, and increasing their iniquities, and extending them beyond all bounds or limits. For the lawgiver would, if it had been in his power, have condemned those men to ten thousand deaths. But since this was not possible, he prescribed another punishment for them, commanding those who had slain a man to be hanged upon a tree. 3.152. And after having established this ordice he returned again to his natural humanity, treating with mercy even those who had behaved unmercifully towards others, and he pronounced, "Let not the sun set upon persons hanging on a Tree;"{14}{#de 21:23.} but let them be buried under the earth and be concealed from sight before sunset. For it was necessary to raise up on high all those who were enemies to every part of the world, so as to show most evidently to the sun, and to the heaven, and to the air, and to the water, and to the earth, that they had been chastised; and after that it was proper to remove them into the region of the dead, and to bury them, in order to prevent their polluting the things upon the earth.XXIX. 3.153. Moreover, there is this further commandment given with great propriety, that the fathers are not to die in behalf of their sons, nor the sons in behalf of their parents, but that every one who has done things worthy of death is to be put to death by himself alone. And this commandment is established because of those persons who set might above right, and also for the sake of those who are too affectionate; 3.154. for these last, out of their extraordinary and extravagant good will, will be often willing cheerfully to die for others, the innocent thus giving themselves up for the guilty, and thinking it a great gain not to see them punished; or else sons giving themselves up for their fathers in the idea that, if deprived of them they would for the future live a miserable life, more grievous than any kind of death. 3.155. But to such persons one must say, "This your good-will is out of season." And all things which are out of season are very properly blamed, just as things that are done seasonably are praised on that account. Moreover, it is right to love those who do actions worthy to attract love. But no wicked man can be really a friend to any one. And wickedness alienates relations, and even those who are the most attached of relations, when men violate all the principles of justice. For the agreement as to principles of injustice and as to the other virtues, is a closer tie than relationship by blood; and if any one violates such an agreement, he is set down not only as a stranger and a foreigner, but even as an irreconcilable enemy. 3.156. "Why then do you pervert and misapply the name of good-will which is a most excellent and humane one, and conceal the truth, exhibiting as a veil an effeminate and womanly disposition? For are not those person womanly in whose minds reason is overcome by compassion? And you do this in order to effect a double iniquity, delivering the guilty from punishment, and thinking it fair to punish yourselves, who are blameable in no respect whatever, instead of them."XXX. 3.157. But these men have this to say in excuse of themselves, that they are not pursuing any private advantage for themselves, and also that they are influenced by excessive affection for their nearest relations, for the sake of the preservation of whom they will cheerfully submit to die. 3.158. But who, I will not say of moderate men, but even of those who are very inhuman indeed in their dispositions, would not reject such barbarous and actually brutally disposed persons as those who, either by secret contrivance or by open audacity, inflict the greatest calamities on one person as a punishment for the faults of another, putting forward as a pretext the plea of friendship, or of relationship, or of fellowship, or something of that kind, as a justification for the destruction of those who have done no wrong? And at times they even do these things without having suffered any injury at all out of mere covetousness and a love of rapine. 3.159. Not long ago a certain man who had been appointed a collector of taxes in our country, when some of those who appeared to owe such tribute fled out of poverty, from a fear of intolerable punishment if they remained without paying, carried off their wives, and their children, and their parents, and their whole families by force, beating and insulting them, and heaping every kind of contumely and ill treatment upon them, to make them either give information as to where the fugitives had concealed themselves, or pay the money instead of them, though they could not do either the one thing or the other; in the first place, because they did not know where they were, and secondly, because they were in still greater poverty than the men who had fled. 3.160. But this tax-collector did not let them go till he had tortured their bodies with racks and wheels, so as to kill them with newly invented kinds of death, fastening a basket full of sand to their necks with cords, and suspending it there as a very heavy weight, and then placing them in the open air in the middle of the market place, that some of them, being tortured and being overwhelmed by all these afflictions at once, the wind, and the sun, and the mockery of the passers by, and the shame, and the heavy burden attached to them, might faint miserably; and that the rest, being spectators, might be grieved and take warning by their punishment, 3.161. some of whom, having a more acute sense of such miseries in their minds than that which they could receive though their eyes, since they sympathised with these unfortunates as if they were themselves suffering in the persons of others, put an end to their own lives by swords, or poison, or halters, thinking it a great piece of good luck for persons, liable to such misery, to be able to meet with death without torture. 3.162. But those who did not make haste to kill themselves, but who were seized before they could do so, were led away in a row, as in the case of actions for inheritance, according to their nearness of kindred, the nearest relations first, then those next to them in succession, in the second or third place, till they came to the last; and then, when there were no relations left, the cruelty proceeded on to the friends and neighbours of the fugitives; and sometimes it was extended even into the cities and villages, which soon became desolate, being emptied of all their inhabitants, who all quitted their homes, and dispersed to places where they hoped that they might escape detection. 3.163. But perhaps it is not wonderful if men, barbarians by nature, utterly ignorant of all gentleness, and under the command of despotic authority, which compelled them to give an account of the yearly revenue, should, in order to enforce the payment of the taxes, extend their severities, not merely to properties but also to the persons, and even to the lives, of those from whom they thought they could exact a vicarious payment. 3.164. But now, even those persons who are the very standard and rule of justice, the lawgivers themselves, having a regard to appearance rather than to truth, have endured to become, instead, standards of injustice, commanding the children of a traitor to be put to death with the traitor himself, and in the case of tyrants the five families most nearly related to them. 3.165. Why is this I should say? For if indeed they have shared in their wickedness, then let them likewise share in their punishment; but if they have not participated in that, and if they have not been imitators of such actions, and if they have not been elated by the prosperity of their kinsmen, so as to exult in it, why should they be put to death? Is it for this reason alone, that they are their relations? Are the punishments then inflicted for the relationship, or for the lawless conduct? 3.166. Perhaps you yourselves, O you venerable lawgivers, have had virtuous relations; but suppose they had been wicked, then it seems to me that you not only would never yourselves have devised any such commandments as this, but would have been furious with any one else who proposed such a law, because [...]{15}{there appears to be an hiatus in the text here. There is clearly a want of connection and coherence in the rest of the sentence as it stands now.} taking care to avoid all liability to terrible calamity, and desiring to live in security, is now in great danger, and is exposed to an equal degree of misfortune. For the one condition is liable to fear, which, though a person may guard against for himself, he will still not despise the safety of another, but the other state is free from all apprehension, and by it men have often been persuaded to neglect the safety of innocent men. 3.167. Therefore our lawgiver, considering these things and perceiving the errors of others, rejects them and hates them as destructive of the most excellent constitution, and consigns to punishment all those who give way to such, whether it be out of indifference, or out of inhumanity and wickedness, and never permits any of their countrymen or friends to be substituted for them, making themselves an addition to the crimes which the others have already committed; 3.168. on which account he has expressly forbidden sons to be put to death instead of their parents, or parents instead of their sons, thinking it right that they who have committed the crimes should also bear the punishment, whether it be a pecuniary fine, or stripes, and more severe personal chastisement, or even wounds and mutilation, and dishonour, and exile, or any other judicial sentence; for though he only names one kind of punishment, forbidding one person to be put to death for another, he also comprises other kinds, which he does not expressly mention.ABOUT WOMEN NOT BEHAVING IMMODESTLYXXXI. 3.169. Market places, and council chambers, and courts of justice, and large companies and assemblies of numerous crowds, and a life in the open air full of arguments and actions relating to war and peace, are suited to men; but taking care of the house and remaining at home are the proper duties of women; the virgins having their apartments in the centre of the house within the innermost doors, and the full-grown women not going beyond the vestibule and outer courts; 3.170. for there are two kinds of states, the greater and the smaller. And the larger ones are called really cities; but the smaller ones are called houses. And the superintendence and management of these is allotted to the two sexes separately; the men having the government of the greater, which government is called a polity; and the women that of the smaller, which is called oeconomy. 3.171. Therefore let no woman busy herself about those things which are beyond the province of oeconomy, but let her cultivate solitude, and not be seen to be going about like a woman who walks the streets in the sight of other men, except when it is necessary for her to go to the temple, if she has any proper regard for herself; and even then let her not go at noon when the market is full, but after the greater part of the people have returned home; like a well-born woman, a real and true citizen, performing her vows and her sacrifices in tranquillity, so as to avert evils and to receive blessings. 3.172. But when men are abusing one another or fighting, for women to venture to run out under pretence of assisting or defending them, is a blameable action and one of no slight shamelessness, since even, in the times of war and of military expeditions, and of dangers to their whole native land, the law does not choose that they should be enrolled as its defenders; looking at what is becoming, which it thinks desirable to preserve unchangeable at all times and in all places, thinking that this very thing is of itself better than victory, or then freedom, or than any kind of success and prosperity. 3.173. Moreover, if any woman, hearing that her husband is being assaulted, being out of her affection for him carried away by love for her husband, should yield to the feelings which overpower her and rush forth to aid him, still let her not be so audacious as to behave like a man, outrunning the nature of a woman; {16}{#de 25:11.} but even while aiding him let her continue a woman. For it would be a very terrible thing if a woman, being desirous to deliver her husband from an insult, should expose herself to insult, by exhibiting human life as full of shamelessness and liable to great reproaches for her incurable boldness; 3.174. for shall a woman utter abuse in the marketplace and give vent to unlawful language? and if another man uses foul language, will not she stop her ears and run away? But as it is now, some women are advanced to such a pitch of shamelessness as not only, though they are women, to give vent to intemperate language and abuse among a crowd of men, but even to strike men and insult them, with hands practised rather in works of the loom and spinning than in blows and assaults, like competitors in the pancratium or wrestlers. And other things, indeed, may be tolerable, and what any one might easily bear, but that is a shocking thing if a woman were to proceed to such a degree of boldness as to seize hold of the genitals of one of the men quarrelling. 3.175. For let not such a woman be let go on the ground that she appears to have done this action in order to assist her own husband; but let her be impeached and suffer the punishment due to her excessive audacity, so that if she should ever be inclined to commit the same offence again she may not have an opportunity of doing so; and other women, also, who might be inclined to be precipitate, may be taught by fear to be moderate and to restrain themselves. And let the punishment be the cutting off of the hand which has touched what it ought not to have touched. 3.176. And it is fitting to praise those who have been the judges and managers of the gymnastic games, who have kept women from the spectacle, in order that they might not be thrown among naked men and so mar the approved coinage of their modesty, neglecting the ordices of nature, which she has appointed for each section of our race; for neither is it right for men to mix with women when they have laid aside their garments, but each of the sexes ought to avoid the sight of the other when they are naked, in accordance with the promptings of nature. 3.177. Well, then, of those things of which we are to abstain from the sight, are not the hands much more to be blamed for the touch? For the eyes, being wholly at freedom, are nevertheless often constrained so as to see things which they do not wish to see; but the hands are ranked among those parts which are completely under subjection, and obey our commands, and are subservient to us.XXXII. 3.178. And this is the cause which is often mentioned by many people. But I have heard another also, alleged by persons of high character, who look upon the greater part of the injunctions contained in the law as plain symbols of obscure meanings, and expressed intimations of what may not be expressed. And this other reason alleged is as follows. There are two kinds of soul, much as there are two sexes among human relations; the one a masculine soul, belonging to men; the other a female soul, as found in women. The masculine soul is that which devotes itself to God alone, as the Father and Creator of the universe and the cause of all things that exist; but the female soul is that which depends upon all the things which are created, and as such are liable to destruction, and which puts forth, as it were, the hand of its power in order that in a blind sort of way it may lay hold of whatever comes across it, clinging to a generation which admits of an innumerable quantity of changes and variations, when it ought rather to cleave to the unchangeable, blessed, and thrice happy divine nature. 3.179. Very naturally, therefore, the law Commands{17}{#de 25:12.} that the executioner should cut off the hand of the woman which has laid hold of what it should not, speaking figuratively, and intimating not that the body shall be mutilated, being deprived of its most important part, but rather that it is proper to extirpate all the ungodly reasonings of the soul, using all things which are created as a stepping-stone; for the things which the woman is forbidden to take hold of are the symbols of procreation and generation. 3.180. And, moreover, keeping up a consistent regard to nature, I will also say this, that the unit is the image of the first cause, and the number two of the divisible matter that is worked upon. Whoever, therefore, receives the number two, honouring it above the unit, must be taught to know that he is, in so doing, approving of the matter more than of God. On which account the law has thought fit to cut off this apprehension of the soul as if it were a hand; for there can be no greater impiety than to ascribe the power of the agent to that which is passive.XXXIII. 3.181. And any one may here fitly blame those who appoint that punishments, in nowise corresponding to the offences, are to be inflicted on the offenders, imposing pecuniary penalties for assaults, or stigma and infamy for wounds and mutilations, or a banishment beyond the borders of the land for intentional murders, and everlasting exile or imprisonment for thefts; for irregularity and inequality are enemies to a constitution which is eager for the truth. 3.182. And our law, being the interpreter and teacher of equality, commands that offenders should undergo a punishment similar to the offence which they have committed; that, for instance, they should suffer punishment in their property if they have injured their neighbour in his property; in their persons, if they have injured him in his body, or in his limbs, or the organs of his outward senses; and, if their evil designs have extended to his life, then the law commands that the punishment should affect the life of the malefactor. For to exact a different and wholly unequal punishment which has no connection with or resemblance to the offence, but which is wholly at variance with it in all its characteristics, is the conduct of those who violate the laws rather than of those who would establish them. 3.183. And when we say this, we mean provided no circumstances occur to give a different complexion to the affair; for it is not the same thing to inflict blows on one's father and on a stranger, nor to speak ill of a ruler and of a private person, nor to do anything which is forbidden on common ground or in holy places, or at the time of a festival, or of a solemn assembly, or of a public sacrifice; or, again, on the days on which there is no holiday or sacred observance, or on those which are completely common and profane. And all other things of this kind one must examine with a view to judge of the propriety of increasing or diminishing the punishment. 3.184. Again. "If," says the law, "any one strike out the eye of a servant or of a handmaiden, he shall let them depart Free."{18}{#ex 21:26.} Because, as nature has assigned the chief position in the body to the head, having bestowed upon it a situation the most suitable to that pre-eminence, as it might give a citadel to a king (for having sent it forth to govern the body it has established it on a height, putting the whole composition of the body from the neck to the feet under it, as a pedestal might be placed under a statue 3.185. Now it would take a long time to enumerate all the necessities which the eyes supply to, and all the services which they perform for, the human race. But one, the most excellent of all, we may mention. It is the heaven which has showered philosophy upon us, it is the human mind which has received and which contains it, but it is sight which has entertained and been its host; for that is the faculty which was the first to see the level roads through the air. 3.186. And philosophy is the fountain of all blessings, of all things which are really good. And he who draws from this fountain, so as thus to acquire and make use of virtue is praiseworthy; but he who does it with the object of accomplishing wicked purposes and of condemning others is blameable. For the one is like a man at an entertainment, who is delighting both himself and all who are feasting in his company; but the other is like one who is swallowing down strong wine, in order to make himself and his neighbour drunk. 3.187. Now in what way it is that the sight may be said to have entertained philosophy as its host we must now proceed to explain. Having looked up to heaven it beheld the sun, and the moon, and the planets, and the fixed stars, the most beautiful host of heaven, the ornament of the world. 3.188. After that it arrived at a perception of the rising and setting of these bodies, and their harmonious motions, and the fixed seasons of their periodical revolutions, and their meetings, and eclipses, and re-appearances. After that it proceeded onwards to a comprehension of the increase and decrease of the moon; of the motions of the sun along the breadth of heaven, as he comes from the south towards the north, and again recedes from the north towards the south, in order to the generation of the fruits of the year, so that they may all be brought to perfection, and ten thousand other wonderful things besides these. And having looked round and surveyed the things in the earth, and in the sea, and in the air, with great diligence displayed all the things in each of these elements to the mind. 3.189. But as the mind was unable by itself to comprehend all these things from merely beholding them by the faculty of sight, it did not stop merely at what was seen by it, but being devoted to learning, and fond of what is honourable and excellent, as it admired what it did see, it adopted this probable opinion, that these things are not moved spontaneously and at random by any irrational impulse of their own, but that they are set in motion and guided by the will of God, whom it is proper to look upon as the Father and Creator of the world. Moreover, that these things are not unrestrained by any bounds, but that they are limited by the circumference of one world, as they might be by the walls of a city, the world itself being circumscribed within the outermost sphere of the fixed stars. Moreover it considered also that the Father who created the world does by the law of nature take care of that which he has created, exerting his providence in behalf of the whole universe and of its parts. 3.190. In the next place it also considered what was the essence of the visible world, and whether all the things in the world had the same essence, or whether different things had different essences, and also of what substances everything was made, and for what reasons it was made, and by what powers the world was held together, and whether these powers were corporeal or incorporeal. 3.191. For what can the investigation into these and similar subjects be called but philosophy? And what more fitting name could one give to the man who devoted himself to the investigation of these topics than that of a philosopher? For by his examination of the nature of God, and of the world, and of all the things in it, whether plants or animals, and of those models which are only appreciable by the intellect, and again of the perfected representations of those models which are visible to the outward senses, and of the virtues and vices which exist in all created things, he shows that his disposition is one truly devoted to learning, and contemplation, and philosophy; and this greatest of blessings to mortal man is bestowed upon him by the faculty of sight. 3.192. And this faculty seems to me to deserve this pre-eminence, since it is more nearly related to the soul than any one of the other outward senses, for they all of them have some kind of connection with the intellect; but this one obtains the first and principal rank as the nearest relation does in a private house. 3.193. And any one may conjecture this from many circumstances, for who is there who does not know that when persons are delighted their eyes betray their pleasure, and sparkle, but that when they are grieved their eyes are full of depression and heaviness; and if any heavy burden of grief oppresses, and crushes, and overwhelms the mind, they weep; and if anger obtains and preponderance, the eyes swell, and become bloodshot and fiery; 3.194. and again change so as to be gentle and soft when the anger is relaxed. Again, when the man is immersed in deep thought and contemplation, the eyes seem fixed as if they in a manner joined in his gravity; but in the case of those who are of no great wisdom the sight wanders, because of their vacancy of intellect, and is restless, and in short the eyes sympathise with the affections of the soul, and are wont to change along with it in innumerable alternations, on account of the closeness of their connection with it; for it seems to me that there is no one visible thing which God has made so complete a representation of that which is invisible as the sight is of the mind.XXXV. 3.195. If therefore any one has ever plotted against this most excellent and most domit of all the outward senses, namely sight, so as ever to have struck out the eye of a free man, let him suffer the same infliction himself, but not so if he have only struck out the eye of a slave; not because he is entitled to pardon, or because the injury which he has done is less, but because the man who has been injured will have a still worse master if he has been mutilated in retaliation, since he will for ever bear a grudge against him for the calamity which has fallen upon him, and will revenge himself on him every day as an irreconcileable enemy by harsh commands beyond his power to perform, by which the slave will be so oppressed that he will be ready to die. 3.196. Therefore the law has provided that the man who has thus done injury to his slave shall not be allowed to escape free, and yet has not commanded that the man who has already suffered the loss of his eye shall be ill-treated still further, enjoining that if any one strikes out the eye of his servant he shall without hesitation grant him his freedom; 3.197. for thus he will suffer a double punishment for the actions which he has committed, in being deprived of the value of his servant and also of his services, and thirdly, which is worse than either of the things already mentioned, in being compelled to do good to his enemy in the most important matters, whom very likely he wished to be able to ill-treat for ever. And the slave has a double consolation for the evils which he has been subjected to in being not only emancipated, but also in having escaped a cruel and inhuman master.XXXVI. 3.198. The law also commands that if any one strike out the tooth of a slave he shall bestow his freedom on the slave; why is this? because life is a thing of great value, and because nature has made the teeth the instruments of life, as being those by which the food is eaten. And of the teeth some are fitted for eating meat and all other eatable food, and on that account are called incisors, or cutting teeth; others are called molar teeth from their still further grinding and smoothing what has been cut by the incisors; 3.199. on which account the Creator and Father of the universe, who is not accustomed to make anything which is not appointed for some particular use, did not do with the teeth as he did with every other part of the body, and make them at once, at the first creation of the man, considering that as while an infant he was only intended to be fed upon milk they would be a superfluous burden in his way, and would be a severe injury to the breasts, filled as they are at that time with springs of milk, from which moist food is derived, as they would in that case be bitten by the child while sucking the milk. 3.200. Therefore, having waited for a suitable season (and that is when the child is weaned 3.201. If therefore any one, yielding to an insolent disposition, strikes out the tooth of his servant, that organ which is the minister and provider of those most necessary things, food and life, he shall emancipate him whom he has injured, because by the evil which he inflicted on him he has deprived him of the service and use of his tooth. "Is then," some one will say, "a tooth of equal value with an eye?" 3.202. "Each," I would reply, "is of equal value for the purposes for which they were given, the eye with reference to the objects of sight, the teeth with reference to those which are eatable." But if any one were to desire to institute a comparison, he would find that the eye is entitled to the highest respect among all the parts of the body, inasmuch as being occupied in the contemplation of the most glorious thing in the whole world, namely the heaven; and that the tooth is useful as being the masticator of food, which is the most useful thing as contributing to life. And he who strikes out a man's eye does not hinder him from living, but a most miserable death awaits the man who has all his teeth knocked out. 3.203. And if any one meditates inflicting injury in these parts on his servants, let him know that he is causing them an artificial famine in the midst of plenty and abundance; for what advantage is it to a man that there should be an abundance of food, if the instruments by which he may be enabled to make use of it are taken from him and lost, through the agency of his cruel, and pitiless, and inhuman master? 3.204. It is for this reason that in another passage the lawgiver forbids creditors to exact from their debtors a molar tooth or a grinder as a pledge, giving as a reason that the person who does so is taking a man's life in pledge; for he who deprives a man of the instruments of living is proceeding towards murder, entertaining the idea of plotting even against life. 3.205. And the law has taken such exceeding care that no one shall ever be the cause of death to another, that it does not look upon those who have even touched a dead body, which has met with a natural death, as pure and clean, until they have washed and purified themselves with sprinklings and ablutions; and even after they are perfectly clean it does not permit them to go into the temple within seven days, enjoining them to use purifying ceremonies on the third and seventh day. 3.206. And again, in the case of persons who have gone into the house in which any one has died, the law enjoins that no one shall touch them until they have both washed their bodies and also the garments in which they were clothed, and, in a word, it looks upon all the furniture and all the vessels, and everything which is in the house, as unclean and polluted; 3.207. for the soul of a man is a valuable thing, and when that has quitted its habitation, and passed to another place, everything that is left behind by it is polluted as being deprived of the divine image, since the human mind is made as a copy of the mind of God, having been created after the archetypal model, the most sublime reasoning. 3.208. And the law says, "Let everything which a man that is unclean has touched be also unclean as being polluted by a participation in that which is unclean." And this sacred injunction appears to have a wide operation, not being limited to the body alone, but proceeding as it would seem also to investigate the dispositions of the soul, 3.209. for the unjust and impious man is peculiarly unclean, being one who has no respect for either human or divine things, but who throws everything into disorder and confusion by the immoderate vehemence of his passions, and by the extravagance of his wickedness, so that everything which he touches becomes faulty, having its nature changed by the wickedness of him who has taken them in hand. For in like manner the actions of the good are, on the contrary, all praiseworthy, being made better by the energies of those who apply themselves to them, since in some degree what is done resembles in its character the person who does it.Go to the Tables of Contents of The Works of PhiloPlease buy the CD to support the site, view it without ads, and get bonus stuff!Early Christian Writings is copyright © 2001-2020 Peter Kirby E-Mail .
19. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, 58-63, 57 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 321
57. Now of the banquets among the Greeks the two most celebrated and most remarkable are those at which Socrates also was present, the one in the house of Callias, when, after Autolycus had gained the crown of victory, he gave a feast in honour of the event, and the other in the house of Agathon, which was thought worthy of being commemorated by men who were imbued with the true spirit of philosophy both in their dispositions and in their discourses, Plato and Xenophon, for they recorded them as events worthy to be had in perpetual recollection, looking upon it that future generations would take them as models for a well managed arrangement of future banquets;
20. Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica, 8.7.6, 8.7.8 (1st cent. BCE - missingth cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 112
21. Mishnah, Zevahim, 4.5-4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 592
4.5. "קָדְשֵׁי נָכְרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, נוֹתָר וְטָמֵא. וְהַשּׁוֹחֲטָן בַּחוּץ, פָּטוּר, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מְחַיֵּב. דְּבָרִים שֶׁאֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם פִּגּוּל, חַיָּבִים עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם נוֹתָר, מִשּׁוּם טָמֵא, חוּץ מִן הַדָּם. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, בְּדָבָר שֶׁדַּרְכָּן לְהֵאָכֵל. אֲבָל כְּגוֹן הָעֵצִים וְהַלְּבוֹנָה וְהַקְּטֹרֶת, אֵין חַיָּבִין עֲלֵיהֶם מִשּׁוּם טֻמְאָה: \n", 4.6. "לְשֵׁם שִׁשָּׁה דְבָרִים הַזֶּבַח נִזְבָּח, לְשֵׁם זֶבַח, לְשֵׁם זוֹבֵחַ, לְשֵׁם הַשֵּׁם, לְשֵׁם אִשִּׁים, לְשֵׁם רֵיחַ, לְשֵׁם נִיחוֹחַ. וְהַחַטָּאת וְהָאָשָׁם, לְשֵׁם חֵטְא. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, אַף מִי שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה בְלִבּוֹ לְשֵׁם אַחַד מִכָּל אֵלּוּ, כָּשֵׁר, שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין, שֶׁאֵין הַמַּחֲשָׁבָה הוֹלֶכֶת אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד: \n", 4.5. "The sacrifices of non-Jews: one is not liable on their account for piggul, remt, or defilement, and if [a priest] slaughters them outside [the Temple], he is not liable, the words of Rabbi Meir. But Rabbi Yose declares him liable. The things for which one is not liable on account of piggul, one is liable on account of remt and defilement except blood. Rabbi Shimon declares one liable for anything which is normally eaten, but for wood, frankincense and incense, one is not liable for [transgressions involving] defilement.", 4.6. "The sacrifice is slaughtered for the sake of six things:For the sake of the sacrifice, For the sake of the sacrificer, For the sake of the [Divine] Name, For the sake of fire-offerings, For the sake of fragrance, For the sake of pleasing; And a hatat and an asham for the sake of sin. Rabbi Yose said: even if one did not have any of these purposes in his heart, it is valid, because it is a regulation of the court. Since the intention is determined only by the worshipper.",
22. Mishnah, Yevamot, 1.4, 8.3, 9.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 81, 388, 449
1.4. "בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַתִּירִין הַצָּרוֹת לָאַחִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹסְרִים. חָלְצוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין מִן הַכְּהֻנָּה, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִים. נִתְיַבְּמוּ, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מַכְשִׁירִים, וּבֵית הִלֵּל פּוֹסְלִין. אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאֵלּוּ אוֹסְרִין וְאֵלּוּ מַתִּירִין, אֵלּוּ פּוֹסְלִין וְאֵלּוּ מַכְשִׁירִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ בֵּית שַׁמַּאי מִלִּשָּׂא נָשִׁים מִבֵּית הִלֵּל, וְלֹא בֵית הִלֵּל מִבֵּית שַׁמַּאי. כָּל הַטָּהֳרוֹת וְהַטֻּמְאוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ אֵלּוּ מְטַהֲרִין וְאֵלּוּ מְטַמְּאִין, לֹא נִמְנְעוּ עוֹשִׂין טָהֳרוֹת אֵלּוּ עַל גַּבֵּי אֵלּוּ: \n", 8.3. "עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי, אֲסוּרִים, וְאִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֲבָל נְקֵבוֹתֵיהֶם מֻתָּרוֹת מִיָּד. מִצְרִי וַאֲדוֹמִי אֵינָם אֲסוּרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת, אֶחָד זְכָרִים וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן מַתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמָה אִם בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁאָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, הִתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד, מְקוֹם שֶׁלֹּא אָסַר אֶת הַזְּכָרִים אֶלָּא עַד שְׁלֹשָׁה דוֹרוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁנַּתִּיר אֶת הַנְּקֵבוֹת מִיָּד. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם הֲלָכָה נְקַבֵּל, וְאִם לַדִּין, יֵשׁ תְּשׁוּבָה. אָמַר לָהֶם, לֹא כִי, הֲלָכָה אֲנִי אוֹמֵר. מַמְזֵרִין וּנְתִינִין, אֲסוּרִין, וְאִסּוּרָן אִסּוּר עוֹלָם, אֶחָד זְכָרִים, וְאֶחָד נְקֵבוֹת: \n", 9.3. "שְׁנִיּוֹת מִדִּבְרֵי סוֹפְרִים, שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם, אֲסוּרָה לַבַּעַל וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַיָּבָם. שְׁנִיָּה לַיָּבָם וְלֹא שְׁנִיָּה לַבַּעַל, אֲסוּרָה לַיָּבָם וּמֻתֶּרֶת לַבָּעַל. שְׁנִיָּה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה, אֲסוּרָה לָזֶה וְלָזֶה. אֵין לָהּ לֹא כְתֻבָּה, וְלֹא פֵרוֹת, וְלֹא מְזוֹנוֹת, וְלֹא בְלָאוֹת, וְהַוָּלָד כָּשֵׁר, וְכוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אַלְמָנָה לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, גְּרוּשָׁה וַחֲלוּצָה לְכֹהֵן הֶדְיוֹט, מַמְזֶרֶת וּנְתִינָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל, בַּת יִשְׂרָאֵל לְנָתִין וּלְמַמְזֵר, יֵשׁ לָהֶן כְּתֻבָּה: \n", 1.4. "Beth Shammai permits the rival wives to the surviving brothers, and Beth Hillel prohibits them. If they perform the halitzah, Beth Shammai disqualifies them from marrying a priest, and Beth Hillel makes the eligible. If they performed yibbum, Beth Shammai makes them eligible [to marry a priest], and Beth Hillel disqualifies them. Though these forbid and these permit, and these disqualify and these make eligible, Beth Shammai did not refrain from marrying women from [the families of] Beth Hillel, nor did Beth Hillel [refrain from marrying women] from [the families of] Beth Shammai. [With regard to] purity and impurity, which these declare pure and the others declare impure, neither of them refrained from using the utensils of the others for the preparation of food that was ritually clean.", 8.3. "An Ammonite and a Moabite are forbidden [to enter into the congregation of the Lord] and their prohibition is for ever. However, their women are permitted at once. An Egyptian and an Edomite are forbidden only until the third generation, whether they are males or females. Rabbi Shimon permits their women immediately. Said Rabbi Shimon: This is a kal vehomer: if where the males are forbidden for all time the females are permitted immediately, where the males are forbidden only until the third generation how much more should the females be permitted immediately. They said to him: If this is a halakhah, we shall accept it; but if it is only a logical reference, there is a refutation. He replied: This is not so, I am in fact saying a halakhah. Mamzerim and nethinim are forbidden, and their prohibition is forever, whether they be males or females.", 9.3. "[Concerning] relatives of the second degree [of incest laws who are forbidden] by the words of the scribes:[A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the husband but not a second degree of kinship to the yavam, is forbidden to the husband and permitted to the yavam; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the yavam but not a second degree of kinship to the husband is forbidden to the yavam and permitted to the husband; [A woman who is] a second degree of kinship to the one and to the other is forbidden to the one as well as to the other. She cannot claim her ketubah or usufruct or support money, or her worn clothes. The child is fit [to marry a priest], but the husband is compelled to divorce her. A widow who was married to a high priest, a divorcee or halutzah who was married to an ordinary priest, a mamzer or a netinah who was married to an Israelite, or the daughter of an Israelite who was married to a natin or a mamzer is entitled to her ketubah.",
23. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 388
1.1. "הָאִשָּׁה נִקְנֵית בְּשָׁלשׁ דְּרָכִים, וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בִּשְׁתֵּי דְרָכִים. נִקְנֵית בְּכֶסֶף, בִּשְׁטָר, וּבְבִיאָה. בְּכֶסֶף, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, בְּדִינָר וּבְשָׁוֶה דִינָר. וּבֵית הִלֵּל אוֹמְרִים, בִּפְרוּטָה וּבְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה. וְכַמָּה הִיא פְרוּטָה, אֶחָד מִשְּׁמֹנָה בָאִסָּר הָאִיטַלְקִי. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בְּגֵט וּבְמִיתַת הַבָּעַל. הַיְבָמָה נִקְנֵית בְּבִיאָה. וְקוֹנָה אֶת עַצְמָהּ בַּחֲלִיצָה וּבְמִיתַת הַיָּבָם: \n", 1.1. "A woman is acquired in three ways and acquires herself in two: She is acquired by money, by document, or by intercourse. “By money”: Bet Shammai says: a denar or the equivalent of a denar; Bet Hillel says: a perutah or the equivalent of a perutah. And how much is a perutah? An eighth of an Italian issar. And she acquires herself by divorce or by her husband's death. A yevamah is acquired by intercourse. And she acquires herself by halitzah or by the yavam’s death.",
24. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 7.1, 7.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 81
7.1. "הַמַּדִּיר אֶת אִשְׁתּוֹ מִלֵּהָנוֹת לוֹ, עַד שְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם, יַעֲמִיד פַּרְנָס. יָתֵר מִכֵּן, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל, חֹדֶשׁ אֶחָד יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁנַיִם, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה. וּבְכֹהֶנֶת, שְׁנַיִם יְקַיֵּם, וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, יוֹצִיא וְיִתֵּן כְּתֻבָּה: \n", 7.9. "הָאִישׁ שֶׁנּוֹלְדוּ בוֹ מוּמִין, אֵין כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא. אָמַר רַבָּן שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, בַּמֶּה דְבָרִים אֲמוּרִים, בַּמּוּמִין הַקְּטַנִּים. אֲבָל בַּמּוּמִין הַגְּדוֹלִים, כּוֹפִין אוֹתוֹ לְהוֹצִיא: \n", 7.1. "If a man forbade his wife by vow to have any benefit from him, for thirty days, he may appoint a provider, but if for a longer period he must divorce her and give her the ketubah. Rabbi Judah ruled: if he was an Israelite he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for one month, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] two months. If he was a priest he may keep her [as his wife, if the vow was] for two months, but must divorce her and give her the ketubah [if it was for] three.", 7.9. "A man in whom defects have arisen [after marriage] cannot be forced to divorce [his wife]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamaliel said: To what does this apply: to minor defects, but with regard to major defects he can be forced to divorce her.",
25. Mishnah, Hulin, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 284, 592
2.7. "הַשּׁוֹחֵט לְנָכְרִי, שְׁחִיטָתוֹ כְשֵׁרָה. וְרַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר פּוֹסֵל. אָמַר רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אֲפִלּוּ שְׁחָטָהּ שֶׁיֹּאכַל הַנָּכְרִי מֵחֲצַר כָּבֵד שֶׁלָּהּ, פְּסוּלָה, שֶׁסְּתָם מַחֲשֶׁבֶת נָכְרִי לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. אָמַר רַבִּי יוֹסֵי, קַל וָחֹמֶר הַדְּבָרִים, וּמַה בִּמְקוֹם שֶׁהַמַּחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּמֻקְדָּשִׁין, אֵין הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הָעוֹבֵד, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵין מַחֲשָׁבָה פוֹסֶלֶת, בְּחֻלִּין, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁלֹּא יְהֵא הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אֶלָּא אַחַר הַשּׁוֹחֵט: \n", 2.7. "If one slaughtered for a non-Jew, the slaughtering is valid. Rabbi Eliezer declares it invalid. Rabbi Eliezer said: even if one slaughtered a beast with the intention that a non-Jew should eat [only] its liver, the slaughtering is invalid, for the thoughts of a non-Jew are usually directed towards idolatry. Rabbi Yose said: is there not a kal vehomer argument? For if in the case of consecrated animals, where a wrongful intention can render invalid, it is established that everything depends solely upon the intention of him who performs the service, how much more in the case of unconsecrated animals, where a wrongful intention cannot render invalid, is it not logical that everything should depend solely upon the intention of him who slaughters!",
26. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138
2.2. "יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, יוֹסֵי בֶּן יוֹחָנָן אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, נִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. יְהוּדָה בֶּן טַבַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. אַבְטַלְיוֹן אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ. הִלֵּל וּמְנַחֵם לֹא נֶחְלְקוּ. יָצָא מְנַחֵם, נִכְנַס שַׁמַּאי. שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר שֶׁלֹּא לִסְמוֹךְ, הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר לִסְמוֹךְ. הָרִאשׁוֹנִים הָיוּ נְשִׂיאִים, וּשְׁנִיִּים לָהֶם אַב בֵּית דִּין: \n", 2.2. "Yose ben Yoezer says that [on a festival] the laying of the hands [on the head of a sacrifice] may not be performed. Yosef ben Joha says that it may be performed. Joshua ben Perahia says that it may not be performed. Nittai the Arbelite says that it may be performed. Judah ben Tabai says that it may not be performed. Shimon ben Shetah says that it may be performed. Shamayah says that it may be performed. Avtalyon says that it may not be performed. Hillel and Menahem did not dispute. Menahem went out, Shammai entered. Shammai says that it may not be performed. Hillel says that it may be performed. The former [of each] pair were patriarchs and the latter were heads of the court.",
27. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 2.317, 3.237, 3.245, 3.249-3.252, 3.276, 4.206, 4.245, 4.278, 11.77, 12.106, 13.372 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 44, 48, 50, 60, 109
2.317. Whence it is that, in memory of the want we were then in, we keep a feast for eight days, which is called the feast of unleavened bread. Now the entire multitude of those that went out, including the women and children, was not easy to be numbered, but those that were of an age fit for war, were six hundred thousand. 3.237. 1. The law requires, that out of the public expenses a lamb of the first year be killed every day, at the beginning and at the ending of the day; but on the seventh day, which is called the Sabbath, they kill two, and sacrifice them in the same manner. 3.245. as also that when we should arrive at our own country, and come to that city which we should have then for our metropolis, because of the temple therein to be built, and keep a festival for eight days, and offer burnt-offerings, and sacrifice thank-offerings, that we should then carry in our hands a branch of myrtle, and willow, and a bough of the palm-tree, with the addition of the pome citron: 3.249. The feast of unleavened bread succeeds that of the passover, and falls on the fifteenth day of the month, and continues seven days, wherein they feed on unleavened bread; on every one of which days two bulls are killed, and one ram, and seven lambs. Now these lambs are entirely burnt, besides the kid of the goats which is added to all the rest, for sins; for it is intended as a feast for the priest on every one of those days. 3.250. But on the second day of unleavened bread, which is the sixteenth day of the month, they first partake of the fruits of the earth, for before that day they do not touch them. And while they suppose it proper to honor God, from whom they obtain this plentiful provision, in the first place, they offer the first-fruits of their barley, and that in the manner following: 3.251. They take a handful of the ears, and dry them, then beat them small, and purge the barley from the bran; they then bring one tenth deal to the altar, to God; and, casting one handful of it upon the fire, they leave the rest for the use of the priest. And after this it is that they may publicly or privately reap their harvest. They also at this participation of the first-fruits of the earth, sacrifice a lamb, as a burnt-offering to God. 3.252. 6. When a week of weeks has passed over after this sacrifice, (which weeks contain forty and nine days,) on the fiftieth day, which is Pentecost, but is called by the Hebrews Asartha, which signifies Pentecost, they bring to God a loaf, made of wheat flour, of two tenth deals, with leaven; and for sacrifices they bring two lambs; 3.276. 2. As for the priests, he prescribed to them a double degree of purity for he restrained them in the instances above, and moreover forbade them to marry harlots. He also forbade them to marry a slave, or a captive, and such as got their living by cheating trades, and by keeping inns; as also a woman parted from her husband, on any account whatsoever. 4.206. 9. You are not to offer sacrifices out of the hire of a woman who is a harlot for the Deity is not pleased with any thing that arises from such abuses of nature; of which sort none can be worse than this prostitution of the body. In like manner no one may take the price of the covering of a bitch, either of one that is used in hunting, or in keeping of sheep, and thence sacrifice to God. 4.245. And further, no one ought to marry a harlot, whose matrimonial oblations, arising from the prostitution of her body, God will not receive; for by these means the dispositions of the children will be liberal and virtuous; I mean, when they are not born of base parents, and of the lustful conjunction of such as marry women that are not free. 4.278. He that kicks a woman with child, so that the woman miscarry, let him pay a fine in money, as the judges shall determine, as having diminished the multitude by the destruction of what was in her womb; and let money also be given the woman’s husband by him that kicked her; but if she die of the stroke, let him also be put to death, the law judging it equitable that life should go for life. 11.77. They also celebrated the feast of tabernacles at that time, as the legislator had ordained concerning it; and after they offered sacrifices, and what were called the daily sacrifices, and the oblations proper for the Sabbaths, and for all the holy festivals. Those also that had made vows performed them, and offered their sacrifices from the first day of the seventh month. 12.106. But in the morning they came to the court and saluted Ptolemy, and then went away to their former place, where, when they had washed their hands, and purified themselves, they betook themselves to the interpretation of the laws. 13.372. 5. As to Alexander, his own people were seditious against him; for at a festival which was then celebrated, when he stood upon the altar, and was going to sacrifice, the nation rose upon him, and pelted him with citrons [which they then had in their hands, because] the law of the Jews required that at the feast of tabernacles every one should have branches of the palm tree and citron tree; which thing we have elsewhere related. They also reviled him, as derived from a captive, and so unworthy of his dignity and of sacrificing.
28. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 1.32, 2.160, 2.197, 2.409, 6.94 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50, 60, 284, 592
1.32. who fled to Antiochus, and besought him to make use of them for his leaders, and to make an expedition into Judea. The king being thereto disposed beforehand, complied with them, and came upon the Jews with a great army, and took their city by force, and slew a great multitude of those that favored Ptolemy, and sent out his soldiers to plunder them without mercy. He also spoiled the temple, and put a stop to the constant practice of offering a daily sacrifice of expiation for three years and six months. 2.160. 13. Moreover, there is another order of Essenes, who agree with the rest as to their way of living, and customs, and laws, but differ from them in the point of marriage, as thinking that by not marrying they cut off the principal part of human life, which is the prospect of succession; nay, rather, that if all men should be of the same opinion, the whole race of mankind would fail. 2.197. The Jews said, “We offer sacrifices twice every day for Caesar, and for the Roman people;” but that if he would place the images among them, he must first sacrifice the whole Jewish nation; and that they were ready to expose themselves, together with their children and wives, to be slain. 2.409. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Aias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; 6.94. while he himself had Josephus brought to him (for he had been informed that on that very day, which was the seventeenth day of Panemus, [Tamuz,] the sacrifice called “the Daily Sacrifice” had failed, and had not been offered to God, for want of men to offer it, and that the people were grievously troubled at it)
29. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.5-1.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 284
1.5. "אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים אֲסוּרִים לִמְכֹּר לְגוֹיִם, אִצְטְרוֹבָּלִין, וּבְנוֹת שׁוּחַ וּפְטוֹטְרוֹתֵיהֶן, וּלְבוֹנָה, וְתַרְנְגוֹל הַלָּבָן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מֻתָּר לִמְכּוֹר לוֹ תַּרְנְגוֹל לָבָן בֵּין הַתַּרְנְגוֹלִין. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהוּא בִפְנֵי עַצְמוֹ, קוֹטֵעַ אֶת אֶצְבָּעוֹ וּמוֹכְרוֹ לוֹ, לְפִי שֶׁאֵין מַקְרִיבִין חָסֵר לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. וּשְׁאָר כָּל הַדְּבָרִים, סְתָמָן מֻתָּר, וּפֵרוּשָׁן אָסוּר. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, אַף דֶּקֶל טָב וַחֲצָב וְנִקְלִיבָם אָסוּר לִמְכֹּר לְגוֹיִם: \n", 1.6. "מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ לִמְכֹּר בְּהֵמָה דַקָּה לְגוֹיִם, מוֹכְרִין. מְקוֹם שֶׁנָּהֲגוּ שֶׁלֹּא לִמְכֹּר, אֵין מוֹכְרִין. וּבְכָל מָקוֹם אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בְּהֵמָה גַסָּה, עֲגָלִים וּסְיָחִים, שְׁלֵמִים וּשְׁבוּרִין. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה מַתִּיר בִּשְׁבוּרָה. וּבֶן בְּתֵירָה מַתִּיר בְּסוּס: \n", 1.7. "אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם דֻּבִּין וַאֲרָיוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ נֵזֶק לָרַבִּים. אֵין בּוֹנִין עִמָּהֶם בָּסִילְקִי, גַּרְדּוֹם, וְאִצְטַדְיָא, וּבִימָה. אֲבָל בּוֹנִים עִמָּהֶם בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת וּבֵית מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. הִגִּיעוּ לַכִּפָּה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אָסוּר לִבְנוֹת: \n", 1.8. "וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין תַּכְשִׁיטִין לַעֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, קֻטְלָאוֹת וּנְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, בְּשָׂכָר מֻתָּר. אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בִּמְחֻבָּר לַקַּרְקַע, אֲבָל מוֹכֵר הוּא מִשֶּׁיִּקָּצֵץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מוֹכֵר הוּא לוֹ עַל מְנָת לָקוֹץ. אֵין מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל, וְאֵין צָרִיךְ לוֹמַר שָׂדוֹת. וּבְסוּרְיָא מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים, אֲבָל לֹא שָׂדוֹת. וּבְחוּץ לָאָרֶץ מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים וּמַשְׂכִּירִין שָׂדוֹת, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, בְּאֶרֶץ יִשְׂרָאֵל מַשְׂכִּירִין לָהֶם בָּתִּים, אֲבָל לֹא שָׂדוֹת. וּבְסוּרְיָא מוֹכְרִין בָּתִּים וּמַשְׂכִּירִין שָׂדוֹת. וּבְחוּצָה לָאָרֶץ מוֹכְרִין אֵלּוּ וָאֵלּוּ: \n", 1.5. "The following things are forbidden to be sold to idolaters: iztroblin, bnoth-shuah with their stems, frankincense, and a white rooster. Rabbi Judah says: it is permitted to sell a white rooster to an idolater among other roosters; but if it be by itself, one should clip its spur and then sell it to him, because a defective [animal] is not sacrificed to an idol. As for other things, if they are not specified their sale is permitted, but if specified it is forbidden. Rabbi Meir says: also a “good-palm”, hazab and niklivas are forbidden to be sold to idolaters.", 1.6. "In a place where it is the custom to sell small domesticated animals to non-Jews, such sale is permitted; but where the custom is not to sell, such sale is not permitted. In no place however is it permitted to sell large animals, calves or foals, whether whole or maimed. Rabbi Judah permits in the case of a maimed one. And Ben Bateira permits in the case of a horse.", 1.7. "One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build.", 1.8. "One should not make jewelry for an idol [such as] necklaces, ear-rings, or finger-rings. Rabbi Eliezer says, for payment it is permitted. One should not sell to idolaters a thing which is attached to the soil, but when cut down it may be sold. R. Judah says, one may sell it on condition that it be cut down. One should not let houses to them in the land of Israel; and it is not necessary to mention fields. In Syria houses may be let to them, but not fields. Outside of the land of Israel, houses may be sold and fields let to them, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yose says: in the land of Israel, one may let to them houses but not fields; In Syria, we may sell them houses and let fields; Outside of the land of Israel, both may be sold.",
30. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.4-3.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
3.4. "בַּעַל קֶרִי מְהַרְהֵר בְּלִבּוֹ וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ, לֹא לְפָנֶיהָ וְלֹא לְאַחֲרֶיהָ. וְעַל הַמָּזוֹן מְבָרֵךְ לְאַחֲרָיו, וְאֵינוֹ מְבָרֵךְ לְפָנָיו. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבָרֵךְ לִפְנֵיהֶם וּלְאַחֲרֵיהֶם: \n", 3.5. "הָיָה עוֹמֵד בַּתְּפִלָּה, וְנִזְכַּר שֶׁהוּא בַעַל קְרִי, לֹא יַפְסִיק, אֶלָּא יְקַצֵּר. יָרַד לִטְבֹּל, אִם יָכוֹל לַעֲלוֹת וּלְהִתְכַּסּוֹת וְלִקְרוֹת עַד שֶׁלֹּא תָנֵץ הַחַמָּה, יַעֲלֶה וְיִתְכַּסֶּה וְיִקְרָא. וְאִם לָאו, יִתְכַּסֶּה בַמַּיִם וְיִקְרָא. אֲבָל לֹא יִתְכַּסֶּה, לֹא בַמַּיִם הָרָעִים וְלֹא בְמֵי הַמִּשְׁרָה, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּיל לְתוֹכָן מָיִם. וְכַמָּה יַרְחִיק מֵהֶם וּמִן הַצּוֹאָה, אַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת: \n", 3.6. "זָב שֶׁרָאָה קְרִי, וְנִדָּה שֶׁפָּלְטָה שִׁכְבַת זֶרַע, וְהַמְשַׁמֶּשֶׁת שֶׁרָאֲתָה נִדָּה, צְרִיכִין טְבִילָה, וְרַבִּי יְהוּדָה פּוֹטֵר: \n", 3.4. "One who has had a seminal emission utters the words [of the Shema] in his heart and he doesn’t say a blessing, neither before nor after. Over food he says a blessing afterwards, but not the blessing before. Rabbi Judah says: he blesses both before them and after them.", 3.5. "If a man was standing saying the tefillah and he remembers that he is one who has had a seminal emission, he should not stop but he should abbreviate [the blessings]. If he went down to immerse, if he is able to come up and cover himself and recite the Shema before the rising of the sun, he should go up and cover himself and recite, but if not he should cover himself with the water and recite. He should not cover himself either with foul water or with steeping water until he pours fresh water into it. How far should he remove himself from it and from excrement? Four cubits.", 3.6. "A zav who has had a seminal emission and a niddah from whom semen escapes and a woman who becomes niddah during intercourse require a mikveh. Rabbi Judah exempts them.",
31. Mishnah, Avot, 1.12-1.15 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138
1.12. "הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: \n", 1.13. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, נָגֵד שְׁמָא, אָבֵד שְׁמֵהּ. וּדְלֹא מוֹסִיף, יָסֵף. וּדְלֹא יָלֵיף, קְטָלָא חַיָּב. וּדְאִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בְּתָגָא, חָלֵף: \n", 1.14. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אִם אֵין אֲנִי לִי, מִי לִי. וּכְשֶׁאֲנִי לְעַצְמִי, מָה אֲנִי. וְאִם לֹא עַכְשָׁיו, אֵימָתָי: \n", 1.15. "שַׁמַּאי אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה תוֹרָתְךָ קֶבַע. אֱמֹר מְעַט וַעֲשֵׂה הַרְבֵּה, וֶהֱוֵי מְקַבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם בְּסֵבֶר פָּנִים יָפוֹת: \n", 1.12. "Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah.", 1.13. "He [also] used to say: one who makes his name great causes his name to be destroyed; one who does not add [to his knowledge] causes [it] to cease; one who does not study [the Torah] deserves death; on who makes [unworthy] use of the crown [of learning] shall pass away.", 1.14. "He [also] used to say: If I am not for myself, who is for me? But if I am for my own self [only], what am I? And if not now, when?", 1.15. "Shammai used to say: make your [study of the] Torah a fixed practice; speak little, but do much; and receive all men with a pleasant countece.",
32. Josephus Flavius, Against Apion, 2.77, 2.198, 2.202-2.203, 2.215 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 56, 60, 112, 592
2.77. we also offer perpetual sacrifices for them; nor do we only offer them every day at the common expenses of all the Jews, but although we offer no other such sacrifices out of our common expenses, no, not for our own children, yet do we this as a peculiar honor to the emperors, and to them alone, while we do the same to no other person whomsoever. 2.198. Now the law has appointed several purifications at our sacrifices, whereby we are cleansed after a funeral after what sometimes happens to us in bed, and after accompanying with our wives, and upon many other occasions, which it would be too long now to set down. And this is our doctrine concerning God and his worship, and is the same that the law appoints for our practice. /p 2.202. The law, moreover enjoins us to bring up all our offspring, and forbids women to cause abortion of what is begotten, or to destroy it afterward; and if any woman appears to have so done, she will be a murderer of her child, by destroying a living creature, and diminishing human kind: if any one, therefore, proceeds to such fornication or murder, he cannot be clean. 2.203. Moreover, the law enjoins, that after the man and wife have lain together in a regular way, they shall bathe themselves; for there is a defilement contracted thereby, both in soul and body, as if they had gone into another country; for indeed the soul, by being united to the body, is subject to miseries, and is not freed therefrom again but by death; on which account the law requires this purification to be entirely performed. 26. 2.215. 31. Now the greatest part of offenses with us are capital, as if any one be guilty of adultery; if any one force a virgin; if any one be so impudent as to attempt sodomy with a male; or if, upon another’s making an attempt upon him, he submits to be so used. There is also a law for slaves of the like nature that can never be avoided.
33. Josephus Flavius, Life, 1-4, 426, 5-6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 48
34. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 1.2, 1.26, 7.3-7.6, 7.12-7.16, 7.25, 7.39, 10.32, 11.16, 11.22, 12.2, 15.9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60, 93, 346, 388, 449
1.2. τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ οὔσῃ ἐν Κορίνθῳ, ἡγιασμένοις ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις, σὺν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἐπικαλουμένοις τὸ ὄνομα τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν παντὶ τόπῳ αὐτῶν καὶ ἡμῶν· 1.26. Βλέπετε γὰρ τὴν κλῆσιν ὑμῶν, ἀδελφοί, ὅτι οὐ πολλοὶ σοφοὶ κατὰ σάρκα, οὐ πολλοὶ δυνατοί, οὐ πολλοὶ εὐγενεῖς· 7.3. τῇ γυναικὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τὴν ὀφειλὴν ἀποδιδότω, ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ἡ γυνὴ τῷ ἀνδρί. 7.4. ἡ γυνὴ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ὁ ἀνήρ· ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ ὁ ἀνὴρ τοῦ ἰδίου σώματος οὐκ ἐξουσιάζει ἀλλὰ ἡ γυνή. 7.5. μὴ ἀποστερεῖτε ἀλλήλους, εἰ μήτι [ἂν] ἐκ συμφώνου πρὸς καιρὸν ἵνα σχολάσητε τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ πάλιν ἐπὶ τὸ αὐτὸ ἦτε, ἵνα μὴ πειράζῃ ὑμᾶς ὁ Σατανᾶς διὰ τὴν ἀκρασίαν [ὑμῶν]. 7.6. τοῦτο δὲ λέγω κατὰ συνγνώμην, οὐ κατʼ ἐπιταγήν. 7.12. Τοῖς δὲ λοιποῖς λέγω ἐγώ, οὐχ ὁ κύριος· εἴ τις ἀδελφὸς γυναῖκα ἔχει ἄπιστον, καὶ αὕτη συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετʼ αὐτοῦ, μὴ ἀφιέτω αὐτήν· 7.13. καὶ γυνὴ ἥτις ἔχει ἄνδρα ἄπιστον, καὶ οὗτος συνευδοκεῖ οἰκεῖν μετʼ αὐτῆς, μὴ ἀφιέτω τὸν ἄνδρα. 7.14. ἡγίασται γὰρ ὁ ἀνὴρ ὁ ἄπιστος ἐν τῇ γυναικί, καὶ ἡγίασται ἡ γυνὴ ἡ ἄπιστος ἐν τῷ ἀδελφῷ· ἐπεὶ ἄρα τὰ τέκνα ὑμῶν ἀκάθαρτά ἐστιν, νῦν δὲ ἅγιά ἐστιν. 7.15. εἰ δὲ ὁ ἄπιστος χωρίζεται, χωριζέσθω· οὐ δεδούλωται ὁ ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἡ ἀδελφὴ ἐν τοῖς τοιούτοις, ἐν δὲ εἰρήνῃ κέκληκεν ὑμᾶς ὁ θεός. 7.16. τί γὰρ οἶδας, γύναι, εἰ τὸν ἄνδρα σώσεις; ἢ τί οἶδας, ἄνερ, εἰ τὴν γυναῖκα σώσεις; 7.25. Περὶ δὲ τῶν παρθένων ἐπιταγὴν κυρίου οὐκ ἔχω, γνώμην δὲ δίδωμι ὡς ἠλεημένος ὑπὸ κυρίου πιστὸς εἶναι. 7.39. Γυνὴ δέδεται ἐφʼ ὅσον χρόνον ζῇ ὁ ἀνὴρ αὐτῆς· ἐὰν δὲ κοιμηθῇ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ᾧ θέλει γαμηθῆναι, μόνον ἐν κυρίῳ· 10.32. ἀπρόσκοποι καὶ Ἰουδαίοις γίνεσθε καὶ Ἕλλησιν καὶ τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, 11.16. Εἰ δέ τις δοκεῖ φιλόνεικος εἶναι, ἡμεῖς τοιαύτην συνήθειαν οὐκ ἔχομεν, οὐδὲ αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τοῦ θεοῦ. 11.22. μὴ γὰρ οἰκίας οὐκ ἔχετε εἰς τὸ ἐσθίειν καὶ πίνειν; ἢ τῆς ἐκκλησίας τοῦ θεοῦ καταφρονεῖτε, καὶ καταισχύνετε τοὺς μὴ ἔχοντας; τί εἴπω ὑμῖν; ἐπαινέσω ὑμᾶς; ἐν τούτῳ οὐκ ἐπαινῶ. 12.2. Οἴδατε ὅτι ὅτε ἔθνη ἦτε πρὸς τὰ εἴδωλα τὰ ἄφωνα ὡς ἂν ἤγεσθε ἀπαγόμενοι. 15.9. Ἐγὼ γάρ εἰμι ὁ ἐλάχιστος τῶν ἀποστόλων, ὃς οὐκ εἰμὶ ἱκανὸς καλεῖσθαι ἀπόστολος, διότι ἐδίωξα τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ· 1.2. to the assembly of God whichis at Corinth; those who are sanctified in Christ Jesus, called to besaints, with all who call on the name of our Lord Jesus Christ in everyplace, both theirs and ours: 1.26. For you seeyour calling, brothers, that not many are wise according to the flesh,not many mighty, and not many noble; 7.3. Let the husband render to his wife the affectionowed her, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 7.4. The wifedoesn't have authority over her own body, but the husband. Likewisealso the husband doesn't have authority over his own body, but thewife. 7.5. Don't deprive one another, unless it is by consent for aseason, that you may give yourselves to fasting and prayer, and may betogether again, that Satan doesn't tempt you because of your lack ofself-control. 7.6. But this I say by way of concession, not of commandment. 7.12. But to the rest I -- not the Lord -- say, if any brother hasan unbelieving wife, and she is content to live with him, let him notleave her. 7.13. The woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he iscontent to live with her, let her not leave her husband. 7.14. For theunbelieving husband is sanctified in the wife, and the unbelieving wifeis sanctified in the husband. Otherwise your children would be unclean,but now are they holy. 7.15. Yet if the unbeliever departs, let therebe separation. The brother or the sister is not under bondage in suchcases, but God has called us in peace. 7.16. For how do you know,wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, husband,whether you will save your wife? 7.25. Now concerning virgins, I have no commandment from the Lord,but I give my judgment as one who has obtained mercy from the Lord tobe trustworthy. 7.39. A wife is bound by law for as long as her husband lives;but if the husband is dead, she is free to be married to whoever shedesires, only in the Lord. 10.32. Give no occasions for stumbling, either to Jews, or to Greeks,or to the assembly of God; 11.16. But if any man seems to be contentious, we have nosuch custom, neither do God's assemblies. 11.22. What, don't you have houses to eat and to drink in?Or do you despise God's assembly, and put them to shame who don't have?What shall I tell you? Shall I praise you? In this I don't praise you. 12.2. You know that when you were heathen, you were ledaway to those mute idols, however you might be led. 15.9. For I am the least of theapostles, who is not worthy to be called an apostle, because Ipersecuted the assembly of God.
35. Mishnah, Eduyot, 9.1, 9.3, 9.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 54, 93, 388
36. New Testament, 1 Thessalonians, 2.14-2.16, 4.4-4.6, 4.9-4.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 346, 449
2.14. ὑμεῖς γὰρ μιμηταὶ ἐγενήθητε, ἀδελφοί, τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν τοῦ θεοῦ τῶν οὐσῶν ἐν τῇ Ἰουδαίᾳ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ, ὅτι τὰ αὐτὰ ἐπάθετε καὶ ὑμεῖς ὑπὸ τῶν ἰδίων συμφυλετῶν καθὼς καὶ αὐτοὶ ὑπὸ τῶν Ἰουδαίων, 2.15. τῶν καὶ τὸν κύριον ἀποκτεινάντων Ἰησοῦν καὶ τοὺς προφήτας καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐκδιωξάντων, καὶ θεῷ μὴ ἀρεσκόντων, καὶ πᾶσιν ἀνθρώποις ἐναντίων, 2.16. κωλυόντων ἡμᾶς τοῖς ἔθνεσιν λαλῆσαι ἵνα σωθῶσιν, εἰς τὸἀναπληρῶσαιαὐτῶντὰς ἁμαρτίαςπάντοτε. ἔφθασεν δὲ ἐπʼ αὐτοὺς ἡ ὀργὴ εἰς τέλος. 4.4. εἰδέναι ἕκαστον ὑμῶν τὸ ἑαυτοῦ σκεῦος κτᾶσθαι ἐν ἁγιασμῷ καὶ τιμῇ, 4.5. μὴ ἐν πάθει ἐπιθυμίας καθάπερ καὶτὰ ἔθνη τὰ μὴ εἰδότα τὸν θεόν, 4.6. τὸ μὴ ὑπερβαίνειν καὶ πλεονεκτεῖν ἐν τῷ πράγματι τὸν ἀδελφὸν αὐτοῦ, διότιἔκδικος Κύριοςπερὶ πάντων τούτων, καθὼς καὶ προείπαμεν ὑμῖν καὶ διεμαρτυράμεθα. 4.9. Περὶ δὲ τῆς φιλαδελφίας οὐ χρείαν ἔχετε γράφειν ὑμῖν, αὐτοὶ γὰρ ὑμεῖς θεοδίδακτοί ἐστε εἰς τὸ ἀγαπᾷν ἀλλήλους· 4.10. καὶ γὰρ ποιεῖτε αὐτὸ εἰς πάντας τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς [τοὺς] ἐν ὅλῃ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ. Παρακαλοῦμεν δὲ ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, περισσεύειν μᾶλλον, 4.11. καὶ φιλοτιμεῖσθαι ἡσυχάζειν καὶ πράσσειν τὰ ἴδια καὶ ἐργάζεσθαι ταῖς χερσὶν ὑμῶν, καθὼς ὑμῖν παρηγγείλαμεν, 4.12. ἵνα περιπατῆτε εὐσχημόνως πρὸς τοὺς ἔξω καὶ μηδενὸς χρείαν ἔχητε. 2.14. For you, brothers, became imitators of the assemblies of God which are in Judea in Christ Jesus; for you also suffered the same things from your own countrymen, even as they did from the Jews; 2.15. who killed both the Lord Jesus and their own prophets, and drove us out, and didn't please God, and are contrary to all men; 2.16. forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they may be saved; to fill up their sins always. But wrath has come on them to the uttermost. 4.4. that each one of you know how to possess himself of his own vessel in sanctification and honor, 4.5. not in the passion of lust, even as the Gentiles who don't know God; 4.6. that no one should take advantage of and wrong a brother or sister in this matter; because the Lord is an avenger in all these things, as also we forewarned you and testified. 4.9. But concerning brotherly love, you have no need that one write to you. For you yourselves are taught by God to love one another, 4.10. for indeed you do it toward all the brothers who are in all Macedonia. But we exhort you, brothers, that you abound more and more; 4.11. and that you make it your ambition to lead a quiet life, and to do your own business, and to work with your own hands, even as we charged you; 4.12. that you may walk properly toward those who are outside, and may have need of nothing.
37. Tosefta, Arakhin, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 592
4.5. "המקדיש שדה בשנת היובל נותן בית זרע חומר שעורים בחמשים שקל כסף. בית זרע חומר שעורים אבל לא במדה אחד שדה ואחד שדה אילן וא' שדה קנים במדה הזאת פחות מכן או יותר על כן נותן לפי חשבון. היו שם בקעים עמוקין י' טפחים או סלעים גבוהין עשרה טפחים הרי הן אין מקודשין ונמדדין עמה פחות מכן נמדדין עמה ומקודשין הבית והבורגנין והמגדל והשובך שבתוכה הרי הן נמדדין עמה כשהן נפדין נפדין כבתי חצרים הקדיש את השדה וחזר והקדיש את האילן כשהוא פודה את האילן בפ\"ע ואת השדה כשדה אחוזה.",
38. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 1.1, 1.12, 5.11, 6.14-7.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 592
1.12. Ἡ γὰρ καύχησις ἡμῶν αὕτη ἐστίν, τὸ μαρτύριον τῆς συνειδήσεως ἡμῶν, ὅτι ἐν ἁγιότητι καὶ εἰλικρινίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ, [καὶ] οὐκ ἐν σοφίᾳ σαρκικῇ ἀλλʼ ἐν χάριτι θεοῦ, ἀνεστράφημεν ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ, περισσοτέρως δὲ πρὸς ὑμᾶς·
39. Tosefta, Berachot, 2.12-2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
2.12. "הזבין והזבות והנדות והיולדות מותרין לקרות בתורה ולשנות במשנה במדרש בהלכות ובאגדות ובעלי קריין אסורין בכולן ר' יהודה אומר <אבל> שונה הוא בהלכות הרגילות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה.", 2.13. "בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול הרי זה קורא את שמע ואינו משמיע לאזנו ואינו מברך לפניה ולא לאחריה דברי רבי מאיר וחכ\"א קורא את שמע ומשמיע לאזנו ומברך לפניה ולאחריה אמר ר' מאיר פעם אחת היינו יושבין לפני ר' עקיבה בבית המדרש והיינו קורין את שמע ולא היינו משמיעים לאזנינו מפני קסדור אחד שהיה עומד על הפתח אמר לו אין שעת הסכנה ראיה.", 2.14. "הרי שהיה עומד בשדה ערום או [שהיה] עושה מלאכתו ערום הרי זה מכסה את עצמו בתבן ובקש ובכל דבר וקורא אף על פי שאמרו אין שבחו של אדם להיות יושב ערום זה מכסה עצמו בתבן ובקש ובכל דבר וקורא אע\"פ שאמרו כשברא הקב\"ה את האדם לא בראו ערום שנא' (איוב לח) בשומי ענן לבושו וערפל חתולתו ענן לבושו זה השפיר וערפל [תחולתו] זה השליא הרי שהיתה מטפחת של בגד ושל עור חגורה לו על מתניו הרי זה קורא בין כך ובין כך לא יתפלל עד שיכסה לבו.",
40. Tosefta, Gittin, 7.1-7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 93
7.1. "המגרש את אשתו ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם אלא לפלוני רבי אליעזר מתירה [לינשא] לכל אדם חוץ מאותו האיש ומודה ר' אליעזר שאם נשאת לאחר ונתארמלה או נתגרשה שמותרת לינשא זה [שנאסרה עליו] לאחר [מיתתו] של ר' אליעזר נכנסו ארבעה [זקנים] להשיב על דבריו [ר' טרפון ור' יוסי הגלילי] וראב\"ע ור\"ע.", 7.1. "גט שחתמו עליו חמשה עדים ונמצאו שלשה הראשונים קרובין או פסולין תתקיים עדות בשאר עדים גט שכתבו בחמשה לשונות וחתמו עליו חמשה עדים בחמשה לשונות פסול נקרע כשר נתקרע פסול נקרע בו קרע של ב\"ד פסול נימוק או שהרקיב או שנעשה ככברה כשר נמחק או שנטשטש ובבואה שלו קיימת אם יכול לקרות כשר אם לאו פסול.", 7.2. "[אמר] ר' טרפון [הלכה] ונשאת לאחיו ומת בלא [ולד] היאך זו מתיבמת לא נמצא מתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה [וכל המתנה על מה שכתוב בתורה] תנאו בטל הא למדנו דאין זה כריתות [אמר] ר' יוסי הגלילי היכן מצינו [ערוה בתורה שמותרת לאחד ואסורה לאחר אלא המותרת מותרת לכל אדם והאסורה אסורה לכל אדם] הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות.", 7.3. "[ר' אלעזר בן עזריה אומר כריתות דבר הכורת בינו לבינה הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות] א\"ר יוסי רואה אני את דברי ראב\"ע [נענה ר\"ש בן אלעזר ואמר הרי שנשאת לאחר וגרשה ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם היאך זה מתיר מה שאסר הראשון הא למדת שאין זו כריתות ר\"ע אומר היה זה שנאסרה עליו כהן ומת המגרש לא נמצאת אלמנה לו וגרושה לכל אחין הכהנים הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות].", 7.4. "[ד\"א את מי החמירה תורה כלל גרושה או כלל אלמנה חמורה גרושה מאלמנה מה אלמנה קלה נאסרה מן המותר לה גרושה חמורה אינו דין שתאסר מן המותר לה הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות].", 7.5. "[ד\"א הלכה ונשאת לאחר והיו לו בנים הימנה ומת כשהיא חוזרת לזה שנאסרה עליו לא נמצאו בניו של ראשון ממזרים הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות] ר\"ש בן אלעזר אומר הלכה ונשאת לאחר וגרשה ואמר לה הרי את מותרת לכל אדם היאך זה מתיר מה שאסר הראשון הא למדנו שאין זו כריתות.",
41. Tosefta, Hagigah, 2.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
42. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 8.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 60
8.3. "היורד לנכסי אשתו ונתן עיניו לגרשה אם קדם ותלש מן הקרקע כל שהוא ה\"ז זריז ונשכר. היורד לנכסי [שבוין ושמע שהן ממשמשין ובאין אם קדם ותלש מן הקרקע כל שהוא ה\"ז זריז ונשכר אלו] נכסי שבוין כל שהלך אביו או אחיו או אחד מן [היורשין] למדה\"י ושמע בהן שמתו וירד לנחלה אלו הן נכסי נטושין כל שלא [שמע בהן] שמתו וירד לנחלה רשב\"ג [אומר] שמעתי שהנטושים כשבוין היורד לנכסי רטושין מוציאין מידו.", 8.3. "A man who takes possession of his wife's property and [then] decides to divorce her, if he goes first and plucks any amount from the ground [i.e. uses up any amount of the property], behold he is rewarded by his haste [i.e. he gets to keep anything he \"plucked\"]. One who takes possession of the property of captives and hears about them that they are slowly approaching, if he goes first and plucks any amount from the ground, behold he is rewarded by his haste. This is the property of captives: Anyone whose father or brother or one of his inheritors went to the land beyond the sea, and he heard about them that they died, and he took possession of it as an inheritance [and he may get to keep what he takes]. This is the property of fugitives: Anyone who did not hear about them [his relatives that went to the land beyond the sea] that they died, but he took possession as an inheritance [but he won't get to keep what he took]. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: I heard that fugitives' [property] is the same as captives' [property, in that he gets to keep both, whatever he took]. One who took possession of the property of exiles, they take it from him.",
43. Tosefta, Shabbat, 6-7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138
44. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50
45. Tosefta, Yevamot, 1.10-1.13, 2.4, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 81, 388
2.4. "יש חולצות או מתיבמות מתיבמות ולא חולצות חולצות ולא מתיבמות לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות העריות שאמרנו לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות מוסיף עליהן אשת סריס חמה ואשת אח מאם ואשת גר ואשת עבד משוחרר ואיילונית לא חולצות ולא מתיבמות החרשת והשוטה מתיבמות ולא חולצות איסור מצוה ואיסור קדושה חולצות ולא מתיבמות עקרה וזקנה ושאר כל הנשים או חולצות או מתיבמות [י\"א] או חולצין או מיבמין מיבמין ולא חולצין חולצין ולא מיבמין לא מיבמין ולא חולצין העריות שאמרנו לא מיבמין ולא חולצין מוסיף עליהן סריס חמה ואנדרוגינוס ואח מאם וגר ועבד משוחרר לא חולצין ולא מיבמין החרש והשוטה מיבמין ולא חולצין פצוע דכא וכרות שפכה סריס אדם וזקן חולצין ולא מיבמין ושאר כל אדם או חולצין או מיבמין. ",
46. Tosefta, Zevahim, 2.17, 5.6, 5.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 592
5.6. "חומר בטמא שאין ביוצא וביוצא שאין בטמא שהטמא נוהג בקדשי קדשים ובקדשים קלים ונוהג בקדשי הגבול מה שאין כן ביוצא. חומר ביוצא שהיוצא לא הותר מכללו ואין הציץ מרצה עליו מה שאין כן בטמא. באיזה טמא אמרו בטמא שאכל בשר טהור ובשר טמא אבל טהור שאכל בשר טמא והאוכל מן הקדשים <לאחר> [לפני] זריקת דמן ומן העולה ומן האמורין בין לפני זריקת דמן ובין לאחר זריקת דמן הרי זה לוקה את הארבעים כללו של דבר אין חייבין קרבן אלא על פגול ונותר וטמא.",
47. Tosefta, Shekalim, 3.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 592
3.16. "כהן גדול אין נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אא\"כ נמשח שבעה ונתרבה שבעה אע\"פ שלא נמשח שבעה ונתרבה שבעה ועבד עבודתו כשרה כהן הדיוט אין נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אלא א\"כ הביא עשירית האיפה משלו ועובדה בידו אע\"פ שלא הביא עשירית האיפה משלו ועובדה בידו ועבד עבודתו כשרה בן לוי אין נכנס לעזרה לעבודה אלא א\"כ למד חמש שנים שנאמר (במדבר ח) זאת אשר ללוים מבן חמש ועשרים שנה ולהלן הוא אומר (במדבר ד) מבן שלשים שנה אם נאמר מבן חמש ועשרים למה נאמר מבן שלשים ואם נאמר מבן שלשים למה נאמר מבן חמש ועשרים אלא כל אותן שנים שמבן חמש ועשרים ועד בן שלשים היה למד מכאן ואילך מקריבין אותו לעבודה מכאן אמרו כל שאינו מראה סימן טוב במשנתו בתוך חמש שנים שוב אינו מראה ר' יוסי אומר שלש שנים שנאמר (דנייאל א) ולגדלם שנים שלש.",
48. New Testament, Matthew, 19.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 388
19.7. λέγουσιν αὐτῷ Τί οὖν Μωυσῆς ἐνετείλατο δοῦναι βιβλίον ἀποστασίου καὶ ἀπολῦσαι ; 19.7. They asked him, "Why then did Moses command us to give her a bill of divorce, and divorce her?"
49. New Testament, Mark, 10.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 388
10.4. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν Ἐπέτρεψεν Μωυσῆς βιβλίον ἀποστασίου γράψαι καὶ ἀπολῦσαι. 10.4. They said, "Moses allowed a certificate of divorce to be written, and to divorce her."
50. New Testament, Romans, 2.15, 3.1, 7.3, 13.5, 16.4, 16.16 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 388, 449, 592
2.15. οἵτινες ἐνδείκνυνται τὸ ἔργον τοῦ νόμου γραπτὸν ἐν ταῖς καρδίαις αὐτῶν, συνμαρτυρούσης αὐτῶν τῆς συνειδήσεως καὶ μεταξὺ ἀλλήλων τῶν λογισμῶν κατηγορούντων ἢ καὶ ἀπολογουμένων, 3.1. Τί οὖν τὸ περισσὸν τοῦ Ἰουδαίου, ἢ τίς ἡ ὠφελία τῆς περιτομῆς; 7.3. ἄρα οὖν ζῶντος τοῦ ἀνδρὸς μοιχαλὶς χρηματίσει ἐὰν γένηται ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ· ἐὰν δὲ ἀποθάνῃ ὁ ἀνήρ, ἐλευθέρα ἐστὶν ἀπὸ τοῦ νόμου, τοῦ μὴ εἶναι αὐτὴν μοιχαλίδα γενομένην ἀνδρὶ ἑτέρῳ. 13.5. διὸ ἀνάγκη ὑποτάσσεσθαι, οὐ μόνον διὰ τὴν ὀργὴν ἀλλὰ καὶ διὰ τὴν συνείδησιν, 16.4. οἵτινες ὑπὲρ τῆς ψυχῆς μου τὸν ἑαυτῶν τράχηλον ὑπέθηκαν, οἷς οὐκ ἐγὼ μόνος εὐχαριστῶ ἀλλὰ καὶ πᾶσαι αἱ ἐκκλησίαι τῶν ἐθνῶν, 16.16. Ἀσπάσασθε ἀλλήλους ἐν φιλήματι ἁγίῳ. Ἀσπάζονται ὑμᾶς αἱ ἐκκλησίαι πᾶσαι τοῦ χριστοῦ. 2.15. in that they show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience testifying with them, and their thoughts among themselves accusing or else excusing them) 3.1. Then what advantage does the Jew have? Or what is the profit of circumcision? 7.3. So then if, while the husband lives, she is joined to another man, she would be called an adulteress. But if the husband dies, she is free from the law, so that she is no adulteress, though she is joined to another man. 13.5. Therefore you need to be in subjection, not only because of the wrath, but also for conscience' sake. 16.4. who for my life, laid down their own necks; to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the assemblies of the Gentiles. 16.16. Greet one another with a holy kiss. The assemblies of Christ greet you.
51. New Testament, Galatians, 1.13, 2.11-2.14, 3.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109, 346, 449
1.13. Ἠκούσατε γὰρ τὴν ἐμὴν ἀναστροφήν ποτε ἐν τῷ Ἰουδαϊσμῷ, ὅτι καθʼ ὑπερβολὴν ἐδίωκον τὴν ἐκκλησίαν τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐπόρθουν αὐτήν, 2.11. Ὅτε δὲ ἦλθεν Κηφᾶς εἰς Ἀντιόχειαν, κατὰ πρόσωπον αὐτῷ ἀντέστην, ὅτι κατεγνωσμένος ἦν· 2.12. πρὸ τοῦ γὰρ ἐλθεῖν τινὰς ἀπὸ Ἰακώβου μετὰ τῶν ἐθνῶν συνήσθιεν· ὅτε δὲ ἦλθον, ὑπέστελλεν καὶ ἀφώριζεν ἑαυτόν, φοβούμενος τοὺς ἐκ περιτομῆς. 2.13. καὶ συνυπεκρίθησαν αὐτῷ [καὶ] οἱ λοιποὶ Ἰουδαῖοι, ὥστε καὶ Βαρνάβας συναπήχθη αὐτῶν τῇ ὑποκρίσει. 2.14. ἀλλʼ ὅτε εἶδον ὅτι οὐκ ὀρθοποδοῦσιν πρὸς τὴν ἀλήθειαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου, εἶπον τῷ Κηφᾷ ἔμπροσθεν πάντων Εἰ σὺ Ἰουδαῖος ὑπάρχων ἐθνικῶς καὶ οὐκ Ἰουδαϊκῶς ζῇς, πῶς τὰ ἔθνη ἀναγκάζεις Ἰουδαΐζειν; 3.28. οὐκ ἔνι Ἰουδαῖος οὐδὲ Ἕλλην, οὐκ ἔνι δοῦλος οὐδὲ ἐλεύθερος, οὐκ ἔνι ἄρσεν καὶ θῆλυ· πάντες γὰρ ὑμεῖς εἷς ἐστὲ ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ. 1.13. For you have heard of my way ofliving in time past in the Jews' religion, how that beyond measure Ipersecuted the assembly of God, and ravaged it. 2.11. But when Peter came to Antioch, I resisted him to the face,because he stood condemned. 2.12. For before some people came fromJames, he ate with the Gentiles. But when they came, he drew back andseparated himself, fearing those who were of the circumcision. 2.13. And the rest of the Jews joined him in his hypocrisy; so that evenBarnabas was carried away with their hypocrisy. 2.14. But when I sawthat they didn't walk uprightly according to the truth of the gospel, Isaid to Peter before them all, "If you, being a Jew, live as theGentiles do, and not as the Jews do, why do you compel the Gentiles tolive as the Jews do? 3.28. There is neither Jewnor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither malenor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
52. New Testament, Ephesians, 3.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
3.10. ἵνα γνωρισθῇ νῦν ταῖς ἀρχαῖς καὶ ταῖς ἐξουσίαις ἐν τοῖς ἐπουρανίοις διὰ τῆς ἐκκλησίας ἡ πολυποίκιλος σοφία τοῦ θεοῦ, 3.10. to the intent that now through the assembly the manifold wisdom of God might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places,
53. New Testament, 2 Thessalonians, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
1.4. ὥστε αὐτοὺς ἡμᾶς ἐν ὑμῖν ἐνκαυχᾶσθαι ἐν ταῖς ἐκκλησίαις τοῦ θεοῦ ὑπὲρ τῆς ὑπομονῆς ὑμῶν καὶ πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς διωγμοῖς ὑμῶν καὶ ταῖς θλίψεσιν αἷς ἀνέχεσθε, 1.4. so that we ourselves boast about you in the assemblies of God for your patience and faith in all your persecutions and in the afflictions which you endure.
54. Mishnah, Shekalim, 5.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 321
5.2. "אֵין פּוֹחֲתִין מִשְּׁלֹשָה גִּזְבָּרִין וּמִשִּׁבְעָה אֲמַרְכָּלִין, וְאֵין עוֹשִׂין שְׂרָרָה עַל הַצִּבּוּר בְּמָמוֹן פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנַיִם, חוּץ מִבֶּן אֲחִיָּה שֶׁעַל חוֹלֵי מֵעַיִם וְאֶלְעָזָר שֶׁעַל הַפָּרוֹכוֹת, שֶׁאוֹתָן קִבְּלוּ רוֹב הַצִּבּוּר עֲלֵיהֶן: \n", 5.2. "They did not have less than three treasurers. Or less than seven superintendents. Nor create positions of authority over the public in matters of money [with] less than two [officers], except [in the case] of the son of Ahiyah who was over the sickness of the bowels and Elazar who was over the veil, for these had been accepted by the majority of the public.",
55. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.4, 4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50, 449
4.4. "בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בָּא יְהוּדָה, גֵּר עַמּוֹנִי, וְעָמַד לִפְנֵיהֶן בְּבֵית הַמִּדְרָשׁ. אָמַר לָהֶם, מָה אֲנִי לָבֹא בַקָּהָל. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, אָסוּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, מֻתָּר אָתָּה. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (דברים כג), לֹא יָבֹא עַמּוֹנִי וּמוֹאָבִי בִּקְהַל ה' גַּם דּוֹר עֲשִׂירִי וְגוֹ'. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, וְכִי עַמּוֹנִים וּמוֹאָבִים בִּמְקוֹמָן הֵן. כְּבָר עָלָה סַנְחֵרִיב מֶלֶךְ אַשּׁוּר וּבִלְבֵּל אֶת כָּל הָאֻמּוֹת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה י), וְאָסִיר גְּבוּלֹת עַמִּים וַעֲתוּדוֹתֵיהֶם שׁוֹשֵׂתִי וְאוֹרִיד כַּאבִּיר יוֹשְׁבִים. אָמַר לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (ירמיה מט), וְאַחֲרֵי כֵן אָשִׁיב אֶת שְׁבוּת בְּנֵי עַמּוֹן, וּכְבָר חָזְרוּ. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ, הַכָּתוּב אוֹמֵר (עמוס ט), וְשַׁבְתִּי אֶת שְׁבוּת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וִיהוּדָה, וַעֲדַיִן לֹא שָׁבוּ. הִתִּירוּהוּ לָבֹא בַקָּהָל: \n", 4.6. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם: \n", 4.4. "On that day Judah, an Ammonite convert, came and stood before them in the house of study. He said to them: Do I have the right to enter into the assembly? Rabban Gamaliel said to him: you are forbidden. Rabbi Joshua said to him: you are permitted. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"An Ammonite or a Moabite shall not enter into the assembly of the Lord: even to the tenth generation\" (Deuteronomy 23:4). R. Joshua said to him: But are the Ammonites and Moabites still in their own territory? Sanheriv, the king of Assyria, has long since come up and mingled all the nations, as it is said: \"In that I have removed the bounds of the peoples, and have robbed their treasures, and have brought down as one mighty the inhabitants\" (Isaiah 10:1. Rabban Gamaliel said to him: the verse says, \"But afterward I will bring back the captivity of the children of Ammon,\" (Jeremiah 49:6) they have already returned. Rabbi Joshua said to him: [another] verse says, \"I will return the captivity of my people Israel and Judah\" (Amos 9:14). Yet they have not yet returned. So they permitted him to enter the assembly.", 4.6. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.",
56. Justin, Dialogue With Trypho, 46.2 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 112
57. Clement of Alexandria, Miscellanies, 4.22.142 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 112
58. Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation To The Greeks, 6.70 (2nd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109
59. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 269 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 54, 93, 388
60. Pseudo Clementine Literature, Epistles To Virgins, 1.2.8 (3rd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 346
61. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 449
62. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50
35a. big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר (ויקרא כג, מ) פרי עץ הדר עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה אתרוג,ואימא פלפלין כדתניא היה רבי מאיר אומר ממשמע שנאמר (ויקרא יט, כג) ונטעתם כל עץ איני יודע שהוא עץ מאכל מה ת"ל עץ מאכל עץ שטעם עצו ופריו שוה הוי אומר זה פלפלין ללמדך שהפלפלין חייבין בערלה ואין א"י חסרה כלום שנאמר (דברים ח, ט) לא תחסר כל בה,התם משום דלא אפשר היכי נעביד ננקוט חדא לא מינכרא לקיחתה ננקוט תרי או תלתא (אחד) אמר רחמנא ולא שנים ושלשה פירות הלכך לא אפשר,רבי אומר אל תקרי הדר אלא הדיר מה דיר זה יש בו גדולים וקטנים תמימים ובעלי מומין ה"נ יש בו גדולים וקטנים תמימים ובעלי מומין אטו שאר פירות לית בהו גדולים וקטנים תמימין ובעלי מומין אלא הכי קאמר עד שבאין קטנים עדיין גדולים קיימים,ר' אבהו אמר אל תקרי הדר אלא (הדר) דבר שדר באילנו משנה לשנה בן עזאי אומר אל תקרי הדר אלא (אידור) שכן בלשון יווני קורין למים (אידור) ואיזו היא שגדל על כל מים הוי אומר זה אתרוג:,של אשרה ושל עיר הנדחת פסול: מ"ט כיון דלשרפה קאי כתותי מיכתת שיעוריה:,(ושל) ערלה פסול: מ"ט פליגי בה ר' חייא בר אבין ור' אסי חד אמר לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה וחד אמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון,קא סלקא דעתיה מאן דבעי היתר אכילה לא בעי דין ממון ומאן דבעי דין ממון לא בעי היתר אכילה תנן של תרומה טמאה (פסולה) בשלמא למ"ד לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה שפיר אלא למ"ד לפי שאין בה דין ממון אמאי הרי מסיקה תחת תבשילו,אלא בהיתר אכילה כ"ע לא פליגי דבעינן כי פליגי בדין ממון מר סבר היתר אכילה בעינן דין ממון לא בעינן ומר סבר דין ממון נמי בעינן מאי בינייהו,איכא בינייהו מעשר שני שבירושלים אליבא דר' מאיר למ"ד לפי שאין בה היתר אכילה הרי יש בה היתר אכילה למ"ד לפי שאין בה דין ממון מעשר שני ממון גבוה הוא,תסתיים דר' אסי דאמר לפי שאין בה דין ממון דא"ר אסי אתרוג של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר אין אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביו"ט לדברי חכמים אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביו"ט תסתיים,גופא אמר ר' אסי אתרוג של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר אין אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביו"ט לדברי חכמים אדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו ביו"ט מצה של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר אין אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח לדברי חכמים אדם יוצא בה ידי חובתו בפסח עיסה של מעשר שני לדברי ר' מאיר פטורה מן החלה לדברי חכמים חייבת בחלה,מתקיף לה רב פפא בשלמא עיסה כתיב (במדבר טו, כ) ראשית עריסותיכם אתרוג נמי כתיב לכם משלכם אלא מצה מי כתיב מצתכם אמר רבה בר שמואל ואיתימא רב יימר בר שלמיא אתיא לחם לחם כתיב הכא (דברים טז, ג) לחם עוני וכתיב התם 35a. strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b that the verse states: b “Fruit of a beautiful tree,” /b meaning, b a tree that the taste of its tree /b trunk b and /b the taste of its b fruit are alike. /b What tree is that? b You must say it is /b the b i etrog /i /b tree.,The Gemara asks: b And say /b that it is referring to the b pepper /b tree, since the taste of its trunk and the taste of its fruit are alike, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “When you enter the land and plant any tree for food you shall regard its fruit as i orla /i ” (Leviticus 19:23). b Rabbi Meir would say /b that b by inference from that which is stated /b “and plant any tree,” b don’t I know that it is /b referring to b a tree /b that produces b food? Rather, /b for b what /b purpose b does the verse state: “Any tree for food”? /b It is b to include a tree that the taste of its tree /b trunk b and /b the taste of its b fruit are alike. And which /b tree b is this? You must say this is the pepper /b tree. This comes b to teach you that the peppers, /b and even its trunk, are edible, and therefore the tree is b obligated /b in the prohibition of b i orla /i . And Eretz Yisrael lacks nothing, as it is stated: “A land where you shall eat bread without scarceness, you shall lack nothing” /b (Deuteronomy 8:9). From where, then, is it derived that the Torah commands the taking of an i etrog /i as one of the four species? Perhaps the verse is referring to peppers.,The Gemara answers: b There, /b with regard to the four species, it is clear that the Torah is not referring to peppers, b due to /b the fact b that it is not possible /b to utilize peppers for this purpose. b How shall we proceed? /b If b we take one /b pepper, b its taking is not noticeable /b due to its small size. If b we take two or three /b peppers, b the Torah said one /b fruit b and not two or three fruits. Therefore, it is impossible. /b The verse “the fruit of a beautiful tree” cannot be referring to peppers., b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Do not read /b the verse as it is written, b i hadar /i , /b meaning beautiful, b but rather /b read it b i hadir /i , /b meaning the sheep pen. And it means, b just as /b in b this pen there are large and small /b sheep, b unblemished and blemished /b sheep, b so too, /b this tree b has large and small /b fruits, b flawless and blemished /b fruits. The Gemara wonders: b Is that to say /b that b among other fruits there are not large and small /b fruits, b flawless and blemished /b fruits? How does this description identify the i etrog /i specifically? b Rather, this is /b what Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b is saying: /b Just as in a pen, there are both large and small sheep together, so too, on an i etrog /i tree, b when /b the b small ones come /b into being, the b large ones still exist /b on the tree, which is not the case with other fruit trees., b Rabbi Abbahu said: Do not read /b it b i hadar /i , but rather /b read it b i haddar /i , /b meaning one b that dwells, /b referring to b an item that dwells on its tree from year to year. Ben Azzai says: Do not read /b it b i hadar /i , but rather /b read it b i idur /i , as in the Greek language one calls water i idur /i . And which is /b the fruit b that grows on /b the basis of b all water /b sources, and not exclusively through irrigation or rainwater? b You must say it is an i etrog /i . /b ,The mishna continues: An i etrog /i b from a tree worshipped as idolatry or from a city /b whose residents were b incited /b to idolatry is unfit. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason? /b The Gemara answers: b Since /b the i etrog /i b is fated for burning, its /b requisite b measure was crushed. /b Although it has not yet been burned, its legal status is that of ashes.,The mishna continues: An i etrog /i b of i orla /i is unfit. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason? Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Avin and Rabbi Asi disagree /b about b this /b matter. b One said: /b It is unfit b because there is no permission to eat /b i orla /i . Anything that may not be eaten is not one’s property, and it is therefore unfit for use in this mitzva. b And one said: /b It is unfit b because it has no monetary /b value. Since it is prohibited to benefit from i orla /i , it has no value, and one cannot own an item that has no value. Therefore, it does not fulfill the requirement of taking an i etrog /i from one’s own property.,The Gemara asserts b that it may enter one’s mind /b to say: The b one who requires permission to eat /b the i etrog /i to render it fit b does not require /b that it have b monetary /b value, b and /b the b one who requires /b that it have b monetary /b value b does not require permission to eat it. /b On that basis, the Gemara raises a difficulty from what b we learned in the mishna: /b An i etrog /i b of impure i teruma /i is unfit. Granted, according to the one who says /b that an i etrog /i of i orla /i is unfit b because there is no permission to eat it, /b it works out b well /b that an i etrog /i of impure i teruma /i is unfit, as it too may not be eaten. b However, according to the one who says /b that it is unfit b because it has no monetary value, why /b is the i etrog /i of impure i teruma /i unfit? Although eating it is prohibited, a priest b burns it /b as fuel b under his cooked food. /b Since one may benefit from it, impure i teruma /i has monetary value., b Rather, /b contrary to the previous assumption, b with regard to permission to eat /b it, b everyone agrees that we require /b that it be permitted to eat the i etrog /i . b When they disagree is with regard to monetary /b value. One b Sage holds: We require permission to eat it, /b but b we do not require /b that it have b monetary /b value. b And /b one b Sage holds: We also require /b that it have b monetary /b value. The Gemara asks: If so, according to this understanding, b what is the /b practical halakhic difference b between them? /b , b There is /b a practical difference b between them /b with regard to the i halakha /i of an i etrog /i of b second tithe in Jerusalem, and according to the opinion of Rabbi Meir, /b who holds that the legal status of second-tithe produce in Jerusalem is that of consecrated property. Although its owner has the right to eat it, just as he may eat from offerings that he sacrifices, it is the property of God, and he has no monetary rights to the produce. According b to the one who said: /b An i etrog /i of i orla /i is unfit b because there is no permission to eat /b it, b there is permission to eat /b second tithe; therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, a second-tithe i etrog /i in Jerusalem is fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva. b And /b according b to the one who said: /b An i etrog /i of i orla /i is unfit b because it has no monetary /b value, b second tithe /b in Jerusalem b is /b consecrated b property of God /b and has no monetary value to its owner. Therefore, according to Rabbi Meir, it is not fit for use in fulfilling the mitzva.,In an attempt to attribute the opinions to the i amora’im /i , the Gemara suggests: b Conclude that Rabbi Asi /b is the one b who said /b that the reason is b because there is no monetary /b value, b as Rabbi Asi said: /b With b an i etrog /i of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on /b the b Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on /b the b Festival. /b That is precisely the manner in which the dispute with regard to the need for the i etrog /i to have monetary value is presented above. The Gemara determines: Indeed, b conclude /b that Rabbi Asi is the one who holds that the i etrog /i must have monetary value as well.,§ With regard to b the matter itself, Rabbi Asi said: /b With b an i etrog /i of second tithe, according to the statement of Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on /b the b Festival. According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on /b the b Festival. /b With b i matza /i of second tithe, according to Rabbi Meir, a person does not fulfill his obligation with it on Passover /b because it is not his. b According to the Rabbis, a person fulfills his obligation with it on Passover. /b Similarly, b according to Rabbi Meir, dough of second tithe is exempt from the obligation of /b separating b i ḥalla /i . According to the Rabbis, it is subject to the obligation of /b separating b i ḥalla /i . /b In all of these cases, the dispute is whether second tithe is the property of the owner or the property of God., b Rav Pappa strongly objects to this: Granted, /b with regard to b dough, it is written: “The first of your dough, /b i ḥalla /i you shall offer as a gift” (Numbers 15:20). “Your dough” indicates that one is obligated to separate i ḥalla /i only from dough that belongs to him and not consecrated dough. With regard to the b i etrog /i too it is written: “ /b And you shall take b for yourselves,” /b indicating that it must be b from your own /b property. b However, /b with regard to b i matza /i , /b why does he not fulfill his obligation with second tithe? b Is it written: Your i matza /i ? Rabba bar Shmuel said, and some say /b it was b Rav Yeimar bar Shelamya /b who said: This is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between b bread /b written with regard to i matza /i and b bread /b written with regard to i ḥalla /i . b It is written here, /b with regard to i matza /i : b “Bread of affliction” /b (Deuteronomy 16:3), b and it is written there, /b with regard to i ḥalla /i :
63. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
11b. תקיפאי קדמאי לעינוותני בתראי,דתניא מעשה ברבן גמליאל שהיה יושב על גב מעלה בהר הבית והיה יוחנן סופר הלז עומד לפניו ושלש איגרות חתוכות לפניו מונחות,אמר לו טול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני גלילאה עילאה ולאחנא בני גלילאה תתאה שלומכון יסגא מהודעין אנחנא לכון דזמן ביעורא מטא לאפרושי מעשרא ממעטנא דזיתא וטול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני דרומא שלומכון יסגא מהודעין אנחנא לכון דזמן ביעורא מטא לאפרושי מעשרא מעומרי שיבליא,וטול איגרתא חדא וכתוב לאחנא בני גלוותא בבבל ולאחנא דבמדי ולשאר כל גלוותא דישראל שלומכון יסגא לעלם מהודעין אנחנא לכון דגוזליא רכיכין ואימריא ערקין וזמנא דאביבא לא מטא ושפרא מילתא באנפאי ובאנפי חביריי ואוסיפית על שתא דא יומין תלתין דילמא בתר דעברוהו:,תנו רבנן על שלשה דברים מעברין את השנה על האביב ועל פירות האילן ועל התקופה על שנים מהן מעברין ועל אחד מהן אין מעברין,ובזמן שאביב אחד מהן הכל שמחין רבי שמעון בן גמליאל אומר על התקופה איבעיא להו על התקופה שמחין או על התקופה מעברין תיקו:,ת"ר על שלשה ארצות מעברין את השנה יהודה ועבר הירדן והגליל על שתים מהן מעברין ועל אחת מהן אין מעברין ובזמן שיהודה אחת מהן הכל שמחין שאין עומר בא אלא מיהודה,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנים אלא ביהודה ואם עיברוה בגליל מעוברת העיד חנניה איש אונו אם עיברוה בגליל אינה מעוברת א"ר יהודה בריה דרבי שמעון בן פזי מאי טעמא דחנניה איש אונו אמר קרא (דברים יב, ה) לשכנו תדרשו ובאת שמה כל דרישה שאתה דורש לא יהיו אלא בשכנו של מקום,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנה אלא ביום ואם עיברוה בלילה אינה מעוברת ואין מקדשין את החדש אלא ביום ואם קידשוהו בלילה אינו מקודש א"ר אבא מאי קרא (תהלים פא, ד) תקעו בחדש שופר בכסה ליום חגנו איזהו חג שהחדש מתכסה בו הוי אומר זה ראש השנה וכתיב כי חוק לישראל הוא משפט לאלהי יעקב מה משפט ביום אף קידוש החדש ביום,ת"ר אין מעברין את השנה 11b. b the earlier, stern /b authorities b and the later, humble /b authorities, for although Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel was known as particularly humble, his proclamation was written with less modesty than that of his father, Rabban Gamliel, who was known to be particularly stern., b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:6): There was b an incident involving Rabban Gamliel, who was sitting on a step on the Temple Mount, and Yoḥa, that scribe, was standing before him, and three /b blank b documents cut /b from parchment and ready for writing b were set before him. /b ,Rabban Gamliel b said to /b the scribe: b Take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Upper Galilee, and to our brothers, the people of the Lower Galilee, may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come /b for b eradication /b of tithes that had been separated from produce but not yet given to their designated recipients, as is to be done in the fourth and seventh years of the Sabbatical-Year cycle, b to separate the tithe from the vat of olives, /b because most of the local olives were grown in the Galilee. Rabban Gamliel continued, instructing the scribe: b And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the South, /b meaning the area of Judea and its environs, b may your peace increase. We are informing you that the time has come /b for b eradication, to separate the tithe from the mounds of stalks /b of grains, because most of the local grain was grown in the Judea region.,Rabban Gamliel continued to instruct the scribe: b And take one document, and write: To our brothers, the people of the Diaspora in Babylonia, and to our brothers who are in Medea, and to the rest of the entire Jewish Diaspora, may your peace increase forever. We are informing you that the fledglings are tender, and the lambs are thin, and time for the spring has not come. And /b consequently, b the matter is good before me and before my colleagues, /b i.e., in our estimation, b and I have /b consequently b added thirty days to this year. /b The third letter indicates that evidently Rabban Gamliel included others in his decision. The Gemara rejects this, and explains: b Perhaps /b this incident occurred b after they deposed /b Rabban Gamliel from his position as i Nasi /i . When he was reinstated, he shared his office with Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya. Therefore, he wrote the decision in the name of his colleagues as well.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the year for three matters: For the ripening of the grain, /b if it is not yet time for the barley to ripen; b for the fruit of the trees, /b if they have not yet ripened; b and for the equinox, /b i.e., to ensure that the autumnal equinox will precede i Sukkot /i . If b two of /b these concerns apply, the court b intercalates /b the year even if the third factor does not apply; b but for /b only b one of them /b the court b does not intercalate /b the year.,The i baraita /i continues: b And when the ripening of the grain /b is b one of the concerns, everyone is happy. /b Since the grain is not yet ripe, the people do not mind waiting an extra month for Nisan. If the grain is already ripe, however, the extra month would simply prolong the period during which the grain may not be eaten due to the prohibition of the new crop, as the new crop may be harvested and eaten only after the sacrifice of the i omer /i offering on the sixteenth of Nisan (see Leviticus 23:14). b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: For the equinox. /b The Gemara seeks to clarify this statement: b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages. When he said: b For the equinox, /b did he mean this is the reason that everyone is b happy, or /b did he mean that only b for the equinox /b may the court b intercalate /b the year? The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the year for three /b regional b lands /b of Eretz Yisrael, meaning that the court considers the agricultural situation in three regions: b Judea, and Transjordan, and the Galilee. /b If there is a concern b about two of them, /b the court b intercalates /b the year even if the third region does not need it, b but /b if there is a concern b about /b only b one of them /b the court b does not intercalate /b the year. b And when Judea is one of them, everyone is happy, because the i omer /i /b offering b comes only from Judea. /b If the court therefore ensures that the crops in Judea ripen just before the i omer /i is brought, the crops will certainly be ripe in the other regions as well, and there will be no complications with the prohibition of the new crop.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:2): The court b may intercalate the years only /b when located b in Judea. And if they intercalated it /b when located b in the Galilee, /b the year is nevertheless b intercalated. Ḥaya of Ono testified: /b Even b if /b the court already formally b intercalated /b the year when located b in the Galilee, it is not intercalated. Rabbi Yehuda, son of Rabbi Shimon ben Pazi, says: What is the reasoning of Ḥaya of Ono? The verse states: /b “But to the place that the Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes to put His name there, b to His abode shall you seek, and there you shall come” /b (Deuteronomy 12:5). This is interpreted as: b Every pursuit that you shall pursue /b in the area of i halakha /i b must be only in the abode of the Omnipresent, /b in close proximity to Jerusalem, i.e., in Judea., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:7): The court b may intercalate the year only during the day; and if /b the court b intercalated it at night, it is not intercalated. And /b the court b may sanctify the month only during the day; and if /b the court b sanctified it at night, it is not sanctified. Rav Abba says: What is the verse /b from which this i halakha /i is derived? b “Sound the shofar at the New Moon, at the concealed time for our Festival day” /b (Psalms 81:4). On b which Festival is the new moon concealed? You must say it is Rosh HaShana, /b which occurs on the first of the month, before the moon is visible, whereas the moon is visible during the other Festivals, which occur later in the month. b And it is written /b in the next verse: b “For it is a statute for Israel, a judgment of the God of Jacob” /b (Psalms 81:5). b Just as /b all civil b judgment is /b done b during the day, so too is /b the sanctification of Rosh HaShana, and b the sanctification of the month /b in general, done b during the day. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 2:5): The court b does not intercalate the year /b
64. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
81a. גוף כולו לא כל שכן אמרי אין כביסה אלימא לר' יוסי דאמר שמואל האי ערבוביתא דרישא מתיא לידי עוירא ערבוביתא דמאני מתיא לידי שעמומיתא ערבוביתא דגופא מתיא לידי שיחני וכיבי,שלחו מתם הזהרו בערבוביתא הזהרו בחבורה הזהרו בבני עניים שמהן תצא תורה שנאמר (במדבר כד, ז) יזל מים מדליו שמהן תצא תורה,ומפני מה אין מצויין ת"ח לצאת ת"ח מבניהן אמר רב יוסף שלא יאמרו תורה ירושה היא להם רב ששת בריה דרב אידי אומר כדי שלא יתגדרו על הצבור מר זוטרא אומר מפני שהן מתגברין על הצבור רב אשי אומר משום דקרו לאינשי חמרי,רבינא אומר שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב מאי דכתיב (ירמיהו ט, יא) מי האיש החכם ויבן את זאת דבר זה נשאל לחכמים ולנביאים ולא פירשוהו,עד שפירשו הקב"ה בעצמו דכתיב (ירמיהו ט, יב) ויאמר ה' על עזבם את תורתי וגו' היינו לא שמעו בקולי היינו לא הלכו בה אמר רב יהודה אמר רב שאין מברכין בתורה תחלה,איסי בר יהודה לא אתא למתיבתא דר' יוסי תלתא יומי אשכחיה ורדימוס בר' יוסי א"ל מאי טעמא לא אתי מר לבי מדרשא דאבא הא תלתא יומין א"ל כי טעמיה דאבוך לא ידענא היכא איתאי א"ל לימא מר מאי קא"ל דלמא ידענא טעמיה א"ל הא דתניא ר' יוסי אומר כביסתן קודמין לחיי אחרים קרא מנלן,א"ל דכתיב (במדבר לה, ג) ומגרשיהם יהיו לבהמתם וגו' מאי חייתם אילימא חיה והלא חיה בכלל בהמה היא אלא מאי חייתם חיותא ממש פשיטא אלא לאו כביסה דהא איכא צערא דערבוביתא,א"ר יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש איבעיא להו לר' יוסי מהו שיפר משום דברים שבינו לבינה ת"ש א"ר יוסי אין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש אבל דברים שבינו לבינה הויין,דלמא לדידהו קאמר להו לדידי אפי' דברים שבינו לבינה לא הויין לדידכו דאמריתו הויין נדרי עינוי נפש אודו לי דאין אלו נדרי עינוי נפש,מאי רב אדא בר אהבה אומר מפר רב הונא אומר אין מפר 81a. is it b not all the more so /b the case that if one does not bathe, which affects the b entire body, /b Rabbi Yosei would agree that he will suffer pain? The Gemara refutes this argument: The Sages b say /b in response: b Yes, /b the pain of refraining from b laundering /b one’s clothes b is stronger, according to Rabbi Yosei, /b than the pain of not washing one’s body. b As Shmuel said: Grime on /b one’s b head leads to blindness, /b and b grime on /b one’s b clothes leads to madness, /b whereas b grime on /b one’s b body leads to boils and sores, /b which are less serious than madness and blindness. Based on this it may be suggested that according to Rabbi Yosei, soiled clothing presents a greater danger than an unwashed body.,§ With regard to this issue, the Gemara relates that the Sages b sent /b the following message b from there, /b i.e., Eretz Yisrael, to Babylonia: b Be careful with regard to grime, /b as it can lead to disease and sickness. b Be careful /b to learn Torah b in the company /b of others, rather than study it alone. And b be careful /b with regard to the education b of the sons of paupers, as /b it is b from them /b that b the Torah will issue forth. As it is stated: “Water shall flow from his branches [ i midalyav /i ]” /b (Numbers 24:7), which is expounded to mean: From the poor ones [ i midalim /i ] among him, b as /b it is b from them /b that b the Torah, /b which may be compared to water, b will issue forth. /b ,With regard to a similar matter, the Gemara inquires: b And for what reason is it not common for Torah scholars to give rise to Torah scholars from among their sons? /b Why are Torah scholars generally born to paupers, who are not Torah scholars themselves? b Rav Yosef said: /b This is b so that they should not say the Torah is their inheritance. /b Therefore, it is unusual to find that all the sons of a Torah scholar are also Torah scholars. b Rav Sheshet, son of Rav Idi, said: /b This is b so that they should not be presumptuous [ i yitgadderu /i ] toward the community, /b with the knowledge that they will be Torah scholars like their fathers. b Mar Zutra said: Because they /b take advantage of their fathers’ standing to b lord over the community /b and are punished for their conduct. b Rav Ashi said: Because they call /b ordinary b people donkeys. /b , b Ravina says: /b They are punished b because they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah /b before commencing their studies. b As Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “Who is the wise man that may understand this, /b and who is he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken, that he may declare it, for what the land is perished and laid waste like a wilderness, so that none passes through” (Jeremiah 9:11)? b This matter, /b the question as to why Eretz Yisrael was destroyed, b was asked of the Sages, /b i.e., “the wise man,” b and of the prophets, /b “he to whom the mouth of the Lord has spoken,” b but they could not explain it. /b ,The matter remained a mystery b until the Holy One, Blessed be He, Himself explained /b why Eretz Yisrael was laid waste, b as it is written /b in the next verse: b “And the Lord said: Because they have forsaken My Torah /b which I set before them, and have not obeyed My voice, nor walked therein” (Jeremiah 9:12). It would appear that b “have not obeyed My voice” is /b the same as b “nor walked therein.” Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: /b The expression “nor walked therein” means b that they do not first recite a blessing over the Torah, /b and they are therefore liable to receive the severe punishments listed in the verse.,§ Returning to the issue of laundering clothes, the Gemara relates that it once happened that b Isi bar Yehuda did not come to the academy of Rabbi Yosei /b for b three /b straight b days. Vardimus, son of Rabbi Yosei, found him /b and b said to him: What is the reason that the Master did not come to Father’s academy these three days? He said to him: When I do not know your father’s reasoning, how can I come? /b Vardimus b said to him: Let the Master say what he, /b my father, b is saying to him; perhaps I know his reasoning. He said to him: /b With regard to b that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei says /b that b their /b own b laundry takes precedence over the lives of others, from where do we /b have b a verse /b that teaches this i halakha /i ?,Vardimus b said to him: As it is written /b with regard to the Levite cities: b “And their open land shall be for their animals /b and for their substance, and for all their beasts” (Numbers 35:3). b What is /b the meaning of b “their beasts”? If we say /b an actual b beast, /b there is a difficulty, b as isn’t a beast included in /b the category of b animal, /b which has already been mentioned in the verse? b Rather, what is /b the meaning of b “their beasts /b [ b i ḥayyatam /i /b ]”? It means b their actual lives [ i ḥiyyuta /i ]. /b This, however, is difficult, as it b is obvious /b that the Levites received their cities in order to live their lives there. b Rather, is it not /b referring to b laundering /b clothes, b as there is /b the b pain /b caused by the b grime /b on one’s unwashed clothes? Since it is vitally necessary for their well-being, laundering the clothing of the city’s residents takes precedence over the lives of others.,§ With regard to the vows: If I bathe, and: If I do not bathe, and: If I adorn myself, and: If I do not adorn myself, b Rabbi Yosei said /b in the mishna that b these are not vows of affliction. A dilemma was raised /b before the Sages: b According to Rabbi Yosei, what is /b the i halakha /i as to whether the husband b can nullify /b these vows b as matters that /b adversely affect the relationship b between him and her? /b The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this question from what b Rabbi Yosei said: These are not vows of affliction, /b which indicates, b however, /b that b they are matters /b that affect the relationship b between him and her. /b ,The Gemara refutes this proof: b Perhaps /b Rabbi Yosei b was speaking to /b the Rabbis in accordance with b their /b own opinion, as follows: b According to my /b opinion, b they are not even matters /b that affect the relationship b between him and her. /b But b according to your /b opinion, b that you say /b that b they are vows of affliction, agree with me /b at least that b these are not vows of affliction. /b In other words, one should not infer from the phrasing of Rabbi Yosei’s response to the Rabbis that he holds that these vows are concerning matters that affect the relationship between him and her, as he was merely countering the claim of the Rabbis that they are vows of affliction.,The question therefore remains: b What /b does Rabbi Yosei maintain in this regard? b Rav Adda bar Ahava says: He can nullify /b these vows as matters between him and her, whereas b Rav Huna says: He cannot nullify /b them.
65. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
135b. לעולם אימא לך חייב ושאני הכא דכמנה לאחר בידך דמי:,מת יחזרו נכסים למקומן: בעי רבא שבח ששבחו נכסים מאליהם מהו,בשבח המגיע לכתפים לא תיבעי לך דכי נפלו לו נכסים ממקום אחר דמי כי תיבעי לך בשבח שאינו מגיע לכתפים כגון דיקלא ואלים ארעא ואסקא שרטון מאי תיקו:, big strongמתני' /strong /big מי שמת ונמצאת דייתיקי קשורה על יריכו הרי זו אינה כלום זיכה בה לאחר בין מן היורשין בין שאינן מן היורשין דבריו קיימין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנו רבנן איזה היא דייתיקי כל שכתוב בה דא תהא למיקם ולהיות ואיזה היא מתנה כל שכתוב בה מהיום ולאחר מיתה,אלא מהיום ולאחר מיתה הוא דהויא מתנה מעכשיו לא הויא מתנה אמר אביי הכי קאמר איזו היא מתנת בריא שהיא כמתנת שכיב מרע דלא קני אלא לאחר מיתה כל שכתוב בה מהיום ולאחר מיתה,יתיב רבה בר רב הונא באכסדרא דבי רב ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דר' יוחנן שכיב מרע שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת אין כותבין ונותנין שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה,אמר להו רבי אלעזר איזדהרו בה רב שיזבי אמר רבי אלעזר אמרה ואמר להו רבי יוחנן איזדהרו בה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כותיה דרב שיזבי מסתברא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי אלעזר אמרה אצטריך רבי יוחנן לאסהודי עליה דר' אלעזר אלא אי אמרת רבי יוחנן אמרה אצטריך רבי אלעזר לאסהודי עליה דר' יוחנן רביה,ועוד תא שמע דר' אלעזר אמרה דשלח רבין משמיה דרבי אבהו הוו יודעים ששלח רבי אלעזר לגולה משום רבינו שכיב מרע שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת אין כותבין ונותנין שמא לא גמר להקנותו אלא בשטר ואין שטר לאחר מיתה ור' יוחנן אמר תיבדק,מאי תיבדק כי אתא רב דימי אמר דייתיקי מבטלת דייתיקי שכיב מרע שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת רואין אם כמיפה את כחו כותבין ואם לאו אין כותבין,מתיב ר' אבא בר ממל בריא שאמר כתבו ותנו מנה לפלוני ומת אין כותבין ונותנין הא שכיב מרע כותבין ונותנין הוא מותיב לה והוא מפרק לה במיפה את כחו,היכי דמי מיפה את כחו 135b. b Actually, I will say to you /b that one who responds to a claim that he does not know if he owes the one hundred dinars is b obligated /b to pay; b but here, /b in the case of the brothers, it b is different. /b The brothers are not obligated to share their portion with the man in question b because /b the brother who testified b is like /b one who claims: b Another /b person b has one hundred dinars in your possession. /b Since the claimant is not the one who is owed the money, the other party can reject his claim by merely answering that he does not know whether he owes him.,§ The mishna teaches: If the man in question b dies, /b the b property /b he received from the father’s inheritance b shall return to its place, /b i.e., to the possession of the brother who testified on his behalf, and if the man in question received property from elsewhere, it is inherited by all the brothers equally. b Rava raises a dilemma: /b With regard to b the enhancement of the property /b received by the man in question from the portion of the brother who testified, b where /b its b enhanced /b value was the result of an enhancement that b happened naturally, /b as opposed to one that resulted from exertion, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Who inherits it?,The Gemara elaborates: b With regard to enhancement that reaches shoulders, /b i.e., ripe produce that needs only to be harvested from the field, b do not raise the dilemma, as it is /b considered b like property that came into his possession from elsewhere. /b It is not considered part of the land that was given to him by the brother who testified, and it is therefore divided among all the brothers. Rather, b let the dilemma be raised with regard to enhancement that does not reach shoulders, /b and is not considered separate from the ground, b such as a palm tree that thickened, /b or b land that yielded silt. What /b is the i halakha /i in this case? Is the enhancement included in the property itself, or is it considered separate property? The Gemara comments: The dilemma b shall stand /b unresolved.,mishna With regard to b one who died, and a will written by a person on his deathbed [ i dayetikei /i ] is found bound to his thigh, /b which clearly indicates that it was written by him and was not forged, b this is nothing. /b The will is not valid, as he did not give it to anyone, and he may have reconsidered. If b he transferred ownership of /b the will to the designated recipient b through another /b person, b whether one of the heirs /b or b whether not one of the heirs, his statement stands. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b ( i Tosefta /i 8:10): b Which /b deed b is /b considered b a i dayetikei /i , /b and is collected by the designated recipient after the death of the giver? b Any /b deed b in which it is written: This will be to stand and exist /b after my death. b And which /b type b is /b considered a deed of b gift? Any /b deed b in which it is written: From today and after /b my b death. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Is it /b considered a deed of b gift only /b if the expression: b From today and after /b my b death, /b is written, whereas if it is written only: b From now, it is not /b considered a deed of b gift? Abaye said /b that b this /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: Which /b deed of b gift of a healthy person is /b considered b like /b the deed of b gift of a person on his deathbed, /b in b that /b the recipient b acquires /b it b only after /b the b death /b of the giver? b Any /b deed b in which it is written: From today and after /b my b death. /b ,§ b Rabba bar Rav Huna was sitting in the balcony of Rav’s study hall, and sat and said in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: /b If there is b a person on his deathbed who says: Write /b a deed of transfer, granting property of mine to another, b and give /b with it b one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and /b he then b died, one does not write and give /b it. This is because b perhaps he resolved to transfer it /b to him b only with a deed /b of transfer, b and /b since the deed was not written in his lifetime it cannot be written after his death, as b a deed /b of transfer is b not /b effective b after the death /b of the owner.,Rabba bar Rav Huna continued that when Rabbi Yoḥa stated this i halakha /i , b Rabbi Elazar said to /b the other Sages: b Heed this /b i halakha /i ; it is correct. b Rav Sheizevi said: /b That is not what happened; b Rabbi Elazar /b is the one who b said this /b i halakha /i , b and /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa /b who b said to them: Heed this /b i halakha /i ., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b It b is reasonable /b to say that the incident was b in accordance with /b the version presented b by Rav Sheizevi. Granted, if you say /b that b Rabbi Elazar said /b the i halakha /i , b Rabbi Yoḥa needed to affirm /b the ruling b of Rabbi Elazar. But if you say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa /b was the one who b said it, did Rabbi Elazar need to affirm /b the ruling b of Rabbi Yoḥa, his teacher? /b , b And furthermore, come /b and b hear /b proof b that Rabbi Elazar /b was the one who b said /b this i halakha /i , from another statement of his, b as Ravin sent /b a message b in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Know that Rabbi Elazar sent /b a ruling b to the exile in the name of our teacher, /b stating that if there is b a person on his deathbed who says: Write /b a deed of transfer b and give /b with it b one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and /b he then b died, one does not write and give /b it. This is because b perhaps he resolved to transfer it only with a deed /b of transfer, b and /b since the deed was not written in his lifetime it cannot be written after his death, as b a deed /b of transfer is b not /b effective b after the death /b of the owner. b And Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b This ruling is correct; however, the wording of the deed b should be examined. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b did Rabbi Yoḥa mean by saying that the wording b should be examined? /b The Gemara answers: b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, he b stated /b two i halakhot /i . The first was that b a i dayetikei /i cancels /b a previous b i dayetikei /i . /b The second explains the examination to which Rabbi Yoḥa was referring: If there is b a person on his deathbed who said: Write /b a deed of transfer b and give /b with it b one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and /b he then b died, /b the court must b see /b what his intention was in instructing the other person to write a deed of transfer; b if /b it was b to enhance /b the recipient’s b power /b by writing a document proving that he was given the gift, b one writes /b the document even after his death, as he intended to give the money anyway. b But if not, /b rather it was the giver’s intention to transfer the gift specifically through a deed of transfer, b one does not write /b it and give the money, as a deed of transfer is not effective after the death of the owner., b Rabbi Abba bar Memel raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : If there is b a healthy person who said: Write /b a deed of transfer b and give /b with it b one hundred dinars to so-and-so, and /b he then b died, one does not write and give /b it. Rabbi Abba bar Memel inferred: b But /b if b a person on his deathbed /b states this request, b one writes and gives /b it. b He raises the objection and he resolves it: /b The ruling of that i baraita /i is b in /b a case where b he was enhancing /b the recipient’s legal b power /b by writing him a document of proof.,The Gemara explains: b What are the circumstances /b under which it is apparent that b he was enhancing his /b legal b power? /b
66. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 112
22a. משמשת וראתה נדה אינה צריכה טבילה אבל בעל קרי גרידא מחייב לא תימא מברך אלא מהרהר,ומי אית ליה לרבי יהודה הרהור והתניא בעל קרי שאין לו מים לטבול קורא קריאת שמע ואינו מברך לא לפניה ולא לאחריה ואוכל פתו ומברך לאחריה ואינו מברך לפניה אבל מהרהר בלבו ואינו מוציא בשפתיו דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה אומר בין כך ובין כך מוציא בשפתיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק עשאן ר' יהודה כהלכות דרך ארץ,דתניא (דברים ד, ט) והודעתם לבניך ולבני בניך וכתיב בתריה יום אשר עמדת לפני ה' אלהיך בחורב מה להלן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע אף כאן באימה וביראה וברתת ובזיע,מכאן אמרו הזבים והמצורעים ובאין על נדות מותרים לקרות בתורה ובנביאים ובכתובים לשנות במשנה וגמרא ובהלכות ובאגדות אבל בעלי קריין אסורים,רבי יוסי אומר שונה הוא ברגיליות ובלבד שלא יציע את המשנה רבי יונתן בן יוסף אומר מציע הוא את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא רבי נתן בן אבישלום אומר אף מציע את הגמרא ובלבד שלא יאמר אזכרות שבו רבי יוחנן הסנדלר תלמידו של רבי עקיבא משום ר"ע אומר לא יכנס למדרש כל עיקר ואמרי לה לא יכנס לבית המדרש כל עיקר ר' יהודה אומר שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ,מעשה ברבי יהודה שראה קרי והיה מהלך על גב הנהר אמרו לו תלמידיו רבינו שנה לנו פרק אחד בהלכות דרך ארץ ירד וטבל ושנה להם אמרו לו לא כך למדתנו רבינו שונה הוא בהלכות דרך ארץ אמר להם אע"פ שמיקל אני על אחרים מחמיר אני על עצמי:,תניא ר' יהודה בן בתירא היה אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה מעשה בתלמיד אחד שהיה מגמגם למעלה מרבי יהודה בן בתירא אמר ליה בני פתח פיך ויאירו דבריך שאין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה שנאמר (ירמיהו כג, כט) הלא כה דברי כאש נאם ה' מה אש אינו מקבל טומאה אף דברי תורה אינן מקבלין טומאה,אמר מר מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא מסייע ליה לרבי אלעאי דאמר רבי אלעאי אמר ר' אחא בר יעקב משום רבינו הלכה מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא כתנאי מציע את המשנה ואינו מציע את הגמרא דברי רבי מאיר רבי יהודה בן גמליאל אומר משום רבי חנינא בן גמליאל זה וזה אסור ואמרי לה זה וזה מותר,מ"ד זה וזה אסור כרבי יוחנן הסנדלר מ"ד זה וזה מותר כרבי יהודה בן בתירא,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק נהוג עלמא כהני תלת סבי כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בד"ת,כרבי אלעאי בראשית הגז דתניא רבי אלעאי אומר ראשית הגז אינו נוהג אלא בארץ,כרבי יאשיה בכלאים כדכתיב (דברים כב, ט) (כרמך) לא תזרע [כרמך] כלאים רבי יאשיה אומר לעולם אינו חייב עד שיזרע חטה ושעורה וחרצן במפולת יד,כרבי יהודה בן בתירא בדברי תורה דתניא רבי יהודה בן בתירא אומר אין דברי תורה מקבלין טומאה,כי אתא זעירי אמר בטלוה לטבילותא ואמרי לה בטלוה לנטילותא מאן דאמר בטלוה לטבילותא כרבי יהודה בן בתירא מאן דאמר בטלוה לנטילותא כי הא דרב חסדא לייט אמאן דמהדר אמיא בעידן צלותא:,תנו רבנן בעל קרי שנתנו עליו תשעה קבין מים טהור נחום איש גם זו לחשה לרבי עקיבא ורבי עקיבא לחשה לבן עזאי ובן עזאי יצא ושנאה לתלמידיו בשוק פליגי בה תרי אמוראי במערבא רבי יוסי בר אבין ורבי יוסי בר זבידא חד תני שנאה וחד תני לחשה,מאן דתני שנאה משום בטול תורה ומשום בטול פריה ורביה ומאן דתני לחשה שלא יהו תלמידי חכמים מצויים אצל נשותיהם כתרנגולים,אמר רבי ינאי שמעתי שמקילין בה ושמעתי שמחמירין בה וכל המחמיר בה על עצמו מאריכין לו ימיו ושנותיו,אמר ריב"ל מה טיבן של טובלי שחרין מה טיבן הא איהו דאמר בעל קרי אסור בדברי תורה הכי קאמר מה טיבן בארבעים סאה אפשר בתשעה קבין מה טיבן בטבילה אפשר בנתינה,אמר רבי חנינא גדר גדול גדרו בה דתניא מעשה באחד שתבע אשה לדבר עבירה אמרה לו ריקא יש לך ארבעים סאה שאתה טובל בהן מיד פירש,אמר להו רב הונא לרבנן רבותי מפני מה אתם מזלזלין בטבילה זו אי משום צינה אפשר במרחצאות,אמר ליה רב חסדא וכי יש טבילה בחמין אמר ליה רב אדא בר אהבה קאי כוותך,רבי זירא הוה יתיב באגנא דמיא בי מסותא אמר ליה לשמעיה זיל ואייתי לי תשעה קבין ושדי עלואי אמר ליה רבי חייא בר אבא למה ליה למר כולי האי והא יתיב בגווייהו אמר ליה כארבעים סאה מה ארבעים סאה בטבילה ולא בנתינה אף תשעה קבין בנתינה ולא בטבילה,רב נחמן תקן חצבא בת תשעה קבין כי אתא רב דימי אמר רבי עקיבא ורבי יהודה גלוסטרא אמרו לא שנו אלא לחולה לאונסו אבל לחולה המרגיל ארבעים סאה,אמר רב יוסף אתבר חצביה דרב נחמן כי אתא רבין אמר באושא הוה עובדא 22a. that b a woman who engaged in intercourse and saw menstrual /b blood b is not required to immerse herself, but one who experienced a seminal emission alone, /b with no concurrent impurity, b is required to do so? /b If so, we must interpret Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna that one recites a blessing both beforehand and thereafter as follows: b Do not say /b that one b recites a blessing /b orally, but rather he means that b one contemplates /b those blessings in his heart.,The Gemara challenges this explanation: b And does Rabbi Yehuda maintain that /b there is validity to b contemplating /b in his heart? b Wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who experienced a seminal emission and who has no water to immerse /b and purify himself b recites i Shema /i and neither recites the blessings /b of i Shema /i b beforehand nor thereafter? And /b when b he eats his bread, he recites the blessing thereafter, /b Grace after Meals, b but does not recite the blessing: /b Who brings forth bread from the earth, b beforehand. However, /b in the instances where he may not recite the blessing, b he contemplates /b it b in his heart rather than utter /b it b with his lips, /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b However b Rabbi Yehuda says: In either case, he utters /b all of the blessings b with his lips. /b Rabbi Yehuda does not consider contemplating the blessings in his heart a solution and permits them to be recited., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Rabbi Yehuda’s statement in the mishna should be interpreted in another way. b Rabbi Yehuda rendered /b the blessings b like i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , /b which according to some Sages were not considered to be in the same category as all other matters of Torah and therefore, one is permitted to engage in their study even after having experienced a seminal emission., b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “And you shall impart them to your children and your children’s children” /b (Deuteronomy 4:9), b and it is written thereafter: “The day that you stood before the Lord your God at Horeb” /b (Deuteronomy 4:10). b Just as below, /b the Revelation at Sinai was b in reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling, so too here, /b in every generation, Torah must be studied with a sense of b reverence, fear, quaking, and trembling. /b , b From here /b the Sages b stated: i Zavim /i , lepers, and those who engaged in intercourse with menstruating women, /b despite their severe impurity, b are permitted to read the Torah, Prophets, and Writings, and to study Mishna and Gemara and i halakhot /i and i aggada /i . However, those who experienced a seminal emission are prohibited /b from doing so. The reason for this distinction is that the cases of severe impurity are caused by ailment or other circumstances beyond his control and, as a result, they do not necessarily preclude a sense of reverence and awe as he studies Torah. This, however, is not the case with regard to impurity resulting from a seminal emission, which usually comes about due to frivolity and a lack of reverence and awe. Therefore, it is inappropriate for one who experiences a seminal emission to engage in matters of in Torah.,However, there are many opinions concerning the precise parameters of the Torah matters prohibited by this decree. b Rabbi Yosei says: /b One who experiences a seminal emission b studies /b i mishnayot /i that he is b accustomed /b to study, b as long as he does not expound upon a /b new b mishna /b to study it in depth. b Rabbi Yonatan ben Yosef says: He expounds upon the mishna but he does not expound upon the Gemara, /b which is the in-depth analysis of the Torah. b Rabbi Natan ben Avishalom says: He may even expound upon the Gemara, as long as he does not utter /b the b mentions /b of God’s name b therein. Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler, Rabbi Akiva’s student, says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: /b One who experiences a seminal emission b may not enter into homiletic interpretation [ i midrash /i ] /b of verses b at all. Some say /b that he says: b He may not enter the study hall [ i beit hamidrash /i ] at all. Rabbi Yehuda says: He may study /b only b i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i . /b In terms of the problem raised above, apparently Rabbi Yehuda considers the legal status of the blessings to be parallel to the legal status of i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , and therefore one may utter them orally.,The Gemara relates b an incident involving Rabbi Yehuda /b himself, who b experienced a seminal emission and was walking along the riverbank /b with his disciples. b His disciples said to him: Rabbi, teach us a chapter from i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i , /b as he maintained that even in a state of impurity, it is permitted. b He descended and immersed himself /b in the river b and taught them /b i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i . b They said to him: Did you not teach us, our teacher, that he may study i Hilkhot Derekh Eretz /i ? He said to them: Although I am lenient with others, /b and allow them to study it without immersion, b I am stringent with myself. /b ,Further elaborating on the issue of Torah study while in a state of impurity, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira would say: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure /b and therefore one who is impure is permitted to engage in Torah study. He implemented this i halakha /i in practice. The Gemara relates b an incident involving a student who was /b reciting i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i b hesitantly before /b the study hall of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b The student experienced a seminal emission, and when he was asked to recite he did so in a rushed, uneven manner, as he did not want to utter the words of Torah explicitly. Rabbi Yehuda b said to him: My son, open your mouth and let your words illuminate, as matters of Torah do not become ritually impure, as it is stated: “Is not my word like fire, says the Lord” /b (Jeremiah 23:29). b Just as fire does not become ritually impure, so too matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b ,In this i baraita /i b the Master said /b that one who is impure because of a seminal emission b expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara. /b The Gemara notes: This statement b supports /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai, /b as b Rabbi El’ai said /b that b Rabbi Aḥa bar Ya’akov said in the name of Rabbeinu, /b Rav b : The /b i halakha /i is that one who experienced a seminal emission b may expound upon the mishna but may not expound upon the Gemara. /b This dispute b is parallel a tannaitic /b dispute, as it was taught: One who experienced a seminal emission b expounds upon the mishna but does not expound upon the Gemara; /b that is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. Rabbi Yehuda ben Gamliel says in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: /b Both b this and that are prohibited. And some say /b that he said: Both b this and that are permitted. /b ,Comparing these opinions: b The one who said /b that both b this and that are prohibited /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoḥa the Cobbler; the one who said /b that both b this and that are permitted /b holds b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira. /b ,Summarizing the i halakha /i , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: The universally /b accepted b practice is in accordance with /b the opinions of b these three elders: In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai with regard to /b the i halakhot /i of b the first shearing, in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to /b the laws of prohibited b diverse kinds, /b and b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to matters of Torah. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi El’ai with regard to the first shearing, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi El’ai says: /b The obligation to set aside b the first shearing /b from the sheep for the priest b is only practiced in Eretz /b Yisrael and not in the Diaspora, and that is the accepted practice., b In accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yoshiya with regard to diverse kinds, as it is written: “You shall not sow your vineyard with diverse kinds” /b (Deuteronomy 22:9). b Rabbi Yoshiya says: /b This means that b one /b who sows diverse kinds b is not liable /b by Torah law b until he sows wheat and barley and a /b grape b pit with a single hand motion, /b meaning that while sowing in the vineyard he violates the prohibition of diverse kinds that applies to seeds and to the vineyard simultaneously., b In accordance with Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira with regard to /b one who experiences a seminal emission is permitted to engage in b matters of Torah, as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira says: Matters of Torah do not become ritually impure. /b ,And the Gemara relates: b When Ze’iri came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he /b succinctly capsulated this i halakha /i and b said: They abolished ritual immersion, and some say that /b he said: b They abolished ritual washing of the hands. /b The Gemara explains: b The one who says /b that b they abolished immersion /b holds in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira /b that one who experienced a seminal emission is not required to immerse. b And the one who says /b that b they abolished washing of the hands /b holds b in accordance with that which Rav Ḥisda cursed one who /b goes out of his way b to seek water at the time of prayer. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who experienced a seminal emission who had nine i kav /i of /b drawn b water poured over him, /b that is sufficient to render him b ritually pure /b and he need not immerse himself in a ritual bath. The Gemara relates: b Naḥum of Gam Zo whispered /b this i halakha /i to b Rabbi Akiva, and Rabbi Akiva whispered it to /b his student b ben Azzai, and ben Azzai went out and taught it to his students /b publicly b in the marketplace. Two i amora’im /i in Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yosei bar Avin and Rabbi Yosei bar Zevida, disagreed /b as to the correct version of the conclusion of the incident. b One taught: /b Ben Azzai b taught it /b to his students in the market. b And the other taught: Ben Azzai /b also b whispered it /b to his students.,The Gemara explains the rationale behind the two versions of this incident. b The /b Sage b who taught /b that ben Azzai b taught /b the law openly in the market held that the leniency was b due to /b concern that the i halakhot /i requiring ritual immersion would promote b dereliction /b in the study b of Torah. /b The ruling of Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira eases the way for an individual who experienced a seminal emission to study Torah. This was b also due to /b concern that the i halakhot /i requiring ritual immersion would promote b the suspension of procreation, /b as one might abstain from marital relations to avoid the immersion required thereafter. b And the /b Sage, b who taught /b that ben Azzai only b whispered /b this i halakha /i to his students, held that he did so b in order that Torah scholars would not be with their wives like roosters. /b If the purification process was that simple, Torah scholars would engage in sexual activity constantly, which would distract them from their studies.,With regard to this ritual immersion, b Rabbi Yannai said: I heard that there are those who are lenient with regard to it and I have heard that there are those who are stringent with regard to it. /b The i halakha /i in this matter was never conclusively established b and anyone who /b accepts b upon himself to be stringent with regard to it, they prolong for him his days and years. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: What is the essence of those who immerse themselves in the morning? /b The Gemara retorts: How can one ask b what is their essence? Isn’t he /b the one b who said /b that b one who experiences a seminal emission is prohibited from /b engaging in b matters of Torah /b and is required to immerse himself in the morning? Rather, b this is /b what b he /b meant to b say: What is the essence of /b immersion in a ritual bath of b forty i se’a /i /b of water when b it is possible /b to purify oneself b with nine i kav /i ? /b Furthermore, b what is the essence of immersion /b when b it is /b also b possible /b to purify oneself by b pouring /b water?,Regarding this, b Rabbi Ḥanina said: They established a massive fence /b protecting one from sinning with their decree that one must immerse himself in forty i se’a /i of water. b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : There was b an incident involving one who solicited a woman to /b commit b a sinful act. She said to him: Good-for-nothing. Do you have forty i se’a /i in which to immerse /b and purify b yourself /b afterwards? He b immediately desisted. /b The obligation to immerse oneself caused individuals to refrain from transgression., b Rav Huna said to the Sages: Gentlemen, why do you disdain this immersion? If it is because /b it is difficult for you to immerse in the b cold /b waters of the ritual bath, b it is possible /b to purify oneself by immersing oneself in the heated b bathhouses, /b which are unfit for immersion for other forms of ritual impurity but are fit for immersion in this case., b Rabbi Ḥisda said to him: Is there ritual immersion in hot water? /b Rav Huna b said to him: /b Indeed, doubts with regard to the fitness of baths have been raised, and b Rav Adda bar Ahava holds in accordance with your /b opinion. Nevertheless, I remain convinced that it is permitted.,The Gemara relates: b Rabbi Zeira was sitting in a tub of water in the bathhouse. He said to his attendant: Go and get nine i kav /i /b of water b and pour /b it b over me /b so that I may purify myself from the impurity caused by a seminal emission. b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said to him: Why does my master /b require b all of this? Aren’t you seated in /b at least nine i kav /i of water in the tub. b He said to him: /b The law of nine i kav /i b parallels /b the law of b forty i se’a /i , /b in that their i halakhot /i are exclusive. b Just as forty i se’a /i /b can only purify an individual through b immersion and not through pouring, so too nine i kav /i /b can only purify one who experienced a seminal emission b through pouring and not through immersion. /b ,The Gemara relates that b Rav Naḥman prepared a jug /b with a capacity b of nine i kav /i /b so that his students could pour water over themselves and become pure. b When Rav Dimi came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia, b he said: Rabbi Akiva and Rabbi Yehuda Gelostera said: /b The i halakha /i that one who experienced a seminal emission can be purified by pouring nine i kav /i b was only taught for a sick person /b who experienced the emission b involuntarily. However, a sick person /b who experienced a b normal /b seminal emission in the course of marital relations, is required to immerse himself in b forty i se’a /i . /b , b Rav Yosef said: /b In that case, b Rav Naḥman’s jug is broken, /b meaning it is no longer of any use, as few people fall into the category of sick people who experienced seminal emissions. Nevertheless, b when Ravin came /b from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b he said: In Usha there was an incident /b
67. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 38
44a. ואי בעית אימא בשלוה על מנת למשכנו ולא משכנו:,ת"ר גבאו בחובו או שלקחו סיקריקון לא יצא לחירות ובחובו לא,ורמינהי הרי שאנסו בית המלך גורנו אם בחובו חייב לעשר אם באנפרות פטור מלעשר,שאני התם דקא משתרשי ליה,תא שמע דאמר רב המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עובד כוכבים יצא לחירות התם הוה ליה לפייס ולא פייס,גופא אמר רב המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עובד כוכבים יצא לחירות מאי הוה ליה למעבד הוה ליה לפייס ולא פייס,בעי ר' ירמיה מכרו לשלשים יום מהו תא שמע דאמר רב המוכר עבדו לפרהנג עובד כוכבים יצא לחירות התם בפרהנג עובד כוכבים שאינה חוזרת,מכרו חוץ ממלאכתו מהו חוץ מן המצות מהו חוץ משבתות וימים טובים מהו לגר תושב לישראל מומר מהו לכותי מהו פשוט מיהא חדא גר תושב הרי הוא כעובד כוכבים כותי וישראל מומר אמרי לה כעובד כוכבים ואמרי לה כישראל:,בעו מיניה מרבי אמי עבד שהפיל עצמו לגייסות ואין רבו יכול להוציאו לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים מהו שיטול את דמיו,א"ל ר' ירמיה לרבי זריקא פוק עיין במכילתיך נפק דק ואשכח דתניא המוכר ביתו לעובד כוכבים דמיו אסורין ועובד כוכבים שאנס ביתו של ישראל ואין בעליו יכול להוציאו לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים מותר ליטול את דמיו וכותב ומעלה בערכאות שלהן מפני שהוא כמציל מידם,ודילמא ה"מ בית דכיון דלא סגי ליה בלא בית לא אתי לזבוניה אבל עבדא דסגי ליה בלא עבדא אתי לזבוניה או לא,שלח להו ר' אמי מיני אמי בר נתן תורה יוצאה לכל ישראל עבד שהפיל עצמו לגייסות ואין רבו יכול להוציאו לא בדיני ישראל ולא בדיני עובדי כוכבים מותר ליטול את דמיו וכותב ומעלה בערכאות של עובדי כוכבים מפני שהוא כמציל מידם,א"ר יהושע בן לוי המוכר עבדו לעובד כוכבים קונסים אותו עד מאה בדמיו,דוקא או לאו דוקא ת"ש דאמר ריש לקיש המוכר בהמה גסה לעובד כוכבים קונסים אותו עד עשר' בדמיה,ודלמא שאני עבד דכל יומא ויומא מפקע ליה ממצות,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי המוכר עבדו לעובד כוכבים קונסין אותו עד עשרה בדמיו דוקא או לאו דוקא תא שמע דאמר ריש לקיש המוכר בהמה גסה לעובד כוכבים קונסין אותו עד מאה בדמיה,שאני עבד דלא הדר ליה,אלא בהמה טעמא מאי משום דהדרא ליה לקנסיה טפי חד אלא עבד מילתא דלא שכיחא ומלתא דלא שכיחא לא גזרי בה רבנן,בעא מיניה רבי ירמיה מרבי אסי מכר עבדו ומת מהו שיקנסו את בנו אחריו אם תימצי לומר צרם אוזן בכור ומת קנסו בנו אחריו משום דאיסורא דאורייתא היא אבל הכא איסורא דרבנן 44a. b And if you wish, say /b instead: Even if the time for the slave or the field to be taken as collateral had arrived, there is something novel about this b in /b a case b where he borrowed on the condition that /b the creditors b collect /b from b it, /b i.e., the slave or field, b but they did not /b yet b collect /b from b it. /b Since the field had not yet been collected from the gentile by the Jew as payment of the debt, it remains exempt from tithes, but the mere fact that the Jew agreed to have his slave be collected suffices for the rabbinic penalty to take effect, and the slave is emancipated.,§ b The Sages taught /b ( i Tosefta /i , i Avoda Zara /i 3:16): If a gentile b collected /b a slave b for /b payment of b his debt, or /b the slave b was taken by a Sicarius, /b i.e., one who would use violence and intimidation to force people to give them their property, then b he is not emancipated. /b The Gemara asks: b And /b is it so that if a gentile collected a slave b for /b payment of b his debt, /b the Sages did not institute a penalty and the slave is b not /b emancipated?, b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b based on what was taught in a i baraita /i : With regard to a case b where the household of the king seized one’s threshing floor /b by force, b if /b they took it b for /b payment of b his debt /b to the king, then b he is obligated to tithe /b in order to render fit for consumption the grain that they seized. The reason for this is because if he were not to tithe it, it would be considered as if he paid a debt using tithe. b If /b they engaged in b unjust seizure [ i anparot /i ] /b then b he is exempt from tithing. /b This i baraita /i indicates that an item taken for payment of a debt is akin to a sale, so why should the slave taken in payment of the debt not be emancipated?,The Gemara answers: b It is different there, because he profits /b by repaying a portion of his debt with tithe. If they would have taken regular produce, it would have been more of a ficial loss for him. Therefore, he must separate tithe for the seized grain. In the case of the slave, he did not profit from the seizure. Therefore, the Sages did not penalize him.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof, b as Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile /b government b official [ i parhang /i ], /b then the slave b is emancipated /b even though the owner agreed to the sale only because he was pressured by the official. There too, he neither desired nor profited from the sale. The Gemara answers: b There, /b the owner b should have appeased /b the official in some other way so that he would not take the slave, b and he did not appease /b him, therefore it is appropriate to penalize him.,The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself. Rav says: One who sells his slave to a gentile /b government b official, /b then the slave b is emancipated. /b The Gemara asks: b What could he have done; /b the gentile government official forced him to agree to the sale. The Gemara answers: b He should have appeased /b the official in some other way, b and he did not appease /b him., b Rabbi Yirmeya raises a dilemma: /b If b he sold /b the slave to a gentile b for thirty days, /b then b what is /b the i halakha /i ; is this considered to be a sale and he is emancipated as a result, or is it not a sale? The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof, b as Rav says: /b With regard to b one who sells his slave to a gentile /b government b official, /b the slave b is emancipated. /b The assumption is that he would be sold to the official in order to work for a limited amount of time or perform a specific task, yet he is emancipated. The Gemara answers: b There, /b he was sold b to a gentile /b government b official, as /b this sale b is not reversed. /b No proof can be brought from here with regard to the i halakha /i of a sale that is in effect for a limited duration.,Rabbi Yirmeya asks several questions with regard to the extent of the application of this penalty: If b he sold /b the slave to a gentile b aside from his labor, /b i.e., the gentile will own the slave but he will still perform labor for the Jewish master, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he sold him to a gentile b aside from the mitzvot, /b i.e., he stipulated that the slave would be able to continue observing the mitzvot, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he sold him b aside from i Shabbatot /i and Festivals, what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he sold him b to a gentile who resides in Eretz Yisrael and observes the seven Noahide mitzvot [ i ger toshav /i ], /b or b to a Jewish apostate, what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he sold him b to a Samaritan, what is /b the i halakha /i ? The Gemara suggests: b You can resolve at least one /b of these questions, as it was taught: b A i ger toshav /i is like a gentile. /b With regard to a b Samaritan and a Jewish apostate, some say /b they are b like gentiles and some say /b they are b like Jews. /b , b They raised a dilemma before Rabbi Ami: /b If b a slave /b fled from his master and b gave himself over to a /b foreign b army /b to serve as a solider, b and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, what is /b the i halakha /i ? Is it permitted b for /b the master b to /b at least b take his value /b from the army, or would this be considered as if he is selling the slave?, b Rabbi Yirmeya said to Rabbi Zerika: Go out and examine your i mishanyot /i /b to find an answer. b He went out, examined, and discovered /b an answer, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Avoda Zara /i 6:2): b One who sells his house /b in Eretz Yisrael b to a gentile, the monies /b received from the sale of the house b are forbidden /b to him. b And /b if there was b a gentile who seized a Jew’s house /b by force b and its owner cannot remove it, /b i.e., get it back, b neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, /b then b he is permitted to take /b the house’s b value /b from the gentile, b and he /b may even b write /b a document b and register /b the sale b in their courts, because he is like one who rescues /b the money b from their possession. /b Although it is prohibited for a Jew to sell his house in Eretz Yisrael to a gentile, if it was taken from him by force he is permitted to take payment for it. Similarly, if the slave cannot be retrieved from a gentile, it should be permitted for him to take money in return.,The Gemara rejects this comparison: b But perhaps this matter applies /b only to a b house, that since it is not sufficient, /b i.e., not possible, b for him /b to live b without a house, he would not sell it /b willingly. Therefore, there is no reason to penalize him when it is taken by force. b But /b with regard to b a slave, as it is sufficient for him /b to live b without a slave, /b there is a concern that b he will /b also b come to sell him /b willingly, and therefore there should be a penalty in this case as well. b Or /b it is possible that this distinction is b not /b made., b Rabbi Ami sent /b the following message b to /b the other Sages: b From me, Ami bar Natan, Torah emerges to all of Israel: /b If b a slave /b fled his master and b gave himself to a /b foreign b army /b to serve as a solider, b and his master cannot remove him, neither through Jewish law nor through the laws of the nations of the world, /b then he is b permitted to take /b the slave’s b value, and he writes /b a deed of sale b and registers /b this transaction b in gentile courts, because he is like one who rescues /b the money b from their possession. /b , b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: /b With regard to b one who sells his slave to a gentile, /b even though he can no longer enslave him, b he is penalized /b and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for b up to one hundred /b times the slave’s b value. /b ,The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated b specifically or not specifically? /b Perhaps this number is an exaggeration? The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b an answer from b that /b which b Reish Lakish says: One who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized /b and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for b up to ten /b times b its value. /b It can be seen here that one who violates an ordice of the Sages by engaging in a prohibited sale must pay up to only ten times the item’s value to purchase it back, and the same would presumably apply to the case of the slave.,The Gemara rejects this: b But perhaps a slave is different, as each and every day /b the owner b releases him from /b the fulfillment of b mitzvot /b by selling him to a gentile, so there may be a greater penalty as a result., b And there are /b those b who say /b a different version of this discussion: b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says /b that with regard to b one who sells his slave to a gentile, /b even though he can no longer enslave him, b he is penalized /b and is forced to redeem the slave from the gentile for b up to ten /b times the slave’s b value. /b The Gemara asks: Is this amount stated b specifically or not specifically; /b is his penalty limited to up to ten times the value of the slave? The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b an answer from b that /b which b Reish Lakish says: /b With regard to b one who sells a large domesticated animal to a gentile, he is penalized /b and is forced to purchase the animal back from the gentile for b up to one hundred /b times b its value, /b and the penalty in the case of the slave should be at least as large as in the case of the animal.,The Gemara rejects this: b A slave is different, as he does not return to him. /b Since the slave will be emancipated once the master redeems him, it may be that the Sages would not penalize him to such a great extent.,The Gemara challenges: b Rather, what is the reason /b that he is penalized in the case of an b animal /b more so than in the case of a slave; b because /b of the fact b that it returns to him? /b If so, b he should be penalized /b only b one additional /b amount. If the difference is that an animal returns to its owners and a slave does not, then the difference in penalties should be reflective of this, and he should have to purchase the animal for no more than eleven times its value. b Rather, /b the Gemara offers a different distinction: The sale of b a slave /b is b an uncommon matter, and the Sages did not decree /b with regard to b an uncommon matter. /b Therefore, one cannot compare the penalty in the case of selling a slave to the penalty in the case of selling an animal., b Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma before Rabbi Asi: /b If one b sold his slave /b to a gentile b and died, what is /b the i halakha /i : b Is his son penalized after him? /b Is the son also required to redeem the slave, or does the penalty apply only to the seller? The Gemara compares this to other penalties assessed by the Sages. b If you say, /b in accordance with the opinion that holds that if one b slit /b the b ear /b of a b firstborn /b animal and by doing so intentionally blemishes it so that it may be eaten, b and /b then that person b died, /b then b his son is penalized after him /b and his son may not slaughter and eat it, perhaps this is b because it is a prohibition by Torah law. Here, however, /b with regard to the sale of a slave, it is b a prohibition /b only b by rabbinic /b law and perhaps the son is not penalized.
68. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 12, 8, 13 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE)  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 138
69. Anon., Letter of Aristeas, 121, 38, 305  Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 109
305. after saluting the king went back to their own place. And as is the custom of all the Jews, they washed their hands in the sea and prayed to God and then devoted themselves to reading and
73. Anon., Megillat Taanit (Lichtenstein), None  Tagged with subjects: •rabbinic tradition/literature, halakha Found in books: Tomson (2019), Studies on Jews and Christians in the First and Second Centuries. 50