1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 21.14, 22.32, 23.2, 23.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 201; Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 200| 21.14. "אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וַחֲלָלָה זֹנָה אֶת־אֵלֶּה לֹא יִקָּח כִּי אִם־בְּתוּלָה מֵעַמָּיו יִקַּח אִשָּׁה׃", 22.32. "וְלֹא תְחַלְּלוּ אֶת־שֵׁם קָדְשִׁי וְנִקְדַּשְׁתִּי בְּתוֹךְ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲנִי יְהוָה מְקַדִּשְׁכֶם׃", 23.2. "וְהֵנִיף הַכֹּהֵן אֹתָם עַל לֶחֶם הַבִּכּוּרִים תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה עַל־שְׁנֵי כְּבָשִׂים קֹדֶשׁ יִהְיוּ לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן׃", 23.2. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם מוֹעֲדֵי יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר־תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֵלֶּה הֵם מוֹעֲדָי׃", 23.4. "וּלְקַחְתֶּם לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הָרִאשׁוֹן פְּרִי עֵץ הָדָר כַּפֹּת תְּמָרִים וַעֲנַף עֵץ־עָבֹת וְעַרְבֵי־נָחַל וּשְׂמַחְתֶּם לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם שִׁבְעַת יָמִים׃", 23.4. "אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְהוָה מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ אֲשֶׁר־תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם בְּמוֹעֲדָם׃", | 21.14. "A widow, or one divorced, or a profaned woman, or a harlot, these shall he not take; but a virgin of his own people shall he take to wife.", 22.32. "And ye shall not profane My holy name; but I will be hallowed among the children of Israel: I am the LORD who hallow you,", 23.2. "Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them: The appointed seasons of the LORD, which ye shall proclaim to be holy convocations, even these are My appointed seasons.", 23.4. "These are the appointed seasons of the LORD, even holy convocations, which ye shall proclaim in their appointed season.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 108, 109| 1.27. "וַיִּבְרָא אֱלֹהִים אֶת־הָאָדָם בְּצַלְמוֹ בְּצֶלֶם אֱלֹהִים בָּרָא אֹתוֹ זָכָר וּנְקֵבָה בָּרָא אֹתָם׃", | 1.27. "And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 2.15-2.17, 2.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181| 2.15. "גַּם בְּטֶרֶם יַקְטִרוּן אֶת־הַחֵלֶב וּבָא נַעַר הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר לָאִישׁ הַזֹּבֵחַ תְּנָה בָשָׂר לִצְלוֹת לַכֹּהֵן וְלֹא־יִקַּח מִמְּךָ בָּשָׂר מְבֻשָּׁל כִּי אִם־חָי׃", 2.16. "וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו הָאִישׁ קַטֵּר יַקְטִירוּן כַּיּוֹם הַחֵלֶב וְקַח־לְךָ כַּאֲשֶׁר תְּאַוֶּה נַפְשֶׁךָ וְאָמַר לו [לֹא] כִּי עַתָּה תִתֵּן וְאִם־לֹא לָקַחְתִּי בְחָזְקָה׃", 2.17. "וַתְּהִי חַטַּאת הַנְּעָרִים גְּדוֹלָה מְאֹד אֶת־פְּנֵי יְהוָה כִּי נִאֲצוּ הָאֲנָשִׁים אֵת מִנְחַת יְהוָה׃", 2.22. "וְעֵלִי זָקֵן מְאֹד וְשָׁמַע אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשׂוּן בָּנָיו לְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל וְאֵת אֲשֶׁר־יִשְׁכְּבוּן אֶת־הַנָּשִׁים הַצֹּבְאוֹת פֶּתַח אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", | 2.15. "Also before they burnt the fat, the priest’s lad came, and said to the man that sacrificed, Give some roasting meat for the priest; for he will not have boiled meat of thee, but raw.", 2.16. "And if any man said to him, Let them first burn the fat, and then take as much as thy soul desires; then he would answer him, No; but thou shalt give it me now: and if not, I will take it by force.", 2.17. "Wherefore the sin of the lads was very great before the Lord: for the men dishonoured the offering of the Lord.", 2.22. "Now ῾Eli was very old, and heard all that his sons did to all Yisra᾽el; and how they lay with the women that assembled at the door of the Tent of Meeting.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 65.4 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 63| 65.4. "הַיֹּשְׁבִים בַּקְּבָרִים וּבַנְּצוּרִים יָלִינוּ הָאֹכְלִים בְּשַׂר הַחֲזִיר ופרק [וּמְרַק] פִּגֻּלִים כְּלֵיהֶם׃", | 65.4. "That sit among the graves, and lodge in the vaults; that eat swine’s flesh, and broth of abominable things is in their vessels;", |
|
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 4.18-4.19, 4.21, 12.14-12.15, 14.5-14.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 103, 104; Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 295; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 108 |
6. Anon., Jubilees, 2.1, 2.17-2.18, 6.17-6.18, 6.29-6.33, 15.25-15.27 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 104 | 2.1. And the angel of the presence spake to Moses according to the word of the Lord, saying: 2.17. And God appointed the sun to be a great sign on the earth for days and for sabbaths and for months and for feasts and for years and for sabbaths of years and for jubilees and for all seasons of the years. 2.18. And it divideth the light from the darkness [and] for prosperity, that all things may prosper which shoot and grow on the earth. 6.17. And this testimony is written concerning you that you should observe it continually, so that you should not eat on any day any blood of beasts or birds or cattle during all the days of the earth, 6.18. and the man who eateth the blood of beast or of cattle or of birds during all the days of the earth, he and his seed shall be rooted out of the land. 6.29. And do thou command the children of Israel to observe this festival in all their generations for a commandment unto them: 6.30. one day in the year in this month they shall celebrate the festival. 6.31. For it is the feast of weeks and the feast of first-fruits: 6.32. this feast is twofold and of a double nature: according to what is written and engraven concerning it celebrate it. 6.33. For I have written in the book of the first law, in that which I have written for thee, that thou shouldst celebrate it in its season, one day in the year, 15.25. And on the selfsame day was Abraham circumcised, and all the men of his house, (and those born in the house), and all those, whom he had bought with money from the children of the stranger, were circumcised with him. 15.26. This law is for all the generations for ever, 15.27. and there is no circumcision of the days, and no omission of one day out of the eight days; for it is an eternal ordice, ordained and written on the heavenly tables. |
|
7. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.47 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 63 | 1.47. to build altars and sacred precincts and shrines for idols, to sacrifice swine and unclean animals, |
|
8. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 7.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 103 | 7.17. For it is he who gave me unerring knowledge of what exists,to know the structure of the world and the activity of the elements; |
|
| 9. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Qmmt, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227 |
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q266, None (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 1.14-1.15, 8.8-8.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 104; Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 294 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 4.18-4.19, 4.21, 12.14-12.15, 14.5-14.6 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 103, 104; Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 295; Shemesh (2009), Halakhah in the Making: The Development of Jewish Law from Qumran to the Rabbis. 108 |
| 13. Anon., Sibylline Oracles, 3.591-3.593 (1st cent. BCE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 303 |
14. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 201, 202| 4.7. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת הַנִּצּוֹק. אוֹמְרִים הַפְּרוּשִׁים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, צְדוֹקִים, שֶׁאַתֶּם מְטַהֲרִים אֶת אַמַּת הַמַּיִם הַבָּאָה מִבֵּית הַקְּבָרוֹת. אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִין, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, חַיָּבִין. וְעַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי שֶׁהִזִּיקוּ, פְּטוּרִין. מָה אִם שׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵינִי חַיָּב בָּהֶם מִצְוֹת, הֲרֵי אֲנִי חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. עַבְדִּי וַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב בָּהֶן מִצְוֹת, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁאֱהֵא חַיָּב בְּנִזְקָן. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם, לֹא. אִם אֲמַרְתֶּם בְּשׁוֹרִי וַחֲמוֹרִי, שֶׁאֵין בָּהֶם דַּעַת, תֹּאמְרוּ בְּעַבְדִּי וּבַאֲמָתִי, שֶׁיֵּשׁ בָּהֶם דָּעַת. שֶׁאִם אַקְנִיטֵם, יֵלֵךְ וְיַדְלִיק גְּדִישׁוֹ שֶׁל אַחֵר וֶאֱהֵא חַיָּב לְשַׁלֵּם: \n", | 4.7. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?", |
|
15. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 4.151-4.154 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305 | 4.151. 7. And now the multitude were going to rise against them already; for Aus, the ancientest of the high priests, persuaded them to it. He was a very prudent man, and had perhaps saved the city if he could but have escaped the hands of those that plotted against him. These men made the temple of God a stronghold for them, and a place whither they might resort, in order to avoid the troubles they feared from the people; the sanctuary was now become a refuge, and a shop of tyranny. 4.152. They also mixed jesting among the miseries they introduced, which was more intolerable than what they did; 4.153. for in order to try what surprise the people would be under, and how far their own power extended, they undertook to dispose of the high priesthood by casting lots for it, whereas, as we have said already, it was to descend by succession in a family. 4.154. The pretense they made for this strange attempt was an ancient practice, while they said that of old it was determined by lot; but in truth, it was no better than a dissolution of an undeniable law, and a cunning contrivance to seize upon the government, derived from those that presumed to appoint governors as they themselves pleased. |
|
16. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 13.258, 13.397, 15.320-15.323, 18.26-18.27, 18.34, 19.297, 19.342, 20.15, 20.103, 20.179-20.207 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181, 306; Price, Finkelberg and Shahar (2021), Rome: An Empire of Many Nations: New Perspectives on Ethnic Diversity and Cultural Identity, 211 | 13.258. and they were so desirous of living in the country of their forefathers, that they submitted to the use of circumcision, and of the rest of the Jewish ways of living; at which time therefore this befell them, that they were hereafter no other than Jews. 13.397. in the country of Moab, Heshbon, and Medaba, Lemba, and Oronas, Gelithon, Zara, the valley of the Cilices, and Pella; which last they utterly destroyed, because its inhabitants would not bear to change their religious rites for those peculiar to the Jews. The Jews also possessed others of the principal cities of Syria, which had been destroyed. 15.320. There was one Simon, a citizen of Jerusalem, the son of one Boethus, a citizen of Alexandria, and a priest of great note there; this man had a daughter, who was esteemed the most beautiful woman of that time; 15.321. and when the people of Jerusalem began to speak much in her commendation, it happened that Herod was much affected with what was said of her; and when he saw the damsel, he was smitten with her beauty, yet did he entirely reject the thoughts of using his authority to abuse her, as believing, what was the truth, that by so doing he should be stigmatized for violence and tyranny; so he thought it best to take the damsel to wife. 15.322. And while Simon was of a dignity too inferior to be allied to him, but still too considerable to be despised, he governed his inclinations after the most prudent manner, by augmenting the dignity of the family, and making them more honorable; so he immediately deprived Jesus, the son of Phabet, of the high priesthood, and conferred that dignity on Simon, and so joined in affinity with him [by marrying his daughter]. 15.323. 4. When this wedding was over, he built another citadel in that place where he had conquered file Jews when he was driven out of his government, and Antigonus enjoyed it. 18.26. 1. When Cyrenius had now disposed of Archelaus’s money, and when the taxings were come to a conclusion, which were made in the thirty-seventh year of Caesar’s victory over Antony at Actium, he deprived Joazar of the high priesthood, which dignity had been conferred on him by the multitude, and he appointed Aus, the son of Seth, to be high priest; 18.27. while Herod and Philip had each of them received their own tetrarchy, and settled the affairs thereof. Herod also built a wall about Sepphoris, (which is the security of all Galilee,) and made it the metropolis of the country. He also built a wall round Betharamphtha, which was itself a city also, and called it Julias, from the name of the emperor’s wife. 18.34. This man deprived Aus of the high priesthood, and appointed Ismael, the son of Phabi, to be high priest. He also deprived him in a little time, and ordained Eleazar, the son of Aus, who had been high priest before, to be high priest; which office, when he had held for a year, Gratus deprived him of it, and gave the high priesthood to Simon, the son of Camithus; 19.297. 2. And when Agrippa had entirely finished all the duties of the divine worship, he removed Theophilus, the son of Aus, from the high priesthood, and bestowed that honor of his on Simon the son of Boethus, whose name was also Cantheras whose daughter king Herod married, as I have related above. 19.342. This was very ill taken by Agrippa, who after that became his enemy. And now he took the high priesthood away from Matthias, and made Elioneus, the son of Cantheras, high priest in his stead. 20.15. 3. Herod also, the brother of the deceased Agrippa, who was then possessed of the royal authority over Chalcis, petitioned Claudius Caesar for the authority over the temple, and the money of the sacred treasure, and the choice of the high priests, and obtained all that he petitioned for. 20.103. But now Herod, king of Chalcis, removed Joseph, the son of Camydus, from the high priesthood, and made Aias, the son of Nebedeu, his successor. And now it was that Cumanus came as successor to Tiberius Alexander; 20.179. 8. About this time king Agrippa gave the high priesthood to Ismael, who was the son of Fabi. 20.180. And now arose a sedition between the high priests and the principal men of the multitude of Jerusalem; each of which got them a company of the boldest sort of men, and of those that loved innovations about them, and became leaders to them; and when they struggled together, they did it by casting reproachful words against one another, and by throwing stones also. And there was nobody to reprove them; but these disorders were done after a licentious manner in the city, as if it had no government over it. 20.181. And such was the impudence and boldness that had seized on the high priests, that they had the hardiness to send their servants into the threshing-floors, to take away those tithes that were due to the priests, insomuch that it so fell out that the poorest sort of the priests died for want. To this degree did the violence of the seditious prevail over all right and justice. 20.182. 9. Now when Porcius Festus was sent as successor to Felix by Nero, the principal of the Jewish inhabitants of Caesarea went up to Rome to accuse Felix; and he had certainly been brought to punishment, unless Nero had yielded to the importunate solicitations of his brother Pallas, who was at that time had in the greatest honor by him. 20.183. Two of the principal Syrians in Caesarea persuaded Burrhus, who was Nero’s tutor, and secretary for his Greek epistles, by giving him a great sum of money, to disannul that equality of the Jewish privileges of citizens which they hitherto enjoyed. 20.184. So Burrhus, by his solicitations, obtained leave of the emperor that an epistle should be written to that purpose. This epistle became the occasion of the following miseries that befell our nation; for when the Jews of Caesarea were informed of the contents of this epistle to the Syrians, they were more disorderly than before, till a war was kindled. 20.185. 10. Upon Festus’s coming into Judea, it happened that Judea was afflicted by the robbers, while all the villages were set on fire, and plundered by them. 20.186. And then it was that the sicarii, as they were called, who were robbers, grew numerous. They made use of small swords, not much different in length from the Persian acinacae, but somewhat crooked, and like the Roman sicae, [or sickles,] as they were called; and from these weapons these robbers got their denomination; and with these weapons they slew a great many; 20.187. for they mingled themselves among the multitude at their festivals, when they were come up in crowds from all parts to the city to worship God, as we said before, and easily slew those that they had a mind to slay. They also came frequently upon the villages belonging to their enemies, with their weapons, and plundered them, and set them on fire. 20.188. So Festus sent forces, both horsemen and footmen, to fall upon those that had been seduced by a certain impostor, who promised them deliverance and freedom from the miseries they were under, if they would but follow him as far as the wilderness. Accordingly, those forces that were sent destroyed both him that had deluded them, and those that were his followers also. 20.189. 11. About the same time king Agrippa built himself a very large dining-room in the royal palace at Jerusalem, near to the portico. 20.190. Now this palace had been erected of old by the children of Asamoneus and was situate upon an elevation, and afforded a most delightful prospect to those that had a mind to take a view of the city, which prospect was desired by the king; and there he could lie down, and eat, and thence observe what was done in the temple; 20.191. which thing, when the chief men of Jerusalem saw they were very much displeased at it; for it was not agreeable to the institutions of our country or law that what was done in the temple should be viewed by others, especially what belonged to the sacrifices. They therefore erected a wall upon the uppermost building which belonged to the inner court of the temple towards the west, 20.192. which wall when it was built, did not only intercept the prospect of the dining-room in the palace, but also of the western cloisters that belonged to the outer court of the temple also, where it was that the Romans kept guards for the temple at the festivals. 20.193. At these doings both king Agrippa, and principally Festus the procurator, were much displeased; and Festus ordered them to pull the wall down again: but the Jews petitioned him to give them leave to send an embassage about this matter to Nero; for they said they could not endure to live if any part of the temple should be demolished; 20.194. and when Festus had given them leave so to do, they sent ten of their principal men to Nero, as also Ismael the high priest, and Helcias, the keeper of the sacred treasure. 20.195. And when Nero had heard what they had to say, he not only forgave them what they had already done, but also gave them leave to let the wall they had built stand. This was granted them in order to gratify Poppea, Nero’s wife, who was a religious woman, and had requested these favors of Nero, and who gave order to the ten ambassadors to go their way home; but retained Helcias and Ismael as hostages with herself. 20.196. As soon as the king heard this news, he gave the high priesthood to Joseph, who was called Cabi, the son of Simon, formerly high priest. 20.197. 1. And now Caesar, upon hearing the death of Festus, sent Albinus into Judea, as procurator. But the king deprived Joseph of the high priesthood, and bestowed the succession to that dignity on the son of Aus, who was also himself called Aus. 20.198. Now the report goes that this eldest Aus proved a most fortunate man; for he had five sons who had all performed the office of a high priest to God, and who had himself enjoyed that dignity a long time formerly, which had never happened to any other of our high priests. 20.199. But this younger Aus, who, as we have told you already, took the high priesthood, was a bold man in his temper, and very insolent; he was also of the sect of the Sadducees, who are very rigid in judging offenders, above all the rest of the Jews, as we have already observed; 20.200. when, therefore, Aus was of this disposition, he thought he had now a proper opportunity [to exercise his authority]. Festus was now dead, and Albinus was but upon the road; so he assembled the sanhedrim of judges, and brought before them the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James, and some others, [or, some of his companions]; and when he had formed an accusation against them as breakers of the law, he delivered them to be stoned: 20.201. but as for those who seemed the most equitable of the citizens, and such as were the most uneasy at the breach of the laws, they disliked what was done; they also sent to the king [Agrippa], desiring him to send to Aus that he should act so no more, for that what he had already done was not to be justified; 20.202. nay, some of them went also to meet Albinus, as he was upon his journey from Alexandria, and informed him that it was not lawful for Aus to assemble a sanhedrim without his consent. 20.203. Whereupon Albinus complied with what they said, and wrote in anger to Aus, and threatened that he would bring him to punishment for what he had done; on which king Agrippa took the high priesthood from him, when he had ruled but three months, and made Jesus, the son of Damneus, high priest. 20.204. 2. Now as soon as Albinus was come to the city of Jerusalem, he used all his endeavors and care that the country might be kept in peace, and this by destroying many of the Sicarii. 20.205. But as for the high priest, Aias he increased in glory every day, and this to a great degree, and had obtained the favor and esteem of the citizens in a signal manner; for he was a great hoarder up of money: he therefore cultivated the friendship of Albinus, and of the high priest [Jesus], by making them presents; 20.206. he also had servants who were very wicked, who joined themselves to the boldest sort of the people, and went to the thrashing-floors, and took away the tithes that belonged to the priests by violence, and did not refrain from beating such as would not give these tithes to them. 20.207. So the other high priests acted in the like manner, as did those his servants, without any one being able to prohibit them; so that [some of the] priests, that of old were wont to be supported with those tithes, died for want of food. |
|
17. Mishnah, Niddah, 8.1-8.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 222| 8.1. "הָרוֹאָה כֶתֶם עַל בְּשָׂרָהּ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה טְמֵאָה. וְשֶׁלֹּא כְנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְהוֹרָה. עַל עֲקֵבָהּ וְעַל רֹאשׁ גּוּדָלָהּ, טְמֵאָה. עַל שׁוֹקָהּ וְעַל פַּרְסוֹתֶיהָ, מִבִּפְנִים, טְמֵאָה. מִבַּחוּץ, טְהוֹרָה. וְעַל הַצְּדָדִין מִכָּאן וּמִכָּאן, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל חֲלוּקָהּ, מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַטָּה, טְמֵאָה. מִן הַחֲגוֹר וּלְמַעְלָה, טְהוֹרָה. רָאֲתָה עַל בֵּית יָד שֶׁל חָלוּק, אִם מַגִּיעַ כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית הַתֻּרְפָּה, טְמֵאָה. וְאִם לָאו, טְהוֹרָה. הָיְתָה פוֹשַׁטְתּוֹ וּמִתְכַּסָּה בוֹ בַּלַּיְלָה, כָּל מָקוֹם שֶׁנִּמְצָא בוֹ כֶתֶם, טְמֵאָה, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁהוּא חוֹזֵר. וְכֵן בַּפַּלְיוֹם: \n", 8.2. "וְתוֹלָה בְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁהִיא יְכוֹלָה לִתְלוֹת. שָׁחֲטָה בְהֵמָה, חַיָּה וָעוֹף, נִתְעַסְּקָה בִכְתָמִים אוֹ שֶׁיָּשְׁבָה בְצַד הָעֲסוּקִים בָּהֶן, הָרְגָה מַאֲכֹלֶת, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ. עַד כַּמָּה הִיא תוֹלָה. רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן אַנְטִיגְנוֹס אוֹמֵר, עַד כַּגְּרִיס שֶׁל פּוֹל, וְאַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹּא הָרְגָה. וְתוֹלָה בִבְנָהּ אוֹ בְּבַעְלָהּ. אִם יֶשׁ בָּהּ מַכָּה וְהִיא יְכוֹלָה לְהִגָּלַע וּלְהוֹצִיא דָם, הֲרֵי זוֹ תּוֹלָה בָהּ: \n", | 8.1. "If a woman observed a bloodstain on her body: If it was opposite her genital area she is unclean; But if it was not near the genital are she remains clean. If it was on her heel or on the tip of her large toe, she is unclean. On her thigh or on her feet: If on the inner side, she is unclean; If on their outer side, she remains clean. And if on the front and back sides she remains clean. If she observed it on her garment: Below the belt, she is unclean, But if above the belt, she remains clean. If she observed it on the sleeve of her shirt: If it can reach as low as her genital area, she is unclean, But if it cannot, she remains clean. If she takes it off and covers herself with it in the night, she is unclean wherever the stain is found, since it can turn about. And the same law applies to a pallium.", 8.2. "[A woman] may attribute [a bloodstain] to any [external] cause to which she can possibly attribute it. If [for instance] she had slaughtered a beast, a wild animal or a bird, Or if she was handling bloodstains or if she sat beside those who handled them. Or if she killed a louse, she may attribute the bloodstain to it. How large a stain may be attributed to a louse? Rabbi Hanina ben Antigonus says: one up to the size of a split bean; And even if she did not kill it. She may also attribute it to her son or to her husband. If she herself had a wound that could open again and bleed she may attribute it to it.", |
|
18. Mishnah, Parah, 3.3, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227| 3.3. "בָּאוּ לְהַר הַבַּיִת וְיָרְדוּ. הַר הַבַּיִת וְהָעֲזָרוֹת, תַּחְתֵּיהֶם חָלוּל, מִפְּנֵי קֶבֶר הַתְּהוֹם. וּבְפֶתַח הָעֲזָרָה הָיָה מְתֻקָּן קָלָל שֶׁל חַטָּאת, וּמְבִיאִין זָכָר שֶׁל רְחֵלִים וְקוֹשְׁרִים חֶבֶל בֵּין קַרְנָיו, וְקוֹשְׁרִים מַקֵּל וּמְסַבֵּךְ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ שֶׁל חֶבֶל, וְזוֹרְקוֹ לְתוֹךְ הַקָּלָל, וּמַכֶּה אֶת הַזָּכָר וְנִרְתָּע לַאֲחוֹרָיו, וְנוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ, כְּדֵי שֶׁיֵּרָאֶה עַל פְּנֵי הַמָּיִם. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, אַל תִּתְּנוּ מָקוֹם לַצְּדוֹקִים לִרְדּוֹת, אֶלָּא הוּא נוֹטֵל וּמְקַדֵּשׁ: \n", 4.4. "כָּל הָעֲסוּקִין בַּפָּרָה מִתְּחִלָּה וְעַד סוֹף, מְטַמְּאִין בְּגָדִים, וּפוֹסְלִים אוֹתָהּ בִּמְלָאכָה. אֵרַע בָּהּ פְּסוּל בִּשְׁחִיטָתָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. אֵרַע בָּהּ בְּהַזָּיָתָהּ, כֹּל הָעוֹסֵק בָּהּ לִפְנֵי פְסוּלָהּ, מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. לְאַחַר פְּסוּלָהּ, אֵינָהּ מְטַמְּאָה בְגָדִים. נִמְצְאָה חֻמְרָהּ, קֻלָּהּ. לְעוֹלָם מוֹעֲלִים בָּהּ, וּמַרְבִּין לָהּ עֵצִים, וּמַעֲשֶׂיהָ בַיּוֹם, וּבְכֹהֵן, הַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בָּהּ, עַד שֶׁתֵּעָשֶׂה אֵפֶר, וְהַמְּלָאכָה פוֹסֶלֶת בַּמַּיִם, עַד שֶׁיַּטִּילוּ אֶת הָאֵפֶר: \n", | 3.3. "They arrived at the Temple Mount and got down. Beneath the Temple Mount and the courts was a hollow which served as a protection against a grave in the depths. And at the entrance of the courtyard there was the jar of the ashes of the sin-offerings. They would bring a male from among the sheep and tie a rope between its horns, and a stick or a bushy twig was tied at the other end of the rope, and this was thrown into the jar. They then struck the male [sheep] was so that it started backwards. And [a child] took the ashes and put it [enough] so that it could be seen upon the water. Rabbi Yose said: do not give the Sadducees an opportunity to rule! Rather, [a child] himself took it and mixed it.", 4.4. "All who are occupied with the preparation of the [red] cow from the beginning until the end, defile their clothing, and they also render it invalid by [doing other] work. If some invalidity occurred while it was being slaughtered, it does not defile clothing. If it occurred while the blood was being sprinkled, for all who were occupied with it before the invalidity occurred, it defiles their clothing, but for those who were occupied with it after it had become invalid it does not defile their clothing unclean. Thus it follows that the stringency turns into a leniency. It is always subject to the rules of trespassing. Wood may be added to the fire. The service must be performed by day and by a priest. Work renders it invalid. [All of this is only] until it becomes ashes And work causes the water to be invalid until the ashes are put into it.", |
|
19. Mishnah, Rosh Hashanah, 2.9-2.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 201; Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 190| 2.9. "שָׁלַח לוֹ רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, גּוֹזְרַנִי עָלֶיךָ שֶׁתָּבֹא אֶצְלִי בְּמַקֶּלְךָ וּבִמְעוֹתֶיךָ בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שֶׁחָל לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנְךָ. הָלַךְ וּמְצָאוֹ רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא מֵצֵר, אָמַר לוֹ, יֶשׁ לִי לִלְמוֹד שֶׁכָּל מַה שֶּׁעָשָׂה רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל עָשׂוּי, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כג), אֵלֶּה מוֹעֲדֵי יְיָ מִקְרָאֵי קֹדֶשׁ, אֲשֶׁר תִּקְרְאוּ אֹתָם, בֵּין בִּזְמַנָּן בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא בִזְמַנָּן, אֵין לִי מוֹעֲדוֹת אֶלָּא אֵלּוּ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל רַבִּי דוֹסָא בֶּן הַרְכִּינָס, אָמַר לוֹ, אִם בָּאִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר בֵּית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, צְרִיכִין אָנוּ לָדוּן אַחַר כָּל בֵּית דִּין וּבֵית דִּין שֶׁעָמַד מִימוֹת משֶׁה וְעַד עַכְשָׁיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כד), וַיַּעַל משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. וְלָמָּה לֹא נִתְפָּרְשׁוּ שְׁמוֹתָן שֶׁל זְקֵנִים, אֶלָּא לְלַמֵּד, שֶׁכָּל שְׁלשָׁה וּשְׁלשָׁה שֶׁעָמְדוּ בֵית דִּין עַל יִשְׂרָאֵל, הֲרֵי הוּא כְבֵית דִּינוֹ שֶׁל משֶׁה. נָטַל מַקְלוֹ וּמְעוֹתָיו בְּיָדוֹ, וְהָלַךְ לְיַבְנֶה אֵצֶל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל בְּיוֹם שֶׁחָל יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים לִהְיוֹת בְּחֶשְׁבּוֹנוֹ. עָמַד רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל וּנְשָׁקוֹ עַל רֹאשׁוֹ, אָמַר לוֹ, בֹּא בְשָׁלוֹם, רַבִּי וְתַלְמִידִי, רַבִּי בְחָכְמָה, וְתַלְמִידִי שֶׁקִּבַּלְתָּ דְּבָרָי:", | 2.9. "Rabban Gamaliel sent to him: I order you to appear before me with your staff and your money on the day which according to your count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabbi Akiva went and found him in distress. He said to him: I can teach that whatever Rabban Gamaliel has done is valid, because it says, “These are the appointed seasons of the Lord, holy convocations, which you shall proclaim at their appointed times” (Leviticus 23:4), whether they are [proclaimed] at their proper time or not at their proper time, I have no other appointed times save these. He [Rabbi Joshua] then went to Rabbi Dosa ben Harkinas. He said to him: if we call in question the court of Rabban Gamaliel we must call in question the decisions of every court which has existed since the days of Moses until now. As it says, “Then Moses and Aaron, Nadav and Avihu and seventy of the elders of Israel went up” (Exodus 24:9). Why were the names of the elders not mentioned? To teach that every group of three which has acted as a court over Israel, behold it is like the court of Moses. He [Rabbi Joshua] took his staff and his money and went to Yavneh to Rabban Gamaliel on the day which according to his count should be Yom Hakippurim. Rabban Gamaliel rose and kissed him on his head and said to him: Come in peace, my teacher and my student my teacher in wisdom and my student because you have accepted my decision.", |
|
20. New Testament, Mark, 7.15 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 63| 7.15. οὐδὲν ἔστιν ἔξωθεν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου εἰσπορευόμενον εἰς αὐτὸν ὃ δύναται κοινῶσαι αὐτόν· ἀλλὰ τὰ ἐκ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐκπορευόμενά ἐστιν τὰ κοινοῦντα τὸν ἄνθρωπον. | 7.15. There is nothing from outside of the man, that going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are those that defile the man. |
|
| 21. New Testament, Romans, 14 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Blidstein (2017), Purity Community and Ritual in Early Christian Literature, 63 |
22. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306| 2.2. "מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁהָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין וְרָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, וְדָחַף אֶחָד מֵהֶן אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ, וְנָפַל וְנִשְׁבְּרָה רַגְלוֹ. וְכֵיוָן שֶׁרָאוּ בֵית דִּין שֶׁבָּאִין לִידֵי סַכָּנָה, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ תוֹרְמִין אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ אֶלָּא בְפַיִס. אַרְבָּעָה פְיָסוֹת הָיוּ שָׁם, וְזֶה הַפַּיִס הָרִאשׁוֹן: \n", | 2.2. "Section one: It once happened that two were even as they ran up the ramp, and one of them pushed his fellow who fell and broke his leg. When the court saw that they incurred danger, they decreed that they would remove the ashes from only by a count. Section two: There were four counts. This is the first count.", |
|
23. Tosefta, Parah, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227| 3.3. "באו לשער היוצא מעזרת נשים לחיל וקלולי' של אבן היו קבועין בכותל מעלות של עזרת נשים וכסוייהן של אבן נראין בחיל ובתוכן אפר מכל פרה ופרה שהיו שורפים שנאמר (במדבר יט) והיתה לעדת בני ישראל למשמרת למי נדה חטאת הוא מכה את הזכר ונרתע לאחוריו ואפרו נשפך נוטל ומקדש ומזה שמשפך. מעשים אלו עשו כשעלו מן הגולה דברי ר' יהודה. ר\"ש אומר אפרן ירדה עמהן לבבל ועלה אמרו לו והלא נטמא בארץ העמים אמרו להם לא גזרו טומאה בארץ העמים אלא לאחר שעלו מן הגולה.", | |
|
24. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 2.1, 2.18 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 201; Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 258, 259| 2.1. "אין פוחתין מעשרה מלכיות ומעשרה זכרונות ומעשרה שופרות [אם] אמר שלש מכולם יצא אין מזכירין זכרון ומלכות ושופר של פורענות מתחיל בתורה ומשלים בנביא ר' יוסי אומר אם היתה פורענות של עו\"ג מזכירין אותה בפ\"ע המתחיל מתחיל בשל תורה ומסיים בשל תורה [ואומר] של נביאים ושל כתובים באמצע אין אומרים [מלכיות עם הזכרונות] ולא זכרונות עם השופרות ואם אמר לא אמר כלום וצריך לאומרה שניה.", 2.1. "קדשו את החדש בזמנו ונמצאו עדים זוממין הרי זה מקודש קדשוהו בלילה אינו מקודש קדשוהו אנוסין שוגגין מזידין ומוטעין הרי זה [מקודשת] קדשוהו לפני זמנו או לאחר עיבורו פחות משלשים יום יותר על שלשים יכול יהא [מקודשת] תלמוד לומר (שמות יב) חדש אין פחות משלשים יום לא נראית לבנה לשני ימים יכול יקדשוהו לאחר שני ימים תלמוד לומר יום אין לו אלא יום אחד בלבד.", | |
|
25. Tosefta, Taanit, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 258| 2.1. "[דבר שיש בו הפסק אפילו שלשה מתים ביום אחד זה אחר זה אין זה דבר דבר שאין בו הפסק אפי' שלשה מתים בג' ימים זה אחר זה ה\"ז דבר אסכרה אם מתים בה מתריעים עליה אם לאו אין מתריעין עליה מתריעין על הגובאי כל שהוא מפני שהיא מכה מהלכת ר\"ש בן אלעזר אומר אף על החגב חרב העוברת ממקום למקום אפי' חרב של שלום מתריעין עליה ואין צריך לומר חרב של פורעניות ואין לך חרב של שלום יותר משל פרעה נכה ושטפה את הצדיק ההוא זה יאשיהו (דברי הימים ב ל״ה:כ׳-כ״א) וישלח אליו מלאכים לאמור מה לי ולך וגו' ואלהים אמר לבהלני מפי הקדוש אני עולה חדל לך זה לשון עבודת כוכבים] ולא הסב יאשיהו פניו ממנו כי להלחם בו התחפש וגו' ויורו המורים למלך יאשיהו וגו' [היו מתאבלין על יאשיהו וגו'] ויקונן ירמיהו על יאשיהו היכן פירושו של דבר (איכה ד׳:כ׳) רוח אפינו משיח ה' וגו' [ועל כולם אין מתריעין עליהן אלא באותה הפרכיא בלבד היה בסוריא אין מתריעין עליהן].", 2.1. "ארבעה משמרות עלו מן הגולה ידעיה חרום פשחור ואימר עמדו נביאים שבירושלים [ועשאום] עשרים וארבעה משמרות ובללום והטילום לתוך הקלפי ובא ידעיה ונטל חמש והוא הרי כאן שש בא חרום ונטל חמש והוא הרי שש בא פשחור ונטל חמש והוא הרי שש בא אימר ונטל חמש והוא הרי [שש] וכך התנו עמהם הנביאים שאפילו [יהויריב] עולה מן הגולה לא [יהא אחד מהן נדחה מפניו אלא יעשה טפלה לו] עמדו ראשי משמרות וקבעו את עצמן בבתי אבות.", | |
|
26. Anon., Lamentations Rabbah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 317| 4.13. יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן. רַבִּי הוּנָא בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אָמַר, אָמַר הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא לֹא הִנִּיחוּ אוֹתִי לִפְשֹׁט יָדִי בְּעוֹלָמִי, כֵּיצַד, הָיְתָה לְאַחַת מֵהֶן כִּכָּר אַחַת וְהָיָה בָהּ כְּדֵי שֶׁתֹּאכַלְנָה הִיא וּבַעֲלָהּ יוֹם אֶחָד, וְכֵיוָן שֶׁמֵּת בְּנָהּ שֶׁל שְׁכֶנְתָּהּ, הָיְתָה נוֹטֶלֶת אוֹתוֹ הַכִּכָּר וּמְנַחֶמָה אוֹתָהּ בָּהּ, וְהֶעֱלָה עֲלֵיהֶם הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן לְמִצְווֹת, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: יְדֵי נָשִׁים רַחֲמָנִיּוֹת בִּשְׁלוּ יַלְדֵיהֶן, וְכָל כָּךְ לָמָּה בִּשְׁבִיל שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָרוֹת לָמוֹ. | |
|
| 27. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305 |
| 28. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 10.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 202 |
29. Tosefta, Kelim Baba Qamma, 1.8 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306| 1.8. "כל העזרה כשרה לאכילת קדשי קדשים ולשחיטת קדשים קלים והשוחט בתוכה חולין אסורין בהנאה והיא היתה חצר המשכן לפנים מן הקלעים שהיו במדבר. כל הטמאים שנכנסו משער נקנור ולפנים אפילו הן מחוסרי כפרה הרי אלו חייבין על זדונן כרת ועל שגגתן חטאת ואין צריך לומר טבול יום ושאר כל הטמאין שנכנסו לפנים ממחיצותיהן הרי אלו באזהרה נכנסים לקדש הרי אלו חייבים רבי יהודה אומר על פני הקדש במיתה ושאר כל המת באזהרה.", | |
|
| 30. Palestinian Talmud, Bikkurim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan |
31. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181, 305, 306| 9a. לפי ששלח בכל גבולי ישראל וראה שאין מפרישין אלא תרומה גדולה בלבד,מעשר ראשון ומעשר עני נמי לא המוציא מחבירו עליו הראיה אלא מעשר שני נפרשו ונסקו וניכלוהו בירושלם,אמר עולא מתוך שפרהדרין הללו חובטין אותן כל י"ב חדש ואומרים להן מכרו בזול מכרו בזול לא אטרחונהו רבנן מאי פרהדרין פורסי,אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן מאי דכתיב (משלי י, כז) יראת ה' תוסיף ימים ושנות רשעים תקצרנה יראת ה' תוסיף ימים זה מקדש ראשון שעמד ארבע מאות ועשר שנים ולא שמשו בו אלא י"ח כהנים גדולים,ושנות רשעים תקצרנה זה מקדש שני שעמד ד' מאות ועשרים שנה ושמשו בו יותר משלש מאות כהנים צא מהם מ' שנה ששמש שמעון הצדיק ושמונים ששמש יוחנן כהן גדול עשר ששמש ישמעאל בן פאבי ואמרי לה י"א ששמש ר' אלעזר בן חרסום מכאן ואילך צא וחשוב כל אחד ואחד לא הוציא שנתו,א"ר יוחנן בן תורתא מפני מה חרבה שילה מפני שהיו בה שני דברים גלוי עריות ובזיון קדשים גלוי עריות דכתיב (שמואל א ב, כב) ועלי זקן מאד ושמע את כל אשר יעשון בניו לכל ישראל ואת אשר ישכבון את הנשים הצובאות פתח אהל מועד ואע"ג דאמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יוחנן כל האומר בני עלי חטאו אינו אלא טועה מתוך | 9a. This is b because /b Yoḥa the High Priest b sent /b emissaries b throughout all the /b areas located within the b borders of /b i Eretz b Yisrael /b /i to assess the situation b and saw that /b the people b were separating only i teruma gedola /i /b and were neglecting to separate tithes. Therefore, he issued a decree that anyone who purchases produce from an i am ha’aretz /i must be concerned about the possibility that it was not tithed and is required to tithe it. Since even an i am ha’aretz /i separates i teruma gedola /i , the bakers who purchased grain from them were not required to do so.,And granted, bakers need not separate b first tithe and poor man’s tithe /b due to the principle: b The burden of proof rests upon the claimant. /b Neither first tithe, given to Levites, nor poor man’s tithe, given to the poor, is sacred. It is merely the property of the Levite and the pauper, respectively. Since with regard to doubtfully tithed produce, by definition, there is no certainty that one is actually required to tithe it, if the Levite or the pauper should seek to take possession of the gifts, they must first prove that in fact the produce was not tithed. b However, /b with regard to b second tithe, /b why are the bakers exempt? b Let them separate /b second-tithe from the produce, b take it up /b to Jerusalem, b and eat it in Jerusalem, /b which is the i halakha /i with regard to anyone else who purchases doubtfully tithed produce., b Ulla said: /b It is b because these i parhedrin /i , /b government appointees, b beat /b the bakers throughout the b entire twelve months /b of their tenure b and tell them: Sell /b your baked goods b cheaply, sell /b them b cheaply. /b Since the officers insist that the bakers refrain from raising their prices, b the Sages did not /b further b burden them /b with the exertion of separating second tithe from a large quantity of grain and taking it to Jerusalem, as they would be unable to raise their prices to cover the cost of the lost grain and the trip to Jerusalem. Since the presumptive status of the grain is that it was tithed, and the obligation to tithe doubtfully tithed produce is a stringency, the Sages exempted the baker from the obligation to do so. b What /b is the meaning of b i parhedrin /i ? /b These are royal b appointees [ i pursei /i ] /b charged with performance of different tasks.,§ Apropos the Second Temple period, when High Priests were frequently replaced, the Gemara cites that b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written: “The fear of the Lord prolongs days, but the years of the wicked will be shortened” /b (Proverbs 10:27)? b The fear of the Lord prolongs days; that /b is a reference to the b First Temple, which stood /b for b four hundred and ten years and in /b which b only eighteen High Priests served, /b as is written in the lists of the genealogy of the priests in the Bible., b But the years of the wicked will be shortened; that /b is a reference to the b Second Temple, which stood /b for b four hundred and twenty years and in /b which b over three hundred High Priests served. /b In calculating the tenures of the High Priests, b deduct from /b the figure of four hundred and twenty years b forty years that Shimon HaTzaddik served, and eighty /b years b that Yoḥa the High Priest served, ten /b years b that Yishmael ben Pavi served, and some say eleven /b years b that Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥarsum served. /b These men were all righteous and were privileged to serve extended terms. After deducting those one hundred and thirty or one hundred and forty-one years, b go out and calculate from this /b point b forward /b and conclude: b Each and every one /b of the remaining High Priests b did not complete his year /b in office, as the number of remaining High Priests is greater than the number of years remaining.,§ Apropos the sins of the High Priests in the Second Temple, the Gemara cites that b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Torta said: Due to what /b reason b was /b the Tabernacle in b Shiloh destroyed /b in the time of the prophet Samuel? It was destroyed b due to /b the fact b that there were two matters /b that existed b in /b the Tabernacle: b Forbidden sexual relations and degradation /b of b consecrated items. /b There were b forbidden sexual relations, as it is written: “Now Eli was very old and he heard what his sons were doing to all of Israel, how they lay with the women who did service at the opening of the Tent of Meeting” /b (I Samuel 2:22). b And although Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Anyone who says that the sons of Eli sinned /b by engaging in forbidden sexual relations b is nothing other than mistaken, /b even according to the alternative interpretation of the verse that it was b due to /b the fact |
|
32. Babylonian Talmud, Keritot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181, 306| 28a. לכבשתו והעני הואיל ונדחה ידחה,אמר רב הונא בריה דרב יהושע שמע מינה תלת שמע מינה בעלי חיים נדחים וקדושת דמים נדחה,ודחוי מעיקרא הוי דחוי,מתיב רב עוקבא בר חמא המפריש נקבה לפסחו קודם הפסח תרעה עד שתסתאב ותמכר ויביא בדמיה פסח ילדה זכר ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויביא בדמיו פסח,ר"ש אומר הוא עצמו יקרב פסח ש"מ בעלי חיים אינם נדחים,אמרי דבי רבי אושעיא כי אמרינן לרבנן דר"ש ס"ל בעלי חיים אינן נדחין,והגרלה אינה מעכבת דתניא מת אחד מהן מביא חבירו שלא בהגרלה דברי ר"ש,אלמא קסבר בעלי חיים אינן נידחין והגרלה אינה מעכבת,אמר רב חסדא אין הקינין מתפרשות אלא אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן,אמר רב שימי בר אשי מאי טעמא דרב חסדא דכתיב (ויקרא יב, ח) ולקחה שתי תורים וגו' (ויקרא טו, ל) ועשה הכהן וגו' או בלקיחת בעלים או בעשיית כהן,מיתיבי (ויקרא טז, ט) ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת ואין כהן עושה חטאת,שיכול והלא דין הוא ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל קידש השם מקום שיקדש הגורל אינו דין שיקדש השם,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,קתני שם דומיא דגורל מה גורל לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה אף השם נמי לאו בלקיחה ולאו בעשייה,אמר רב ה"ק ומה במקום שלא קידש הגורל בלקיחת בעלים ובעשיית הכהן קידש השם אי בלקיחת בעלים אי בעשיית כהן כאן שיקדש הגורל שלא בלקיחה ושלא בעשייה אינו דין שיקדש השם אי בלקיחה אי בעשייה,ת"ל ועשהו חטאת הגורל עושהו חטאת ואין השם עושהו חטאת,מיתיבי מטמא מקדש עני שהפריש מעות לקינו והעשיר,אמר אלו לחטאתי ואלו לעולתי מוסיף ומביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ואין מוסיף ומביא מדמי עולתו,והא הכא דליכא לא לקיחה ולא עשייה וקתני מביא חובתו מדמי חטאתו ולא מדמי עולתו,א"ר ששת ותסברא מתניתא מתקנתא היא דקתני והעשיר והא"ר אלעזר א"ר אושעיא מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שכבר אמר משעת ענייתו ה"נ שכבר אמר משעת הפרשתו,ולר' חגא א"ר אושעיא דאמר יצא מאי איכא למימר תני ואח"כ לקח ואמר,מיתיבי מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא עשיר שהביא קרבן עני לא יצא תיובתא דר' חגא א"ר אושעיא,אמר לך שאני גבי מצורע דמיעט רחמנא (ויקרא יד, ב) זאת,אי הכי אפילו מצורע עני נמי שהביא קרבן עשיר לא יצא לאיי הא אהדריה קרא תורת והתניא תורת לרבות מצורע עני שהביא קרבן עשיר יצא יכול אפילו עשיר שהביא קרבן עני שיצא תלמוד לומר זאת,ולילף מיניה אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, כא) ואם דל הוא ואין ידו משגת מצורע הוא דעשיר שהביא קרבן עני הוא דלא יצא אבל מטמא מקדש עשיר שהביא קרבן עני יצא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר כבשים קודמין את העזים בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהם ת"ל (ויקרא ד, לב) ואם כבש יביא קרבנו לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,תורין קודמין לבני יונה בכל מקום יכול מפני שהן מובחרים מהן תלמוד לומר ((ויקרא יב, ו) תור ובני) יונה או תור לחטאת מלמד ששניהם שקולין,האב קודם לאם בכל מקום יכול מפני שכיבוד האב קודם על כיבוד האם ת"ל (ויקרא יט, ג) איש אמו ואביו תיראו מלמד ששניהם שקולין אבל אמרו חכמים האב קודם לאם בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואמו חייבין בכבוד אביו,וכן בתלמוד תורה אם זכה הבן לפני הרב הרב קודם את האב בכל מקום מפני שהוא ואביו חייבין בכבוד רבו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר ד' צווחות צווחה עזרה צווחה אחת הוציאו מיכן בני עלי חפני ופנחס שטימאו את ההיכל,צווחה שניה פתחו שערים ויכנס יוחנן בן נדבאי תלמידו של פינקאי וימלא כרסו מקדשי שמים אמרו על בן נדבאי שהיה אוכל ארבע סאה גוזלות | 28a. instead b of a female lamb, and he /b then b became poorer, /b a bird pair is now the appropriate offering for him. Nevertheless, b since /b his offering b was disqualified /b at the outset because at that time he was obligated to bring a female lamb, b it is /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b Rav Huna, son of Rav Yehoshua, said: /b One can b conclude from this /b ruling b three /b i halakhot /i . b Conclude from it /b that b consecrated living animals can be /b permanently b disqualified /b even if the animal is unblemished, as is the case with regard to this pair of birds. b And /b conclude from it that when there is b sanctity /b that inheres in an animal’s b value, /b where the consecrated item will not be sacrificed as an offering, it can be b disqualified. /b When he was wealthy and designated the bird pair as his offering, the two birds were consecrated only with sanctity that inheres in their value because they were unfit for sacrifice, and yet the birds were permanently disqualified., b And /b finally, conclude from this that b a disqualification at the outset, /b when the animal is initially consecrated, b is /b considered a permanent b disqualification. /b Not only is an animal that was initially fit to be sacrificed and was later disqualified permanently disqualified, but even in a case such as this, where the birds were unfit for sacrifice from the beginning, the disqualification is permanent., b Rav Ukva bar Ḥama raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Temura /i 2:3): With regard to b one who designates a female /b animal b for his Paschal offering before Passover, /b since the Paschal offering must be a male it is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale. Similarly, if this animal b gave birth to a male /b animal, the offspring is left to b graze until it becomes blemished, /b at which point b it is sold and one brings a Paschal offering with the money /b received from its sale., b Rabbi Shimon says: /b It is not necessary to sell the offspring in such a case, as the offspring b itself is sacrificed /b as b a Paschal offering. Conclude from this /b statement of Rabbi Shimon that b consecrated living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified, /b as the mother was unfit to be a Paschal offering and yet the offspring, which is an extension of the mother’s sanctity, is fit for sacrifice., b The school of Rabbi Oshaya say: When we say /b that consecrated living animals can be permanently disqualified, this applies b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who maintain that the offspring is not sacrificed. Nevertheless, it is correct b that Rabbi Shimon holds /b that consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b , b And /b Rabbi Shimon likewise maintains b that /b the b drawing /b of the lots for the two goats on Yom Kippur to decide which goat is designated as a sacrifice and which is designated as the scapegoat, b is not indispensable. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one of /b the goats b died /b following their designation, one b brings another /b goat instead of it, and it is designated b without drawing /b lots. The surviving goat is still used for the purpose for which it was designated by the lot; this is b the statement of Rabbi Shimon. /b , b Evidently, Rabbi Shimon holds: /b Consecrated b living animals are not /b permanently b disqualified. /b Although the surviving goat was disqualified when the other goat died, it is once again fit when a new goat is designated as its partner. b And /b Rabbi Shimon also holds that the b drawing /b of the lots b is not indispensable, /b as the new goat was designated without drawing lots.,§ b Rav Ḥisda says: Nests, /b i.e., pairs of birds, b are designated, /b one as a burnt offering and one as a sin offering, b only /b in the following manner: b Either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or, /b if the owner did not designate the birds at that stage, by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b , b Rav Shimi bar Ashi said: What is the reason of Rav Ḥisda? As it is written /b with regard to the offering of a woman after childbirth: b “And she shall purchase two doves /b or two pigeons, one for a burnt offering and the other for a sin offering” (Leviticus 12:8). And with regard to the offering of a leper it is written: b “And the priest shall sacrifice /b the one for a sin offering, and the other for a burnt offering” (Leviticus 15:30). Together, these verses indicate that one bird is designated as a burnt offering and the other as a sin offering b either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice. /b ,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i in the i Sifra /i that discusses the drawing of lots for the two goats of Yom Kippur. The verse states: “Aaron shall bring forward the goat upon which the lot came up for the Lord, b and he shall sacrifice it for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 16:9). This teaches that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering, and /b likewise the act of the b priest, /b placing the lot on the goat, b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,A verse is required to teach this i halakha /i , b as /b one b might /b have come to the opposite conclusion: b Could this not /b be derived through an i a fortiori /i b inference, /b as follows: b And if in a case where /b the drawing of b a lot does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, e.g., a woman after childbirth, who cannot determine by lot the status of the two birds she must bring, one as a sin offering and one as a burnt offering, nevertheless, in such a case a verbal designation of b the name does sanctify /b with a specific designation; b is it not logical /b in b a case where /b the drawing of b a lot sanctifies /b an animal with a specific designation, i.e., the two goats of Yom Kippur, b that /b verbally designating b the name /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,The i baraita /i concludes: Therefore b the verse states, /b with regard to one of the two goats of Yom Kippur: b “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that the drawing of b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara explains the objection: The i baraita /i b teaches /b that verbally designating the b name /b of an offering b is similar to /b drawing b a lot. /b If so, one can reason as follows: b Just as /b the drawing of b a lot /b is b not /b performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice, so too /b verbal designation of b the name also /b does b not /b have to be performed b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice. /b This contradicts the opinion of Rav Ḥisda., b Rav said /b that b this /b is what the i baraita /i b is saying: And if in a place where /b the drawing of b a lot, /b either by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does not sanctify /b an animal with a specific designation, and nevertheless a verbal designation of b the name, either /b by the b owner /b at the time b of purchase or /b by the b priest /b at the time b of sacrifice, does sanctify /b it with a specific designation; b here, /b with regard to the two goats, b where /b the drawing of b a lot /b that does b not /b take place b at /b the time of b purchase nor at /b the time of b sacrifice sanctifies /b the animal with a specific designation, b is it not logical that /b verbally designating b the name, either at /b the time of b purchase or at /b the time of b sacrifice, /b should b sanctify /b it with a specific designation?,Therefore, b the verse states: “He shall sacrifice it for a sin offering,” /b to teach that drawing b the lot renders it a sin offering, but /b verbally designating b the name /b of the goat b does not render it a sin offering. /b ,The Gemara b raises /b another b objection /b to the opinion of Rav Ḥisda from a i baraita /i : In the case of b a poor person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who designated money for his nest, /b as he is required to bring one bird as a sin offering and another bird as a burnt offering, b and he /b then b became wealthier, /b he is now obligated to bring a female lamb or goat as a sin offering.,If he was unaware that he is no longer obligated to bring a pair of birds, and he b says: This /b money b is for my sin offering and this /b money b is for my burnt offering, /b which is an error, as he is not obligated to bring a burnt offering, b he adds /b more money b and brings his obligation /b of a lamb or goat for his sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his sin offering. But he may not add /b more money b and bring his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated b for his burnt offering, /b as one may not use money that is designated for a burnt offering for the purchase of a sin offering.,The Gemara explains the objection: b But here, /b the i baraita /i is dealing with a case where he said: This money is for my sin offering and that money is for my burnt offering, which means that he designated the money at a stage b that was not /b the time of b purchase nor /b the time of b sacrifice; and /b yet the i baraita /i b teaches /b that the designation is established and therefore b he brings his obligation /b of a sin offering b from /b the b money /b designated for b a sin offering but not from /b the b money /b designated for b a burnt offering. /b , b Rav Sheshet said: And can you understand /b that b this i baraita /i is properly /b explained, i.e., the i baraita /i as it stands is difficult, b as it teaches: He became wealthier /b and said: This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering. b But /b this is difficult, as b doesn’t Rabbi Elazar say /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says: A wealthy person who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b who brought /b the b offering /b of b a poor person /b to atone for his transgression has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. Since he cannot fulfill his obligation with that offering, how can his designation permanently establish the status of the money?, b Rather, what have you to say? /b You must say that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where he already said: /b This money is for my sin offering and this money is for my burnt offering, b at the time /b when b he was poor. So too, /b it is referring to a case b where he already said /b it even earlier, b at the time /b when b he designated /b the money, and therefore there is no difficulty for Rav Ḥisda.,The Gemara asks: b But according to Rabbi Ḥagga, /b who b says /b that b Rabbi Oshaya says /b that a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person has b fulfilled /b his obligation, b what can be said? /b According to this opinion, there is no inherent difficulty in the i baraita /i that necessitates Rav Sheshet’s interpretation, and therefore that i baraita /i apparently contradicts Rav Ḥisda’s ruling. The Gemara answers that one should b teach /b the i baraita /i as follows: b And after /b he became wealthier, b he purchased /b animals b and said /b at the time of purchase: This is designated as my sin offering and this as my burnt offering.,With regard to the dispute between Rabbi Elazar and Rabbi Ḥagga in the case of a wealthy person who brings the offering of a poor person, the Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b A poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. By contrast, b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. This is apparently b a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion b that Rabbi Ḥagga /b says that b Rabbi Oshaya says. /b ,The Gemara explains that Rabbi Ḥagga could have b said to you: /b The i halakha /i b is different with regard to /b a wealthy b leper, as the Merciful One excluded /b the possibility of a wealthy person bringing the offering of a poor person in the verse: b “This /b shall be the law of the leper” (Leviticus 14:2). The emphasis of “this” teaches that a leper fulfills his obligation only with the appropriate offering.,The Gemara objects: b If so, /b that this i halakha /i is derived from a verse, then b even /b in the case of b a poor leper who brings the offering of a wealthy person as well, /b he should b not fulfill /b his obligation. The Gemara rejects that suggestion: This is b not so, /b as b the verse returned /b to state: “This shall be b the law /b of the leper,” which includes a leper who brings an inappropriate offering. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase b “the law /b of the leper” serves b to include a poor leper who brought the offering of a wealthy person, /b that he b has fulfilled /b his obligation. One b might /b have thought that b even /b in the case of b a wealthy /b leper b who brought the offering of a poor person, he /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation. Therefore, b the verse states: “This /b shall be the law.”,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b But /b why not b derive /b a principle b from that /b verse that with regard to any sliding-scale offering, a wealthy person who brings a poor person’s offering has not fulfilled his obligation? The Gemara answers: With regard to a leper b the verse states: “And if he is poor and cannot afford” /b (Leviticus 14:21). The emphasis of “he” teaches that b it is /b only with regard to b a leper that a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b not fulfilled /b his obligation. b But /b in the case of b one who defiles the Temple, /b i.e., he entered the Temple while ritually impure, b a wealthy person who brought a poor person’s offering /b has b fulfilled /b his obligation., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabbi Shimon says: Lambs precede goats /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah that they are both mentioned, as in the verse: “You shall take it from the lambs or from the goats” (Exodus 12:5). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b sheep b are more select than /b goats. Therefore, b the verse states: /b “And he shall bring for his offering a goat” (Leviticus 4:28), after which it is written: b “And if he bring a lamb as his offering for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 4:32), which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Similarly, b doves precede pigeons /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “And he shall bring his guilt offering…two doves, or two pigeons” (Leviticus 5:7). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that /b doves b are more select than /b pigeons. Therefore, b the verse states: “And a pigeon or a dove for a sin offering” /b (Leviticus 12:6), with the usual order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. /b ,Likewise, mention of b the father precedes /b that of b the mother /b almost b everywhere /b in the Torah, as in the verse: “Honor your father and your mother” (Exodus 20:12). One b might /b have thought that it is b due to /b the fact b that the honor of the father takes precedence over the honor of the mother. /b Therefore, b the verse states: “Every man shall fear his mother and his father” /b (Leviticus 19:3), with the order reversed, which b teaches that both of them are equal. But the Sages said: /b Honor of b the father takes precedence over /b honor of b the mother everywhere, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his mother are obligated in the honor of his father. /b , b And likewise with regard to Torah study, if the son was privileged /b to acquire most of his Torah knowledge from studying b before the teacher, /b honor of b the teacher takes precedence over /b honor of b the father, due to /b the fact b that /b both the son b and his father are obligated in the honor of his teacher, /b as everyone is obligated in the honor of Torah scholars., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the mishna’s discussion of lambs and goats, b the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The Temple b courtyard cried four cries. The first cry /b was: b Remove Ḥofni and Pineḥas the sons of Eli /b the priest b from here, as they have rendered the Sanctuary /b in Shiloh b impure /b (see I Samuel 4:13–22)., b The second cry /b was: b Open /b the b gates, and let Yoḥa ben Nedavai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with /b meat of b offerings /b consecrated to b Heaven, /b as he is worthy to eat offerings. b They said about ben Nedavai that he would eat four i se’a /i of doves /b |
|
33. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 181| 57a. נימא תלתא תנאי הוו לא תרי תנאי הוו ותנא קמא דר' שמעון היינו ר' יוסי ותנא קמא דר' יוסי היינו ר' שמעון ומאי אף אקמייתא,ת"ר בן בוהיין נתן פיאה לירק ובא אביו ומצאן לעניים שהיו טעונין ירק ועומדין על פתח הגינה אמר להם בני השליכו מעליכם ואני נותן לכם כפליים במעושר לא מפני שעיני צרה אלא מפני שאמרו חכמים אין נותנין פיאה לירק,למה ליה למימרא להו לא מפני שעיני צרה כי היכי דלא לימרו דחויי קא מדחי לן,ת"ר בראשונה היו מניחין עורות קדשים בלשכת בית הפרוה לערב היו מחלקין אותן לאנשי בית אב והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע התקינו שיהיו מחלקין אותן מערב שבת לע"ש דאתיין כולהו משמרות ושקלן בהדדי,ועדיין היו גדולי כהונה נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטים עד שחיפו את ההיכל כולו בטבלאות של זהב שהן אמה על אמה כעובי דינר זהב ולרגל היו מקפלין אותן ומניחין אותן על גב מעלה בהר הבית כדי שיהו עולי רגלים רואין שמלאכתם נאה ואין בה דלם,תנא אבא שאול אומר קורות של שקמה היו ביריחו והיו בעלי זרועות נוטלין אותן בזרוע עמדו בעלים והקדישום לשמים,עליהם ועל כיוצא בהם אמר אבא שאול בן בטנית משום אבא יוסף בן חנין אוי לי מבית בייתוס אוי לי מאלתן אוי לי מבית חנין אוי לי מלחישתן אוי לי מבית קתרוס אוי לי מקולמוסן אוי לי מבית ישמעאל בן פיאכי אוי לי מאגרופן שהם כהנים גדולים ובניהן גיזברין וחתניהם אמרכלין ועבדיהן חובטין את העם במקלות,תנו רבנן ארבע צווחות צוחה עזרה ראשונה צאו מכאן בני עלי שטימאו היכל ה' ועוד צווחה צא מיכן יששכר איש כפר ברקאי שמכבד את עצמו ומחלל קדשי שמים דהוה כריך ידיה בשיראי ועביד עבודה,ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס ישמעאל בן פיאכי תלמידו של פנחס וישמש בכהונה גדולה ועוד צווחה העזרה שאו שערים ראשיכם ויכנס יוחנן בן נרבאי תלמידו של פנקאי וימלא כריסו מקדשי שמים,אמרו עליו על יוחנן בן נרבאי שהיה אוכל ג' מאות עגלים ושותה ג' מאות גרבי יין ואוכל ארבעים סאה גוזלות בקינוח סעודה אמרו כל ימיו של יוחנן בן נרבאי לא נמצא נותר במקדש מאי סלקא ביה ביששכר איש כפר ברקאי אמרי מלכא ומלכתא הוו יתבי מלכא אמר גדיא יאי ומלכתא אמרה אימרא יאי אמרו מאן מוכח כהן גדול דקא מסיק קרבנות כל יומא אתא איהו | 57a. b Let us say /b that b there are three i tanna’im /i /b who dispute this point: The two unattributed opinions, each of which is referring to two vegetables, and the opinion common to Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Shimon that includes all three vegetables. The Gemara rejects this: b No, there are /b only b two i tanna’im /i /b who dispute the point, b and the first i tanna /i /b whose opinion appears before the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon is Rabbi Yosei. And the first i tanna /i /b whose opinion appears before the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei is Rabbi Shimon. And what /b is the meaning of the word b even /b in both their statements? They agree with regard to b the first /b vegetable, turnips; however, they disagree with regard to the second, and replace it with another vegetable.,The Gemara cites an episode from the i Tosefta /i . b The Sages taught: The son /b of a man named b Bohayan designated /b for the poor b the /b produce in the b corner /b in a garden b of vegetables, and his father /b Bohayan b found the poor laden /b with b vegetables and standing at the opening of the garden /b on their way out. b He said to them: My sons, cast /b the vegetables that you have gathered b from upon yourselves and I will give you twice /b the amount in b tithed /b produce, and you will be no worse off. b Not because I begrudge /b you what you have taken. b Rather, it is because the Sages say: One does not designate /b for the poor b the /b produce in the b corner /b in a garden b of vegetables. /b Therefore, the vegetables that you took require tithing.,The Gemara asks: b Why /b was it necessary b for him to say to them: Not because I begrudge /b you what you have taken? It would have been sufficient to offer them tithed produce. The Gemara answers that he said it b so they would not say: He is putting us off, /b taking what we collected now, but later he will not fulfill his commitment.,Apropos the people of Jericho, the Gemara relates that powerful people would steal wood from them. b The Sages taught: Initially, /b the priests b would place the hides /b that were flayed from animals b consecrated /b as offerings of the most sacred order, which were given to the priests, b in the Parva chamber. In the evening, they would distribute them to the members of the family /b of priests serving in the Temple that day. b And the powerful /b priests among them would b take them by force /b before they could be distributed. The Rabbis b decreed that they would distribute them each Shabbat eve, /b because then b all the /b families of both priestly b watches came and took /b their part b together. /b All the families from both the watch that was beginning its service and the one ending its service were together when they divided the hides. The powerful priests were unable to take the hides by force., b Yet still the prominent priests /b by virtue of their lineage b would take them by force. /b Due to their prominence, the members of the rest of the watch dared not challenge them. When they realized that there was no equitable distribution, b the owners /b of the sacrifices ( i Me’iri /i ) b arose and consecrated /b the hides b to Heaven /b so the priests could not take them.,The Sages b said: Not a few days passed before they had plated the entire sanctuary with golden tablets /b with the proceeds from the redemption and sale of the hides. These plates b were one cubit by one cubit and as thick as a golden dinar. And /b when the people assembled b for the /b Festival b pilgrimage they would remove /b the tablets b and place them on a stair of the Temple Mount so that the pilgrims would see that the craftsmanship /b of the tablets b was beautiful and without flaw [ i dalam /i ]. /b Afterward they replaced the tablets in the Sanctuary., b It was /b similarly b taught /b that b Abba Shaul says: There were sycamore tree trunks in Jericho, and powerful people would take them /b from their owners b by force. The owners stood and consecrated /b these trunks b to Heaven. /b It was with regard to these trunks and the branches that grew from them that the residents of Jericho acted against the will of the Sages., b With regard to /b the prominent priests b and those like them, Abba Shaul ben Batnit said in the name of Abba Yosef ben Ḥanin: Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Baitos, woe is me due to their clubs. Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Ḥanin; woe is me due to their whispers /b and the rumors they spread. b Woe is me due to /b the High Priests of b the house of Katros; woe is me due to their pens /b that they use to write lies. b Woe is me due to /b the servants of the High Priests of b the house of Yishmael ben Piakhi; woe is me due to their fists. /b The power of these households stemmed from the fact b that /b the fathers b were High Priests, and their sons were /b the Temple b treasurers, and their sons-in-law were /b Temple b overseers [ i amarkalin /i ]. And their servants strike the people with clubs, /b and otherwise act inappropriately.,Apropos the critique of several prominent priests, the Gemara relates that b the Sages taught: /b The people in b the /b Temple b courtyard /b all b cried four cries, /b as they were in agreement over various issues ( i Pardes Rimonim /i ). The b first /b cry was: b Leave here, sons of Eli, who defiled God’s Sanctuary /b (see I Samuel 2:22). Subsequently the priesthood was transferred to the house of Zadok. b And an additional cry: Leave here, Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai, who honors himself and desecrates /b the items b consecrated /b to b Heaven. /b Due to his delicate nature and his disrespect for the Temple service, he would b wrap /b his hands b in silk [ i shirai /i ] and perform the service. /b This would invalidate the service because the silk was an interposition between his hands and the Temple vessels. Furthermore, his conduct demeaned the Temple service, as he demonstrated that he was unwilling to dirty his hands for it., b And /b the people in b the /b Temple b courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let /b the righteous b Yishmael ben Piakhi, the student of Pinehas /b ben Elazar the priest, b enter and serve as High Priest, /b although the members of this family were violent. b And /b the people in b the /b Temple b courtyard cried additionally: Lift your heads, O gates, and let Yoḥa ben Narbbai, the student of Pinkai, enter and fill his belly with /b meat b of offerings /b consecrated to b Heaven, /b as he is worthy to eat offerings., b They said about Yoḥa ben Narbbai that he /b and his household b would eat three hundred calves, and drink three hundred jugs of wine, and eat forty i se’a /i of doves for dessert. They said: /b Throughout b all the days of Yoḥa ben Narbbai there was no leftover /b sacrificial meat b in the Temple, /b as he would make certain that someone ate it. The Gemara asks: b What /b ultimately b happened to Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai? They said: The king and the queen were sitting /b and talking. b The king said /b that b goat /b meat b is better /b food, b and the queen said lamb /b meat is b better /b food. b They said: Who can prove /b which one of us is correct? b The High Priest /b can, b as he offers sacrifices all day /b and tastes their meat. The High Priest had the right to take a portion from any sacrifice offered in the Temple, and therefore was well acquainted with the tastes of different meat. Yissakhar of Kfar Barkai b came, /b and when they asked him this question, |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 258| 24a. גירי קא משדייא:,כמה היה גבוה ולאין היה נוטה כו': תנא חדא לצפונה דבריו קיימין לדרומה לא אמר כלום והתניא איפכא לדרומה דבריו קיימין לצפונה לא אמר כלום,לא קשיא כאן בימות החמה כאן בימות הגשמים,ת"ר אחד אומר גבוה ב' מרדעות ואחד אומר ג' עדותן קיימת אחד אומר ג' ואחד אומר ה' עדותן בטילה אבל מצטרפין לעדות אחרת,ת"ר ראינוהו במים ראינוהו בעששית ראינוהו בעבים אין מעידין עליו חציו במים חציו בעבים חציו בעששית אין מעידין עליו,השתא כולו אמרת לא חציו מבעיא אלא ה"ק חציו במים חציו ברקיע חציו בעבים חציו ברקיע חציו בעששית חציו ברקיע אין מעידין,ת"ר ראינוהו ושוב לא ראינוהו אין מעידין עליו כל הכי חזו לה ואזלי,אמר אביי ה"ק ראינוהו מאלינו ושבנו לראותו מדעתנו ולא ראינוהו אין מעידין עליו מאי טעמא אימור כוביתא דעיבא בעלמא הוא דחזי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ראש ב"ד אומר מקודש וכל העם עונין אחריו מקודש מקודש בין שנראה בזמנו בין שלא נראה בזמנו מקדשין אותו,ר"א בר' צדוק אומר אם לא נראה בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שכבר קידשוהו שמים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ראש ב"ד וכו': מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר גמדא א"ר יוסי בן שאול אמר רבי אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, מד) וידבר משה את מועדי ה' מכאן שראש ב"ד אומר מקודש:,וכל העם עונין אחריו מקודש מקודש מנלן אמר רב פפא אמר קרא (ויקרא כג, ב) אשר תקראו אותם קרי ביה אתם ר"נ בר יצחק אמר (ויקרא כג, ב) אלה הם מועדי הם יאמרו מועדי,מקודש מקודש תרי זימני למה לי דכתיב מקראי קודש:,ר"א בר' צדוק אומר אם לא נראה בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו: תניא פלימו אומר בזמנו אין מקדשין אותו שלא בזמנו מקדשין אותו,ר"א [בר"ש] אומר בין כך ובין כך אין מקדשין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא כה, י) וקדשתם את שנת החמשים שנים אתה מקדש ואי אתה מקדש חדשים א"ר יהודה אמר שמואל הלכה כר' אלעזר בר' צדוק,אמר אביי אף אנן נמי תנינא ראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל נחקרו העדים ולא הספיקו לומר מקודש עד שחשיכה הרי זה מעובר מעובר אין מקודש לא,מעובר איצטריכא ליה ס"ד אמינא הואיל וראוהו בית דין וכל ישראל איפרסמא ולא ליעברוה קמ"ל:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big דמות צורות לבנה היו לו לרבן גמליאל בטבלא ובכותל בעלייתו שבהן מראה את ההדיוטות ואומר הכזה ראית או כזה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ומי שרי והכתיב (שמות כ, כג) לא תעשון אתי לא תעשון כדמות שמשיי,אמר אביי לא אסרה תורה אלא שמשין שאפשר לעשות כמותן כדתניא לא יעשה אדם בית תבנית היכל אכסדרה תבנית אולם חצר כנגד עזרה שלחן כנגד שלחן מנורה כנגד מנורה אבל עושה | 24a. that the sun b is shooting arrows /b at those who deny its divinity, using the rainbow as its bow. The concave side of the rainbow always faces away from the sun, so that it does not look like a bow held by the sun.,§ The mishna taught that the examination of the witnesses included the following questions: b How high was /b the moon over the horizon, b and in which /b direction b did it tilt? It was taught /b in b one /b i baraita /i : If the witness testifies that he saw the moon b to the north /b of the sun, b his statement is valid. /b However, if he says that he saw it b to its south, he has not said anything /b of significance, as this is impossible. The Gemara asks: b Isn’t the opposite taught /b in a different i baraita /i : If he testifies that he saw the moon b to the south /b of the sun, b his statement is valid. /b However, if he says he saw it b to its north, he has not said anything. /b ,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here, /b in the second i baraita /i mentioned above, it is referring b to the summer, /b when the moon is to the south of the sun; b there, /b in the first i baraita /i mentioned above, it is referring b to the rainy season, /b when the moon is to the north of the sun., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b one /b witness b says /b that he saw the moon b two plow handles high /b above the horizon, b and /b the other b one /b says it was b three /b plow handles high, b their testimony is valid, /b as a small discrepancy of this kind is reasonable. However, if b one says /b that he saw the moon b three /b plow handles above the horizon, b and the /b other b one says /b it was b five /b plow handles high, b their testimony is void, /b as that discrepancy is unacceptable. b However, /b this does not mean that the witnesses themselves are disqualified, as either of them may b join with another testimony, /b i.e., he may combine his account with that of another witness who testifies likewise., b The Sages taught /b in another i baraita /i that if the witnesses say: We did not actually see the moon, but b we saw it /b reflected b in the water, /b or b we saw it /b reflected b in /b a glass b lantern, /b or b we saw it through /b thin b clouds, they /b may b not testify about it, /b as only a direct sighting of the moon is acceptable. If they say: We saw b half of /b the moon’s reflection b in the water, /b or we saw b half of it through the clouds, /b or we saw b half of it in a lantern, they /b still may b not testify about it. /b ,The Gemara analyzes this i baraita /i : b Now, /b if when one sees b the entire /b moon in this manner, b you said /b that this is b not /b valid testimony, b is it necessary /b to teach that one may not testify when he sees only b half of it? Rather, this is what /b the i baraita /i b is saying: /b If the witnesses saw b half of /b the moon’s reflection b in water /b and b half of it /b directly b in the sky, /b or b half of it through the clouds /b and b half of it in the sky, /b or b half of it in a lantern /b and b half of it in the sky, /b although they saw half of the moon directly, b they /b may b not testify /b about it until they see the entire moon in the sky., b The Sages taught /b in another i baraita /i that if the witnesses say: One moment b we saw /b the new moon, b but we did not see it again, they /b may b not testify about it. /b The Gemara asks: b Must they go on watching it to such /b an extent, i.e., why should they have to see it for a long period of time?, b Abaye said /b that b this is what /b the i baraita /i b is saying: /b If the witnesses say: b We saw /b the moon b on our own /b accord, i.e., by chance, without looking for it, b and /b then b we returned to look for it on purpose, /b to deliver precise testimony about it, b but we did not see it /b again, b they /b may b not testify about it. What is the reason? /b Because one can b say /b that the first time it was b merely a small round /b white b cloud that they saw, /b which they mistook for the moon, and that is why when they looked for it again they could not find it., strong MISHNA: /strong After the witnesses have been examined and their testimony accepted, b the head of the court says: /b It is b sanctified. And all the people respond after him: /b It is b sanctified; /b it is b sanctified. Whether /b the moon b was seen at its /b anticipated b time, /b on the thirtieth day of the previous month, b or whether /b it b was not seen at its /b anticipated b time, /b in which case witnesses are not necessary to establish the following day as the New Moon, the court b sanctifies it /b and formally proclaims the day as the New Moon., b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If /b the new moon b was not seen at its /b anticipated b time, /b the court b does not sanctify /b the New Moon on the following day, b as /b the celestial court in b Heaven has already sanctified it, /b precluding the need for the additional sanctification by the earthly court., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that b the head of the court /b says: It is sanctified. The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters, /b that the court must sanctify the New Moon, derived? b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda said /b that b Rabbi Yosei ben Shaul said /b that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b said /b that b the verse states: “And Moses declared /b to the children of Israel b the appointed seasons of the Lord” /b (Leviticus 23:44). b From here /b it is derived b that the head of the court says: /b It is b sanctified, /b as it is evident from the verse that Moses, whose status was equivalent to that of the head of the Great Sanhedrin, declared the appointed times of the Festivals and New Moons in a formal manner.,§ The mishna further teaches that after the head of the court says: It is sanctified, b all the people respond after him: /b It is b sanctified; /b it is b sanctified. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive this? b Rav Pappa said /b that b the verse states: “Which you shall proclaim them [ i otam /i ] /b to be sacred convocations” (Leviticus 23:2). Instead of i otam /i , b read into /b the verse: b You [ i atem /i ], /b as though the verse stated: Which you shall proclaim, you. This superfluous word you teaches that the month must be proclaimed not only by the head of the court, but also by you, the people. b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said /b that it is derived from the phrase: b “These are [ i hem /i ] My appointed seasons” /b (Leviticus 23:2). The term i hem /i can also mean: They, which indicates that b they, /b the people, b should /b likewise b say /b and announce b My appointed seasons. /b ,The Gemara further asks: b Why do I /b need the people to declare: It is b sanctified; /b it is b sanctified, twice? /b The Gemara answers that the reason is b that it is written: “Sacred convocations” /b (Leviticus 23:2) in the plural, which indicates that they must announce it twice.,§ The mishna taught that b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: If /b the new moon b was not seen at its /b anticipated b time, /b the court b does not sanctify /b the New Moon on the following day. The Gemara cites other opinions in this regard: b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the Sage b Palaimo says: /b If the new moon was seen b at its /b anticipated b time, /b the court b does not sanctify /b the New Moon, as the new moon appeared as expected and there is no need for any special sanctification. However, if the new moon was seen b not at its /b anticipated b time, /b the court must b sanctify /b the New Moon.,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: In either case, /b the court b does not sanctify /b the New Moon formally, b as it is stated: “And you shall sanctify the fiftieth year” /b (Leviticus 25:10), from which it is derived: b You /b must formally b sanctify years /b in court, b but you do not /b have to formally b sanctify months, /b as they are sanctified automatically by Heaven. Rather, it is enough merely to announce to the public that a certain day was established as the New Moon. b Rabbi Yehuda said /b that b Shmuel said: The i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Tzadok, /b that if the new moon was seen at its anticipated time, the court sanctifies the new month; however, if it was not seen at its anticipated time, they do not sanctify it., b Abaye said: We, too, learn /b in a mishna: If b the court and all of the Jewish people saw /b the new moon, and b the witnesses were interrogated, but /b the court b did not manage to say: Sanctified, before nightfall, /b the previous month b is /b rendered b a full, /b thirty-day month. This indicates that b full, yes; /b i.e., in this case, it is necessary to extend the previous month. However, b sanctified, no; /b there is no need to formally sanctify the month, as the New Moon does not occur on its anticipated date in this case.,The Gemara rejects this argument: There is no proof from here, as b it was necessary for /b the mishna to mention that the month is rendered b a full, /b thirty-day month. The reason is that it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since the court and the entire Jewish people saw /b the new moon, b it has become public /b knowledge b and /b therefore there is b no /b need b to /b render the previous month a b full, /b thirty-day month. Consequently, the mishna b teaches us /b that even in this case the previous month must be extended. Nevertheless, it is still possible that the New Moon must be formally sanctified on the following day., strong MISHNA: /strong b Rabban Gamliel had /b a diagram of the different b forms of the moon /b drawn b on a tablet /b that hung b on the wall of his attic, which he would show to the laymen /b who came to testify about the new moon but were unable to describe adequately what they had seen. b And he /b would b say /b to them: b Did you see /b a form b like this or like this? /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b And is it permitted /b to create these types of forms? b Isn’t it written: “You shall not make with Me /b gods of silver, or gods of gold” (Exodus 20:19), which is interpreted as teaching: b You shall not make images of My attendants, /b i.e., those celestial bodies that were created to serve God, including the sun and the moon?,§ b Abaye said: The Torah prohibited only /b the images of those b attendants /b with regard to b which it is possible to reproduce /b an item in b their likeness. /b Since it is impossible for anyone to reproduce the sun and the moon, the prohibition does not apply to these objects. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A person /b may b not construct a house /b in the exact b form of the Sanctuary, /b nor b a portico in /b the exact b form of the Entrance Hall /b of the Sanctuary, nor b a courtyard corresponding to /b the Temple b courtyard, /b nor b a table corresponding to the table /b in the Temple, nor b a candelabrum corresponding to the candelabrum /b in the Temple. b However, one may fashion /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305| 116a. שאין זה מקומה ר' אומר לא מן השם הוא זה אלא מפני שספר חשוב הוא בפני עצמו,כמאן אזלא הא דא"ר שמואל בר נחמן א"ר יונתן (משלי ט, א) חצבה עמודיה שבעה אלו שבעה ספרי תורה כמאן כר',מאן תנא דפליג עליה דר' רשב"ג הוא דתניא רשב"ג אומר עתידה פרשה זו שתיעקר מכאן ותכתב במקומה ולמה כתבה כאן כדי להפסיק בין פורענות ראשונה לפורענות שנייה פורענות שנייה מאי היא (במדבר יא, א) ויהי העם כמתאוננים פורענות ראשונה (במדבר י, לג) ויסעו מהר ה' וא"ר חמא בר' חנינא שסרו מאחרי ה' והיכן מקומה אמר רב אשי בדגלים,איבעיא להו הגליונין של ס"ת מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה ת"ש ס"ת שבלה אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה בלה שאני,ת"ש ס"ת שנמחק אם יש בו ללקט שמונים וחמש אותיות כגון פרשת ויהי בנסוע הארון מצילין ואם לאו אין מצילין ואמאי תיפוק ליה משום גיליון דידיה מקום הכתב לא קמיבעיא לי דכי קדוש אגב כתב הוא דקדוש אזל כתב אזלא לה קדושתיה כי קמיבעיא לי של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר ותיפוק ליה משום ההוא דגייז ושדי,ת"ש הגליונין של מעלה ושל מטה שבין פרשה לפרשה שבין דף לדף שבתחלת הספר שבסוף הספר מטמאין את הידים דילמא אגב ס"ת שאני,ת"ש הגיליונין וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה אלא נשרפין במקומן הן ואזכרותיהן מאי לאו גליונין דספר תורה לא גליונין דספרי מינין השתא ספרי מינין גופייהו אין מצילין גליונין מבעיא הכי קאמר וספרי מינין הרי הן כגליונים,גופא הגליונים וספרי מינין אין מצילין אותם מפני הדליקה רבי יוסי אומר בחול קודר את האזכרות שבהן וגונזן והשאר שורפן א"ר טרפון אקפח את בני שאם יבאו לידי שאני אשרוף אותם ואת האזכרות שבהן שאפי' אדם רודף אחריו להורגו ונחש רץ להכישו נכנס לבית ע"ז ואין נכנס לבתיהן של אלו שהללו מכירין וכופרין והללו אין מכירין וכופרין ועליהן הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו נז, ח) [ו] אחר הדלת והמזוזה שמת זכרונך,א"ר ישמעאל ק"ו ומה לעשות שלום בין איש לאשתו אמרה תורה שמי שנכתב בקדושה ימחה על המים הללו שמטילין קנאה ואיבה ותחרות בין ישראל לאביהן שבשמים על אחת כמה וכמה ועליהם אמר דוד (תהלים קלט, כא) הלא משנאיך ה' אשנא ובתקוממיך אתקוטט תכלית שנאה שנאתים לאויבים היו לי וכשם שאין מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה כך אין מצילין אותן לא מן המפולת ולא מן המים ולא מדבר המאבדן,בעי מיניה יוסף בר חנין מר' אבהו הני ספרי דבי אבידן מצילין אותן מפני הדליקה או אין מצילין אין ולאו ורפיא בידיה רב לא אזיל לבי אבידן וכ"ש לבי נצרפי שמואל לבי נצרפי לא אזיל לבי אבידן אזיל אמרו ליה לרבא מ"ט לא אתית לבי אבידן אמר להו דיקלא פלניא איכא באורחא וקשי לי ניעקריה דוכתיה קשי לי מר בר יוסף אמר אנא מינייהו אנא ולא מסתפינא מינייהו זימנא חדא אזיל בעו לסכוניה [הוספה מחסרונות הש"ס: רבי מאיר הוה קרי ליה און גליון רבי יוחנן הוה קרי ליה עון גליון.],אימא שלום דביתהו דרבי אליעזר אחתיה דרבן גמליאל הואי הוה ההוא פילוסופא בשבבותיה | 116a. b that this is not its place, /b as the previous portion does not discuss the nation’s travels. b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is not for that /b reason that signs were inserted. b Rather, /b the signs are there b because /b this portion b is considered a book unto itself. /b ,The Gemara asks: b According to whose /b opinion is b that /b which b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥman said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said, /b that with regard to the verse: “With wisdom she built her house, b she carved its seven pillars” /b (Proverbs 9:1), b these are the seven books of the Torah? According to whose /b opinion? It is b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, as by his count there are seven books of the Torah: Genesis; Exodus; Leviticus; Numbers until: “And when the Ark traveled”; the portion: “And when the Ark traveled,” which is considered its own book; the remainder of Numbers; and Deuteronomy., b Who is /b the b tanna who disagrees with Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? b It is Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: In the future, this portion will be uprooted from here, /b where it appears, b and will be written in its /b proper b place. And why was it written here, /b even though it discusses the travels of the children of Israel, and the portion before it does not? It is b in order to demarcate between the first punishment and the second punishment. What is the second punishment /b that appears immediately afterward? It is the verse: b “And the people complained /b wickedly in God’s ears, and God heard and became angry, and the fire of God burned in them and it consumed the edge of the camp” (Numbers 11:1). What is b the first punishment? /b It is the verse: b “And they traveled from the mountain of God [ i mehar Hashem /i ] /b for three days” (Numbers 10:33), b and Rabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, said: That they turned from after God [ i me’aḥarei Hashem /i ] /b and hurriedly fled Mount Sinai. The Gemara asks: b And /b if so, b where is /b the proper b place /b for this paragraph? b Rav Ashi said: In /b the portion of the b flags, /b where there is a description of the manner in which the Jewish people traveled through the desert., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: With regard to b the blank folios /b of parchment b of a Torah scroll, /b does b one rescue them from the fire /b on Shabbat, b or /b does b one not rescue them from the fire? Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this from that which we learned: With regard to b a Torah scroll that is worn, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not one does not rescue /b it. If even the blank folios are rescued, b why /b would one not rescue a Torah scroll with fewer than the requisite number of letters? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios. The Gemara /b answers: A Torah scroll that is b worn is different, /b because at that point its sanctity is negated, and its blank folios are not sacred. Therefore, one may rescue the scroll only if it contains eighty-five letters., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b a Torah scroll that was erased, if there is /b enough b in it to compile eighty-five /b complete b letters as in the portion of: “And when the Ark traveled,” one rescues /b it from the fire, b and if not, one does not rescue /b it. b And why /b is that so? b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to its blank folios, /b as the erased section is surely no less significant than the blank folios of the scroll. The Gemara answers: That is not so. In a case where b the place of the writing /b is erased b it is not a dilemma for me, as it is sacred due to /b the b writing. /b If the b writing is gone, its sanctity is gone. When it is a dilemma for me is /b with regard to the blank portions that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll. /b The Gemara asks again: b Derive /b that this scroll may be rescued b due to that /b area that is blank, whose sanctity remains. The Gemara replies: There, it is referring to a case b where /b the blank area b was cut and thrown /b out, and all that remains is the place of the writing., b Come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from what we learned in a mishna: The Sages decreed that b the blank folios /b that are b above and below, that are between /b one b section and /b another b section, that are between /b one b page and /b another b page, that are at the beginning of the scroll, /b and b that are at the end of the scroll render the hands /b that touch them b ritually impure. /b Apparently, the blank folios have the sanctity of a Torah scroll. The Gemara replies: That is not a proof, as b perhaps /b when it is b part of the Torah scroll, it is different, /b and in those circumstances the sanctity of the Torah extends to the blank portions. When they stand alone they have no sanctity.,Therefore, b come /b and b hear /b a different resolution from that which was taught in another i baraita /i : With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire; rather, they burn in their place, they and the names /b of God contained therein. b What, /b is this b not /b referring to the b blank folios /b of b a Torah scroll? /b The Gemara rejects this: b No, /b it is referring to the b blank folios /b of b the scrolls of heretics. /b The Gemara is surprised at this: b Now, /b with regard to b the scrolls of heretics themselves, one does not rescue /b them; is it b necessary /b to say that one does not rescue their b blank folios? /b Rather, b this is what it is saying: And the scrolls of heretics are like blank folios. /b ,Apropos the scrolls of heretics, the Gemara analyzes b the matter itself. /b With regard to b the blank folios and the /b Torah b scrolls of /b the b heretics, one does not rescue them from the fire. Rabbi Yosei says: During the week, one cuts the names /b of God contained b therein and buries them, and burns the rest. Rabbi Tarfon said /b in the form of an oath: b I will bury my sons /b if I fail to do the following, b that if /b these books b come into my possession I will burn them and the names /b contained b therein. As even /b if b a person is pursuing him /b with the intent b to kill him, and a snake is hurrying to bite him, one enters a house of idolatry and does not enter the houses of these /b heretics. The reason is b that these /b heretics b are aware /b of the greatness of the Creator manifest in the Torah and its mitzvot, b and /b nevertheless, they b deny /b the existence of God; b whereas these /b idolators b are not aware, and /b that is the reason that they b deny /b the existence of God. b And with regard to the /b heretics, b the verse says: “And behind the door and the doorpost you place your memory” /b (Isaiah 57:8). Although they remember the word of God, they treat it contemptuously, as if casting it behind the door., b Rabbi Yishmael said: /b The fact that the names of God in the scrolls of heretics may be burned can be derived through an b i a fortiori /i /b inference: b Just as to make peace between a husband and his wife, /b the b Torah says: My name that was written in sanctity shall be erased in the water /b in the framework of the ordeal of the i sota /i ; b these, /b the heretics, b who impose jealousy, and hatred, and conflict between the Jewish people and their Father in Heaven, all the more so /b it is proper to erase God’s names because of them. b And with regard to /b heretics, b David said: “For I hate those who hate You, God, and I fight those who rise against You. I hate them with the utmost hatred, they have become enemies to me” /b (Psalms 139:21–22). b And just as they, /b the scrolls of heretics, b are not rescued from the fire, neither are they rescued from a rockslide, nor from water, nor from /b any other b matter that destroys them. /b , b Yosef bar Ḥanin raised a dilemma before Rabbi Abbahu: /b With regard to b these books of the house of Abidan, /b does b one rescue them from the fire or /b does b one not rescue /b them? There were sacred Jewish texts in that house, which were used in debates and discussions on matters of faith. Rabbi Abbahu did not give him a clear answer but said b yes and no, and /b the matter was b uncertain to him. Rav would not go to the house of Abidan /b for conversation, b and all the more so /b he would not go b to the house of Nitzrefei, /b the Persian fire-temple. b Shmuel, to the house of Nitzrefei he did not go, /b but b to the house of Abidan he did go. /b The gentile scholars b said to Rava: Why did you not come to the house of Abidan? /b He evaded their question with an excuse and b said to them: There is a certain palm tree on the road, and /b that makes the path b difficult for me. /b They said to him: b We will uproot it. /b He said to them: Nevertheless, the resulting pit in b its place /b will be b difficult for me. Mar bar Yosef said: I am /b one b of them, /b we are friends, b and I do not fear them. /b Still, b one time he went /b and argued with them and b they sought to endanger his /b life. b Rabbi Meir would call /b the Christian writing, the Evangelion, the b wicked folio [ i aven gilyon /i ]; Rabbi Yoḥa /b called it the b sinful folio [ i avon gilyon /i ]. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Imma Shalom, /b the b wife /b of b Rabbi Eliezer, was Rabban Gamliel’s sister. There was /b a Christian b philosopher [ i pilosofa /i ] in their neighborhood /b |
|
36. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 18.3 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hidary (2017), Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash, 202| 18.3. וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, מַה כְּתִיב לְמַעְלָה מִן הָעִנְיָן (במדבר טו, לח): וְעָשׂוּ לָהֶם צִיצִת, קָפַץ קֹרַח וְאָמַר לְמשֶׁה טַלִּית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת מַהוּ שֶׁתְּהֵא פְּטוּרָה מִן הַצִּיצִית, אָמַר לוֹ חַיֶּיבֶת בְּצִיצִית. אָמַר לוֹ קֹרַח טַלִית שֶׁכֻּלָּהּ תְּכֵלֶת אֵין פּוֹטֶרֶת עַצְמָהּ, אַרְבָּעָה חוּטִין פּוֹטְרוֹת אוֹתָהּ. בַּיִת מָלֵא סְפָרִים מַהוּ שֶׁיְהֵא פָּטוּר מִן הַמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ חַיָּב בִּמְּזוּזָה, אָמַר לוֹ, כָּל הַתּוֹרָה כֻּלָּה מָאתַיִם וְשִׁבְעִים וְחָמֵשׁ פָּרָשִׁיּוֹת אֵינָהּ פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, פָּרָשָׁה אַחַת שֶׁבַּמְּזוּזָה פּוֹטֶרֶת אֶת הַבַּיִת, אָמַר לוֹ דְּבָרִים אֵלּוּ לֹא נִצְטַוֵּיתָ עֲלֵיהֶן, וּמִלִּבְּךָ אַתָּה בּוֹדְאָן, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב: וַיִּקַּח קֹרַח, אֵין וַיִּקַּח אֶלָּא לָשׁוֹן פְּלִיגָא, שֶׁלִּבּוֹ לְקָחוֹ. וְכָעִנְיָן שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (איוב טו, יב): מַה יִּקָּחֲךָ לִבֶּךָ, הוּא שֶׁמּשֶׁה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ט): הַמְעַט כִּי הִבְדִּיל אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָמְרוּ חֲכָמִים חָכָם גָּדוֹל הָיָה קֹרַח וּמִטּוֹעֲנֵי הָאָרוֹן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ז, ט): וְלִבְנֵי קְהָת לֹא נָתָן כִּי עֲבֹדַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֲלֵהֶם, וְקֹרַח בֶּן יִצְהָר בֶּן קְהָת, וּכְשֶׁאָמַר משֶׁה (במדבר טו, לח): וְנָתְנוּ עַל צִיצִת הַכָּנָף פְּתִיל תְּכֵלֶת, מִיָּד צִוָּה וְעָשׂוּ מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים טַלִּיתוֹת תְּכֵלֶת וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בָּהֶן אוֹתָן מָאתַיִם וַחֲמִשִּׁים רָאשֵׁי סַנְהֶדְרָאוֹת שֶׁקָּמוּ עַל משֶׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר טז, ב): וַיָּקֻמוּ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד. עָמַד קֹרַח וְעָשָׂה לָהֶם מִשְׁתֶּה וְנִתְעַטְּפוּ בְּטַלִּיתוֹת שֶׁל תְּכֵלֶת, בָּאוּ בְּנֵי אַהֲרֹן לִטֹּל מַתְּנוֹתֵיהֶם חָזֶה וְשׁוֹק, עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדָן, אָמְרוּ לָהֶן מִי צִוָּה אֶתְכֶם לִטֹּל כָּךְ, לֹא משֶׁה, לֹא נִתֵּן כְּלוּם, לֹא דִּבֵּר הַמָּקוֹם כָּךְ. בָּאוּ וְהוֹדִיעוּ אֶת משֶׁה, הָלַךְ לְפַיְסָן, מִיָּד עָמְדוּ כְּנֶגְדוֹ לְקַדְּמוֹ לִפְנֵי משֶׁה. וַאֲנָשִׁים מִבְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל חֲמִשִּׁים וּמָאתָיִם, מִי הֵם, אֱלִיצוּר בֶּן שְׁדֵיאוּר וַחֲבֵרָיו, (במדבר א, יז): הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁלֹא פִּרְסְמָן הַכָּתוּב נָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן, וּמִתּוֹךְ הַמִּקְרָאוֹת אַתְּ מֵבִין אוֹתָם. מָשָׁל לְמָה הַדָּבָר דּוֹמֶה, לְבֶן טוֹבִים שֶׁנִּמְצָא גוֹנֵב כֵּלִים מִבֵּית הַמֶּרְחָץ, וְלֹא הָיָה רוֹצֶה בַּעַל הַגְּנֵבָה לְפַרְסְמוֹ, הִתְחִיל נוֹתֵן סִימָנָיו, אָמְרוּ לוֹ מִי גָנַב כֵּלֶיךָ, אָמַר לָהֶם אוֹתוֹ בֶּן טוֹבִים בַּעַל קוֹמָה וְשִׁנָּיו נָאוֹת וְשַׂעֲרוֹ שָׁחוֹר וְחָטְמוֹ נָאֶה, מִשָּׁנָּתַן סִימָנָיו יָדְעוּ מִי הוּא. אַף כָּאן אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁסְּתָמָן הַכָּתוּב, בָּא וְנָתַן סִימָנֵיהֶן וְאַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ מִי הֵם, נֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר א, טז יז): אֵלֶּה קְרוּאֵי הָעֵדָה נְשִׂיאֵי מַטּוֹת אֲבוֹתָם רָאשֵׁי אַלְפֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל הֵם, וַיִּקַּח משֶׁה וְאַהֲרֹן אֵת הָאֲנָשִׁים הָאֵלֶּה אֲשֶׁר נִקְּבוּ בְּשֵׁמֹת, וְנֶאֱמַר כָּאן (במדבר טז, ב ג): נְשִׂיאֵי עֵדָה קְרִאֵי מוֹעֵד אַנְשֵׁי שֵׁם, וַיִּקָּהֲלוּ עַל משֶׁה וְעַל אַהֲרֹן. | 18.3. "3 (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: What is written above the matter (in Numb. 15:38)? “Speak unto the Children of Israel and tell them to make tassels ( i zizit /i ) for themselves.’” Korah quickly said to Moses, “In the case of a prayer shawl ( i tallit /i ) which is all blue, what is the rule about it being exempt from [having] the tassel?” Moses said to him, “[Such a prayer shawl] is required to have the tassels.” Korah said to him, “Would not a prayer shawl which is all blue exempt itself, when four [blue] threads exempt it? In the case of a house which is full of [scriptural] books, what is the rule about it being exempt it from [having] the mezuzah (which contains only two passages of scripture)?” [Moses] said to him, “[Such a house] is required to have the mezuzah.” [Korah] said to him, “Since the whole Torah has two hundred and seventy-five i parashiot /i in it sup 2 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Cf. i yShab. /i 16:1 (15c); i Soferim /i 16:10; M. Pss. 22:19, according to which there are 175 i parashiot /i in the Torah where an expression of speaking, saying, or commanding occurs. See also i Alfa Beta deRabbi ‘Aqiva, /i longer recension, i Tsade /i ( i Eisenstein, p. 421 /i ). /i and they do not exempt the house [from having the mezuzah], would the one i parasha /i which is in the mezuzah exempt the house?” [He also] said to him, “These are things about which you have not been commanded. Rather you are inventing them [by taking them] out of your own heart.” Here is what is written (in Numb. 16:1), “Now Korah […] took.” (Numb. 16:1) “Now Korah […] took”: Now “took (rt.: lqh)” can only be a word of discord, in that his heart carried him away (rt.: i lqh /i ). Thus is [the word] used (in Job 15:12), “How your heart has carried you away (rt.: i lqh /i ) […].” This explains what Moses said to them (in Numb. 16:9), “Is it too small a thing for you that the God of Israel has separated [you from the congregation to draw you near unto Himself, to perform the service of the Lord's tabernacle …]?” The sages have said, “Korah was a great sage and was one of the bearers of the ark, as stated (in Numb. 7:9), ‘But to the children of Kohath He gave no [wagons], because they had the service of the holy objects, which they carried on their shoulders.’” Now Korah was the son of Izhar, [who was] the son of Kohath. When Moses said (in Numb. 15:38), “And put on the tassel of each corner a thread of blue,” what did Korah do? He immediately ordered them to make two hundred and fifty blue shawls for those two hundred and fifty heads of i sanhedraot /i who rose up against Moses to wrap themselves in, just as it is stated (in Numb. 16:2), “And they rose up against Moses, together with two hundred and fifty men from the children of Israel, princes of the congregation, chosen in the assembly.” Korah arose and made them a banquet at which they all wrapped themselves in blue prayer shawls. [When] Aaron's sons came to receive their dues, [namely the] breast and right thigh, sup 3 /sup i class=\"footnote\" I.e., the priestly share of the animals slaughtered for the feast. See Lev.7:31-32. /i they arose against them and said to them, “Who commanded you to receive such? Was it not Moses? [If so,] we shall not give you anything, as the Holy One, blessed be He, has not commanded it.” They came and informed Moses. He went to placate sup 4 /sup i class=\"footnote\" i Rt /i .: PYS. See the Gk.: i peithein, peisai /i in the aroist. /i them. They immediately confronted him, as stated (ibid.), “And they rose up against Moses.” And who were they? Elizur ben Shedeur and his companions (the princes), the men (according to Numb. 1:17) “who were mentioned by name.” Although the text has not publicized sup 5 /sup i class=\"footnote\" From i PRSM /i . Cf. Gk: i parresiazesthai. /i /i their [names], it has given clues sup 6 /sup i class=\"footnote\" Gk.: i semeia. /i /i to their [identity], so that you [can] identify them from the [various] verses. A parable: To what is the matter comparable? To a scion of good parentage who stole articles from the bathhouse. The owner of what was stolen did not want to publish his [name. Rather,] he began to give clues about his [identity]. When they said to him, “Who stole your articles,” he said, “A scion of good parentage, a tall person with beautiful teeth and black hair.” After he had given his clues, they knew who he was. So also here where the text has concealed them and not specified their names, it comes and gives clues to their [identity]. You know who they are. It is stated elsewhere (in Numb. 1:16-17), “These were elected by the congregation, princes of their ancestral tribes, heads of thousands within Israel. So Moses and Aaron took these men who were mentioned by name.” Now here it is written (in Numb. 16:2-3), “princes of the congregation, elected by the assembly, men of renown. They gathered together against Moses and Aaron.”", |
|
| 37. Anon., Pesiqta De Rav Kahana, 15.7, 15.9 Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 305, 317 |
38. Babylonian Talmud, Zevahim, None Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Hayes (2015), What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives, 227| 21a. והא פרה דטמויי מטמינן ליה דתנן מטמאין היו הכהן השורף את הפרה ומטבילין אותו להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים במעורבי שמש היתה נעשית ש"מ לא פסלה בה (מחשבת) טומאה,שאני פרה הואיל דטבול יום לא פסיל בה אי הכי למה לי דמקדש כעין עבודה [בעינן],איבעיא להו מהו לקדש ידיו [ורגליו] בכיור (שמות ל, יט) ממנו אמר רחמנא ולא בתוכו או דלמא אפילו בתוכו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק תא שמע או שטבל במי מערה ועבד עבודתו פסולה הא מי כיור דומיא דמי מערה ועבד עבודתו כשרה,לא מי מערה איצטריכא ליה שלא תאמר כל גופו טובל בהן ידיו ורגליו לא כל שכן,אמר רבי חייא בר יוסף מי כיור נפסלין למתירין כמתירין לאברים כאברים,רב חסדא אמר אף למתירין אין נפסלין אלא בעמוד השחר כאברין ורבי יוחנן אמר כיור כיון ששקעו שוב אין מעלהו,למימרא דלעבודת לילה נמי לא חזי והאמר רבי אסי אמר רבי יוחנן משמיה דאילפא כיור שלא שקעו מבערב מקדש ממנו לעבודת לילה ולמחר אינו מקדש,מאי אינו מעלהו נמי דקאמר לעבודת יום אבל לעבודת לילה חזי,[אי הכי] היינו דרבי חייא בר יוסף | 21a. b And /b in preparation for the rite of the red b heifer, we /b intentionally b impart impurity to /b the priest after he has already sanctified his hands and feet, b as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Para /i 3:7): b They would render the priest who burns the heifer ritually impure and immerse him /b immediately, b to remove /b a misconception b from the hearts of /b the b Sadducees /b by means of a public display of disregard for their ruling. b As /b the Sadducees b would say: /b Only b by those for whom the sun set was /b the heifer ritual b performed. /b The Sadducees believed that it is prohibited for an impure priest who immersed that day to burn the red heifer until sunset, when the purification process is completed. The Gemara concludes: Since this impurity does not disqualify the sanctification of his hands and feet, b learn from it /b that b impurity does not disqualify /b sanctification of the hands and feet in general.,The Gemara responds: The service of the b heifer is different, as one who immersed that day is not unfit for /b performing b it, /b unlike any other rite. Likewise, impurity does not disqualify the sanctification of hands and feet preceding the service of the heifer. The Gemara asks: b If so, why do I /b require b that /b the priest b sanctify /b his hands and feet at all for the service of the red heifer? The Gemara responds: b We require /b that the service of the red heifer be b similar to /b the b service /b of offerings performed inside the Temple.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b What is /b the i halakha /i with regard to a priest who wishes b to sanctify his hands and feet /b by dipping them b in the Basin /b rather than letting the water run from it onto them? Must one say that the priest may not do so, since b the Merciful One states: /b “And Aaron and his sons shall wash their hands and their feet b from it” /b (Exodus 30:19), b and not inside it? Or perhaps /b the priest may b even /b use water still b inside it. /b , b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : b Or /b if a priest b immersed in cave water and performed /b the b service, his service is disqualified, /b since this is not adequate sanctification of the hands and feet. From the i baraita /i one infers: b But /b if he used b water from /b the b Basin /b in a manner b similar to cave water, /b i.e., by immersing his hands, b and performed /b the b service, his service is valid. /b ,The Gemara responds: b No, /b it is possible that immersing one’s hands in the Basin is insufficient as well. Nevertheless, it b was necessary for /b the i baraita /i to mention b cave water /b so b that you shall not say: /b If one b may immerse his entire body in /b cave water to purify himself, b all the more so /b is it b not /b clear that he may sanctify b his hands and feet /b by immersing them in cave water? The i baraita /i therefore teaches that despite being fit for immersion of the entire body, cave water is unfit for sanctification of the hands and feet.,§ b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef says: The water in /b the b Basin is disqualified /b by being left out, at different times of day for different rites. b For /b rites that are b permitting factors /b for an offering, i.e., that must be performed before the meat of the offering may be eaten, the water is disqualified at sunset, b like /b the b permitting factors /b themselves, which may be performed only during the day. For example, if a priest wishes to sprinkle an offering’s blood on the altar, he may not sanctify his hands and feet from the Basin unless it was sunk into its pit at sunset on the previous day, preventing the water from being disqualified. Similarly, b for /b the burning of the offering’s b limbs /b on the altar, which may be performed all night, the water in the Basin is disqualified at dawn, b like /b the b limbs /b themselves., b Rav Ḥisda says: Even for /b the performance of b permitting factors, /b the water b is disqualified only at dawn, as /b it is for the burning of the b limbs. And Rabbi Yoḥa says: Once /b one b has sunk /b the Basin into its pit at the end of the day’s service, reconnecting the water in the Basin to flowing water to prevent it from being disqualified, b he may not raise it up again /b the entire night.,The Gemara asks: b Is this to say that /b if the Basin was not sunk before sunset the water inside is b unfit for /b the b night’s service as well? But doesn’t Rabbi Asi say /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Ilfa: /b With regard to b a Basin that /b the priests b did not sink /b into its pit b at night, /b a priest b sanctifies /b his hands and feet b from it for the service of /b that b night, and the next day he does not sanctify /b from it? Apparently, for purposes of the night’s service, the water in the Basin is not disqualified at sunset.,The Gemara responds: b What /b does it mean b when it says: He may not raise it up /b again? It means that he may not raise it to sanctify his hands and feet in preparation b for /b the b day’s service; but /b the water is b fit /b for sanctification b for /b the b night’s service. /b ,The Gemara asks: b If so, this is /b the same as the opinion b of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Yosef, /b i.e., that for purposes of the day’s service the water in the Basin is disqualified at sunset, and for purposes of the night’s service it is disqualified at dawn. |
|
| 39. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q183, 1 Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 294 |
| 41. Palestinian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah 2.8, 58B,, 2.8 Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel Found in books: Simon-Shushan (2012), Stories of the Law: Narrative Discourse and the Construction of Authority in the Mishna, 259 |
| 42. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q258, 1, 1.4-5, 31.4, 31.5, 31.6 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan nan nan nan |
| 43. Anon., Leges Publicae, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 317 |
| 44. Anon., Sifre Zuta Numbers, 19.11 Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 306 |
| 45. Dead Sea Scrolls, 4Q259, 2.11-2.16 Tagged with subjects: •schwartz, daniel r. Found in books: Klawans (2009), Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism, 300 |
