1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 18.6, 18.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 322| 18.6. "אִישׁ אִישׁ אֶל־כָּל־שְׁאֵר בְּשָׂרוֹ לֹא תִקְרְבוּ לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָה אֲנִי יְהוָה׃", 18.19. "וְאֶל־אִשָּׁה בְּנִדַּת טֻמְאָתָהּ לֹא תִקְרַב לְגַלּוֹת עֶרְוָתָהּ׃", | 18.6. "None of you shall approach to any that is near of kin to him, to uncover their nakedness. I am the LORD.", 18.19. "And thou shalt not approach unto a woman to uncover her nakedness, as long as she is impure by her uncleanness.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 25.21-25.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 332| 25.21. "אִם־רָעֵב שֹׂנַאֲךָ הַאֲכִלֵהוּ לָחֶם וְאִם־צָמֵא הַשְׁקֵהוּ מָיִם׃", 25.22. "כִּי גֶחָלִים אַתָּה חֹתֶה עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ וַיהוָה יְשַׁלֶּם־לָךְ׃", | 25.21. "If thine enemy be hungry, give him bread to eat, And if he be thirsty, give him water to drink;", 25.22. "For thou wilt heap coals of fire upon his head, And the LORD will reward thee.", |
|
3. Mishnah, Avot, 4.2, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 322, 332| 4.2. "בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי רָץ לְמִצְוָה קַלָּה כְבַחֲמוּרָה, וּבוֹרֵחַ מִן הָעֲבֵרָה. שֶׁמִּצְוָה גּוֹרֶרֶת מִצְוָה, וַעֲבֵרָה גוֹרֶרֶת עֲבֵרָה. שֶׁשְּׂכַר מִצְוָה, מִצְוָה. וּשְׂכַר עֲבֵרָה, עֲבֵרָה: \n", 5.21. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 4.2. "Ben Azzai said: Be quick in performing a minor commandment as in the case of a major one, and flee from transgression; For one commandment leads to another commandment, and transgression leads to another transgression; For the reward for performing a commandment is another commandment and the reward for committing a transgression is a transgression.", 5.21. "He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.", |
|
4. Mishnah, Niddah, 5.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 277| 5.8. "אֵיזֶהוּ סִימָנֶיהָ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיַּעֲלֶה הַקֶּמֶט תַּחַת הַדָּד. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁיַּטּוּ הַדַּדִּים. בֶּן עַזַּאי אוֹמֵר, מִשֶּׁתַּשְׁחִיר הַפִּטֹּמֶת. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא נוֹתֵן יָדוֹ עַל הָעֹקֶץ וְהוּא שׁוֹקֵעַ וְשׁוֹהֶה לַחֲזֹר:", | 5.8. "What are the signs [of a bogeret]?Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: the appearance of the wrinkle beneath the breast. Rabbi Akiva says: from when the breasts hang down. Ben Azzai says: the darkening of the ring around the nipple. Rabbi Yose says: [the development of the breast to a stage] when one's hand is put on the nipple it sinks and only slowly rises again.", |
|
5. Mishnah, Sotah, 1.5-1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 277| 1.5. "אִם אָמְרָה טְמֵאָה אָנִי, שׁוֹבֶרֶת כְּתֻבָּתָהּ וְיוֹצֵאת. וְאִם אָמְרָה טְהוֹרָה אָנִי, מַעֲלִין אוֹתָהּ לְשַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח שֶׁעַל פֶּתַח שַׁעַר נִקָּנוֹר, שֶׁשָּׁם מַשְׁקִין אֶת הַסּוֹטוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַיּוֹלְדוֹת, וּמְטַהֲרִין אֶת הַמְּצֹרָעִים. וְכֹהֵן אוֹחֵז בִּבְגָדֶיהָ, אִם נִקְרְעוּ נִקְרָעוּ, אִם נִפְרְמוּ נִפְרָמוּ, עַד שֶׁהוּא מְגַלֶּה אֶת לִבָּהּ, וְסוֹתֵר אֶת שְׂעָרָהּ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם הָיָה לִבָּהּ נָאֶה, לֹא הָיָה מְגַלֵּהוּ. וְאִם הָיָה שְׂעָרָהּ נָאֶה, לֹא הָיָה סוֹתְרוֹ: \n", 1.6. "הָיְתָה מִתְכַּסָּה בִלְבָנִים, מְכַסָּהּ בִּשְׁחוֹרִים. הָיוּ עָלֶיהָ כְלֵי זָהָב וְקַטְלָיאוֹת, נְזָמִים וְטַבָּעוֹת, מַעֲבִירִים מִמֶּנָּה כְּדֵי לְנַוְּלָהּ. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מֵבִיא חֶבֶל מִצְרִי וְקוֹשְׁרוֹ לְמַעְלָה מִדַּדֶּיהָ. וְכָל הָרוֹצֶה לִרְאוֹת בָּא לִרְאוֹת, חוּץ מֵעֲבָדֶיהָ וְשִׁפְחוֹתֶיהָ, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁלִּבָּהּ גַּס בָּהֶן. וְכָל הַנָּשִׁים מֻתָּרוֹת לִרְאוֹתָהּ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יחזקאל כג) וְנִוַּסְּרוּ כָּל הַנָּשִׁים וְלֹא תַעֲשֶׂינָה כְּזִמַּתְכֶנָה: \n", | 1.5. "If she said, “I am defiled to you”, she gives him a receipt for her ketubah and goes out [with a get]. But if she says, “I am pure”, they bring her up to the east gate, Nicanor’s gate, where they give women suspected of adultery the water to drink, purify women after childbirth and purify lepers. A priest seizes her clothing if they are torn, then they are torn, and if they become unstitched, then they are unstitched, until he uncovers her bosom, and he undoes [the braids of] her hair. Rabbi Judah says: if her bosom was beautiful he does not uncover it, and if her hair was beautiful he does not undo it.", 1.6. "If she was clothed in white, he clothes her in black. If she wore gold jewelry or necklaces, ear-rings and finger-rings, they remove them from her in order to make her repulsive. After that [the priest] takes a rope made of twigs and binds it over her breasts. Whoever wishes to look upon her comes to look with the exception of her male and female slaves, since she has no shame in front of them. All of the women are permitted to look upon her, as it is said, “That all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” (Ezekiel 23:48).", |
|
6. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 332| 28a. התם הוא דמבטל אבל הכא דלא מבטל לא,ת"ר מעשה ברבי אליעזר ששבת בגליל העליון ושאלוהו שלשים הלכות בהלכות סוכה שתים עשרה אמר להם שמעתי שמונה עשר אמר להם לא שמעתי ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר חילוף הדברים שמונה עשר אמר להם שמעתי שתים עשרה אמר להם לא שמעתי,אמרו לו כל דבריך אינן אלא מפי השמועה אמר להם הזקקתוני לומר דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבותי מימי לא קדמני אדם בבית המדרש ולא ישנתי בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא הנחתי אדם בבית המדרש ויצאתי ולא שחתי שיחת חולין ולא אמרתי דבר שלא שמעתי מפי רבי מעולם,אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי מימיו לא שח שיחת חולין ולא הלך ד' אמות בלא תורה ובלא תפילין ולא קדמו אדם בבית המדרש ולא ישן בבית המדרש לא שינת קבע ולא שינת עראי ולא הרהר במבואות המטונפות ולא הניח אדם בבית המדרש ויצא ולא מצאו אדם יושב ודומם אלא יושב ושונה ולא פתח אדם דלת לתלמידיו אלא הוא בעצמו ולא אמר דבר שלא שמע מפי רבו מעולם ולא אמר הגיע עת לעמוד מבית המדרש חוץ מערבי פסחים וערבי יום הכפורים וכן היה ר' אליעזר תלמידו נוהג אחריו,תנו רבנן שמונים תלמידים היו לו להלל הזקן שלשים מהן ראוים שתשרה עליהן שכינה כמשה רבינו ושלשים מהן ראוים שתעמוד להם חמה כיהושע בן נון עשרים בינונים גדול שבכולן יונתן בן עוזיאל קטן שבכולן רבן יוחנן בן זכאי,אמרו עליו על רבן יוחנן בן זכאי שלא הניח מקרא ומשנה גמרא הלכות ואגדות דקדוקי תורה ודקדוקי סופרים קלים וחמורים וגזרות שוות תקופות וגימטריאות שיחת מלאכי השרת ושיחת שדים ושיחת דקלים משלות כובסין משלות שועלים דבר גדול ודבר קטן,דבר גדול מעשה מרכבה דבר קטן הויות דאביי ורבא לקיים מה שנאמר (משלי ח, כא) להנחיל אוהבי יש ואוצרותיהם אמלא וכי מאחר שקטן שבכולן כך גדול שבכולן על אחת כמה וכמה אמרו עליו על יונתן בן עוזיאל בשעה שיושב ועוסק בתורה כל עוף שפורח עליו מיד נשרף:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית ב"ש פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו להם ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את רבי יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו שהיה יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושולחנו בתוך הבית ולא אמרו לו דבר אמרו להם ב"ש משם ראיה אף הם אמרו לו אם כן היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,נשים ועבדים וקטנים פטורין מן הסוכה קטן שאינו צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה מעשה וילדה כלתו של שמאי הזקן ופיחת את המעזיבה וסיכך על גבי המטה בשביל קטן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מה"מ דת"ר אזרח זה אזרח (ויקרא כג, מב) האזרח להוציא את הנשים כל לרבות את הקטנים,אמר מר האזרח להוציא את הנשים למימרא דאזרח בין נשים בין גברי משמע והתניא האזרח לרבות את הנשים האזרחיות שחייבות בעינוי אלמא אזרח גברי משמע אמר רבה הלכתא נינהו ואסמכינהו רבנן אקראי,הי קרא והי הלכתא ותו קרא למה לי הלכתא למה לי הא סוכה מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא וכל מצות עשה שהזמן גרמא נשים פטורות,יום הכפורים מדרב יהודה אמר רב נפקא דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב וכן תנא דבי רבי ישמעאל אמר קרא (במדבר ה, ו) איש או אשה | 28a. The Gemara answers: There is a difference between the case of the shutter and the case of the sheet. b There, /b in the case of the shutter, b where he negates /b it by shuttering the window, it is considered part of the building and it is therefore prohibited. b However, here, /b in the case of the sheet, b where he does not negate /b it, as he plans on removing it, b no, /b it is not necessarily prohibited.,The Gemara relates a similar incident. b The Sages taught: /b There was b an incident involving Rabbi Eliezer, who stayed in the Upper Galilee, and /b the people there b asked him thirty i halakhot /i in the i halakhot /i of i sukka /i . /b In response to b twelve, he said to them: I heard /b an answer from my teachers, and he related what he heard. In response to the other b eighteen, he said to them: I did not hear /b an answer. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: /b It was b the reverse of these matters. /b In response to b eighteen he said to them: I heard /b an answer; in response to the other b twelve he said to them: I did not hear /b an answer., b They said to him: Are all the matters /b that b you /b know b only from what /b you b heard? /b Don’t you say any matters on your own? b He said to them: /b Now b you forced me to say a matter that I did not hear from my teachers, /b as I must describe my character traits and the manner in which I conduct myself. b In /b all b my days, no person ever preceded me into the study hall, /b as I am always first to arrive; b and I never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and I never left anyone in the study hall and exited, /b as I was always last to leave; b and I never engaged in idle conversation; /b rather, I discussed only necessary matters or matters of Torah; b and I never said anything that I did not hear from my teacher. /b That is why he did not answer those questions that his teacher did not address.,Apropos the character traits of Rabbi Eliezer, the Gemara cites character traits of his teacher. The Sages b said about Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai, /b the teacher of Rabbi Eliezer: b In /b all b his days he never engaged in idle conversation; and he never walked four cubits without /b engaging in b Torah /b study b and without /b donning b phylacteries; and no person ever preceded him into the study hall; and he never slept in the study hall, neither substantial sleep nor a brief nap; and he never contemplated /b matters of Torah b in alleyways filthy /b with human excrement, as doing so is a display of contempt for the Torah; b and he never left anyone in the study hall and exited; and no person ever found him sitting and silent, /b i.e., inactive; b rather, he /b was always b sitting and studying; and only he opened the door for his students, /b disregarding his own eminent standing; b and he never said anything that he did not hear from his teacher; and he never said /b to his students that b the time has arrived to arise /b and leave b the study hall except on Passover eves, /b when they were obligated to sacrifice the Paschal lamb, and b Yom Kippur eves, /b when there is a mitzva to eat and drink abundantly. b And Rabbi Eliezer, his student, accustomed /b himself to model his conduct b after his /b example.,The Gemara continues to praise the Sages. b The Sages taught: Hillel the Elder had eighty students. Thirty of them /b were sufficiently b worthy that the Divine Presence /b should b rest upon them as /b it did upon b Moses our teacher, and thirty of them /b were sufficiently b worthy that the sun /b should b stand still for them as /b it did for b Joshua bin Nun, and twenty /b were on an b intermediate /b level between the other two. b The greatest of all /b the students was b Yonatan ben Uzziel, and the youngest of them /b was b Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai. /b ,The Gemara relates: The Sages b said about Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai /b that b he did not neglect Bible; Mishna; Gemara; i halakhot /i and i aggadot /i ; minutiae of the Torah and minutiae of the scribes; /b the hermeneutical principles of the Torah with regard to b i a fortiori /i inferences and verbal analogies; /b the calculation of the calendrical b seasons; /b and b numerology [ i gimmatreyaot /i ]. /b In addition, he did not neglect esoteric matters, including b the conversation of ministering angels; the conversation of demons, and the conversation of palm trees; parables of launderers, /b which are folk tales that can be used to explain the Torah; b parables of foxes; /b and more generally, b a great matter and a small matter. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b A great matter /b is referring to the secrets of the b Design of the /b Divine b Chariot, /b the conduct of the transcendent universe. b A small matter /b is, for example, i halakhot /i that were ultimately formulated in the framework of b the disputes of Abaye and Rava. /b He did not neglect any of these disciplines so as b to fulfill that which is stated: “That I may cause those that love me to inherit substance and that I may fill their treasuries” /b (Proverbs 8:21), as Rabban Yoḥa was filled with the disciplines of Torah and wisdom. b And if the youngest of them was so /b prolific, b the greatest of them /b was b all the more so /b prolific. The Gemara relates that the Sages b said of Yonatan ben Uzziel, /b the greatest of Hillel’s students, b that when he sat and was engaged in Torah /b study, the sanctity that he generated was so intense that b any bird that flew over him was immediately incinerated. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong In the case of b one whose head and most of his /b body b were in the i sukka /i and his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem it unfit, and Beit Hillel deem it fit. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: /b And b wasn’t there an incident where the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit and they found him /b such b that he was sitting with his head and most of his /b body b in the i sukka /i and his table in the house, and they said nothing to him? /b Even Beit Shammai did not object. b Beit Shammai said to them: /b Is there b proof from there? /b That is not what happened; rather, b they said to him: If you were accustomed /b to act in b this /b manner, b you have never fulfilled the mitzva of i sukka /i in your life. /b ,The mishna continues: b Women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the /b mitzva of b i sukka /i . A minor who does not need his mother /b any longer b is obligated /b in the mitzva. There was b an incident where the daughter-in-law of Shammai the Elder gave birth /b just before i Sukkot /i , and Shammai b removed the /b coat of b plaster /b from the roof, leaving the beams, b and roofed /b with the beams b over the bed for the /b newborn b minor. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the i halakha /i that women, slaves, and minors are exempt from the mitzva of i sukka /i , the Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? The Gemara answers that it is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i that it is stated: “All the homeborn in Israel shall reside in i sukkot /i ” (Leviticus 23:42). Had the verse stated only: b Homeborn, /b it would have been derived b that /b any b homeborn /b member of the Jewish people is obligated to observe this mitzva. However, the term with the addition of the definite article: b “The homeborn,” /b indicates that only certain homeborn members are obligated, i.e., men, b to the exclusion of the women. /b The word “all” in the phrase: b “All /b the homeborn,” comes b to include the minors /b capable of performing this mitzva.,§ The Gemara analyzes the i baraita /i . b The Master said: “The homeborn” /b is b to the exclusion of women. Is that to say that /b the term b homeborn /b without the definite article b indicates both men and women? Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to Yom Kippur that it is stated: “And it shall be a statute forever unto you: In the seventh month, on the tenth day of the month, you shall afflict your souls and shall do no manner of work, the homeborn, or the stranger that sojourns among you” (Leviticus 16:29). And the term b “the homeborn” /b in that verse comes b to include homeborn women, who are obligated in /b the mitzva of b affliction /b on Yom Kippur. In that case, the definite article comes to include women. Therefore, b apparently, /b the term homeborn, without the definite article, b indicates /b only b men. Rabba said: They are /b each a b i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai, b and the Sages /b merely b supported them with verses /b as a mnemonic device. Therefore, it is not surprising that the derivations are contradictory.,The Gemara asks: b Which /b of them b is /b derived from b the verse and which is a i halakha /i /b transmitted to Moses from Sinai and merely supported by a verse? b And furthermore, why do I /b need b the verse and why do I /b need b the i halakha /i ? Isn’t i sukka /i a positive, time-bound mitzva, and /b the principle is that b women are exempt from all positive, time-bound mitzvot? /b There is no need for a special derivation to exempt women from the mitzva of i sukka /i .,And there is no need for a derivation with regard to their obligation to fast on b Yom Kippur, /b as that can be b derived from /b that b which Rav Yehuda /b said that b Rav said, as Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said, and it was likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: The verse says: /b “When b a man or woman /b shall commit any sin that a person commits, to commit a trespass against the Lord, and that soul be guilty” (Numbers 5:6). |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 171| 37b. הלכתא אהלכתא,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דכל ספיקא לר' אליעזר בן יעקב כודאי משוי ליה,דתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר הרי שבא על נשים הרבה ואין יודע על איזהו מהן בא וכן היא שבאו עליה אנשים הרבה ואינה יודעת מאיזה מהן קבלה נמצא אב נושא את בתו ואח נושא את אחותו ונתמלא כל העולם כולו ממזרין ועל זה נאמר (ויקרא יט, כט) ומלאה הארץ זמה,ורבא אמר לך הכי קאמר זו מה היא,יתר על כן אמר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב לא ישא אדם אשה במדינה זו וילך וישא אשה במדינה אחרת שמא יזדווגו זה לזה ונמצא אח נושא את אחותו,איני והא רב כי איקלע לדרדשיר [מכריז] ואמר מאן הויא ליומא ורב נחמן כי איקלע לשכנציב [מכריז] ואמר מאן הויא ליומא,שאני רבנן דפקיע שמייהו,והאמר רבא תבעוה לינשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים,רבנן שלוחייהו הוו משדרי ומודעי להו ואיבעית אימא לרבנן יחודי בעלמא הוא דמייחדי להו דאמר מר אינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו,תנא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא ישא אדם אשתו ודעתו לגרשה משום שנאמר (משלי ג, כט) אל תחרש על רעך רעה והוא יושב לבטח אתך:,ספק ויבם שבאו לחלוק בנכסי מיתנא,ספק אמר אנא בר מיתנא הוא ונכסי דידי הוא ויבם אמר את בראי דידי את ולית לך ולא מידי בנכסי הוי ממון המוטל בספק וממון המוטל בספק חולקין,ספק ובני יבם שבאו לחלוק בנכסי מיתנא ספק אמר ההוא גברא בר מיתנא הוא ונכסי דידי הוא בני יבם אמרי את אחינו את ומנתא הוא דאית לך בהדן,סבור רבנן קמיה דרב משרשיא למימר מתניתין היא דתנן הוא אינו יורש אותם והם יורשין אותו,והכא איפכא התם אמרי ליה אייתי ראיה ושקול,הכא אמר להו אייתו ראיה ושקולו,אמר להו רב משרשיא מי דמי התם אינהו ודאי ואיהו ספק הכא אידי ואידי ספק,אלא אי דמיא למתני' [להא] דמיא לספק ובני יבם שבאו לחלוק בנכסי יבם גופיה דהתם אמרי ליה אייתי ראיה דאחונא את ושקול,ספק ובני יבם שבאו לחלוק בנכסי יבם לבתר דפלג יבם בנכסי מיתנא,בני יבם אמרי אייתי ראיה דאחונא את ושקול אמר להו ספק מה נפשייכו אי אחוכון אנא הבו לי מנתא בהדייכו ואי בר מיתנא אנא הבו לי פלגא דפלג אבוכון בהדאי,ר' אבא אמר רב קם דינא ר' ירמיה אמר הדר דינא,לימא בפלוגתא דאדמון ורבנן קמיפלגי דתנן מי שהלך למדינת הים ואבדה לו דרך שדהו אדמון אמר ילך בקצרה וחכ"א יקח לו דרך במאה מנה או יפרח באויר,והוינן בה לרבנן שפיר קאמר אדמון ואמר רב יהודה אמר רב הכא במאי עסקינן כגון שהקיפוה ארבעה בני אדם מארבע רוחות,א"ה מ"ט דאדמון ואמר רבא בארבעה דאתו מכח ארבעה וארבעה דאתו מכח חד כולי עלמא לא פליגי דמצו מדחי ליה,כי פליגי בחד דאתי מכח ארבעה אדמון סבר מצי א"ל מכל מקום דרכי גבך הוא ורבנן סברי דא"ל אי שתקת שתקת ואי לא מהדרנא שטרא למרייהו ולא מצית לאשתעויי דינא בהדייהו,לימא ר' אבא דאמר כרבנן,ור' ירמיה דאמר כאדמון,אמר לך ר' אבא אנא דאמרי אפילו כאדמון עד כאן לא קאמר אדמון התם אלא משום דא"ל ממה נפשך | 37b. one b i halakha /i , /b i.e., that the i halakha /i in this case is in accordance with the opinion of Rav, b and /b another b i halakha /i , /b i.e., that the i halakha /i is always decided in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov., b Abaye said: From where do I say that /b concerning b anyone /b whose status as a i mamzer /i is b uncertain, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov /b they b are treated equivalently to /b one who is b definitely /b a i mamzer /i ?, b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b With regard to one b who engaged in intercourse with /b and impregnated b many women, but he does not know with which /b women b he had intercourse, and similarly, /b with regard to a woman, if b many men had intercourse with her /b and she became pregt, b but she does not know from which /b man b she received /b the seed that caused her to become pregt, since the identities of the parents of those children are not known, b it could emerge /b that b a father marries his daughter, and a brother marries his sister. And /b in this way, b the entire world could become filled with i mamzerim /i . And concerning this, it is stated: “And lest the land become full of lewdness” /b (Leviticus 19:29). Abaye demonstrates his claim from the fact that even though it is not certain that the children in this situation are i mamzerim /i , nevertheless, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov labels them as i mamzerim /i and not as those whose status as a i mamzer /i is uncertain., b And Rava /b could have b said to you: This is what /b the verse b is saying: /b The word “lewdness [ i zima /i ]” can be understood as an acronym of the words: i Zo ma hi /i , meaning: b What is this. /b It is plausible to say that Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s citation of this verse indicates that he regards their status to be uncertain.,The Gemara cites the continuation of the i baraita /i : b Furthermore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov said /b that even in marriage, one should be careful not to create a situation that could lead to the birth of i mamzerim /i . Therefore, b a man should not marry a woman in this country and /b then b go and marry /b another b woman in a different country, lest /b a son from one marriage and a daughter from the other, unaware that they are both children of the same father, b unite with one another, and it could emerge /b that b a brother marries his sister, /b the children of whom would be i mamzerim /i .,The Gemara asks: b Is that so; /b is there really such a prohibition? b But didn’t Rav, when he happened /b to come b to Dardeshir, make a public announcement saying: Which /b woman b will be /b my wife b for the day, /b i.e., for the duration of his visit? Since his wife did not accompany him to Dardeshir, he wished to be married to another woman while he was there, in order to avoid a situation that could lead him to having forbidden thoughts. b And /b also b Rav Naḥman, when he happened /b to come b to Shakhnetziv, made a public announcement saying: Which /b woman b will be /b my wife b for the day? /b It would appear, from the fact that both Sages married wives in two different places, that there is no prohibition in doing so.,The Gemara rejects the proof: b Sages are different, as their names are renowned, /b and therefore their children are always identified by their connection to their father. Therefore, Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov’s concern does not apply to them.,The Gemara examines Rav and Rav Naḥman’s actions: b But didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to a woman b who had an offer of marriage and accepted, /b the emotional excitement may have caused her to have a flow of menstrual blood, which would making her ritually impure and prohibit her from engaging in intercourse. Even if she was unaware of any flow, she must consider the possibility that it occurred. To purify herself, b she needs to wait seven /b consecutive days that are b clean /b from any flow of menstrual blood and then immerse in a ritual bath. Only then may she marry. If so, how could Rav and Rav Naḥman marry women on the day they arrived?,The Gemara explains: These b Sages would send messengers /b seven days ahead of their arrival and b they /b would b inform /b the women of the Sage’s arrival. In this way, the woman who agreed to marry the Sage would have time to count the seven clean days. b And if you wish, say /b that b the Sages’ /b intentions b were merely to be in seclusion [ i meyaḥadi /i ] with /b the woman but not to engage in intercourse with her. Therefore, it was permitted to marry her even if she became ritually impure. Being in seclusion with a woman was sufficient to help the Sages avoid any forbidden thoughts, b as the Master said: One who has bread in his basket is incomparable to one who does not have bread in his basket, /b i.e., just as the knowledge that food is readily available is sufficient to psychologically alleviate one’s feelings of hunger, so too, the knowledge that one’s sexual desires could be met lessens the strength of the desire itself.,The Gemara cites an additional statement of Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov: It is b taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry his wife /b when at the same time b his intention is to divorce her, because it is stated: “Do not devise evil against your neighbor, as he dwells securely with you” /b (Proverbs 3:29). It is wrong for one to intend to undermine the feelings of security that another has with him.,§ The mishna raises a case in which a i yavam /i consummated the levirate marriage with his i yevama /i and seven months later she gave birth. With respect to that child, there is an uncertainty whether he is the child of the deceased brother or whether he is the child of the i yavam /i . The Gemara discusses the ramifications of this uncertainty in a dispute concerning inheritance. The case concerns one whose identity as the son of the deceased is b uncertain, and a i yavam /i /b who consummated the levirate marriage with the i yevama /i , b who /b both b came to divide up /b the b possessions of the deceased /b brother and each one claims to be the sole heir.,The one of b uncertain /b descent b said: I am the son of the deceased, and /b therefore, as the only heir, his b possessions are mine. And the i yavam /i said /b to him: b You are my son, and you have absolutely no /b rights b to /b the b possessions; /b rather, by virtue of the fact that I consummated the levirate marriage with the widow of the deceased, I should inherit him. The Gemara rules on this case: This b is /b a case of b property of uncertain ownership, /b as there is no way to determine who is the rightful heir, and the i halakha /i is that b property of uncertain ownership /b the claimants b divide up /b between them.,The Gemara brings another case, that of one concerning whom there is b uncertainty /b whether he is the son of the deceased or of the i yavam /i b and the sons of /b the b i yavam /i , /b who consummated the levirate marriage with the i yevama /i and has since died, b who came to divide up /b the b possessions of the deceased, /b and each one makes claim to the inheritance. The one of b uncertain /b descent b said: That man, /b referring to himself, b is the son of the deceased, and /b therefore, as his sole heir, his b possessions are mine. /b And the b sons of the i yavam /i said /b to him: b You are our brother, and /b our uncle, the deceased, was not survived by any offspring and so by virtue of our father’s levirate marriage he inherited our uncle’s possessions, and now that our father has died and we are dividing up his possessions b you have /b a right to inherit only b a portion /b of the inheritance b together with us. /b , b The Rabbis /b who studied b before Rav Mesharshiyya thought to say: /b This case b is /b analogous to a case in b a mishna, as we learned /b a similar case in a mishna (100a) in which a woman gave birth shortly after remarrying and there is uncertainty whether the child’s father is the first or second husband. The mishna considers a case in which the husbands died and were each survived by a set of sons: If a son from either set died, the other sons of that set will inherit from him because as brothers they have an uncontested claim to the inheritance. However, b he, /b the son of uncertain descent, b does not inherit /b from b them /b because his claim as a brother is uncertain and is therefore not powerful enough to allow him to take part of the inheritance from the other sons. b However, /b if the son of uncertain descent died, b they, /b the sons of both husbands, b will /b jointly b inherit /b from b him. /b The claims of each set of sons to be his brothers are equally uncertain; therefore, since there is no one who has a definite claim to his inheritance, his possessions are split between them.,The Rabbis qualify their comparison of the cases: b But here, /b the positions are b in reverse, /b as follows: b There, /b in the case of the mishna, when one of the sons dies, b they, /b the other sons of that set, can b say to him, /b the son of uncertain descent: b Bring proof /b that you are actually a son of our father b and /b only then can you b take /b a portion. Since he cannot prove this, he will not receive any of the inheritance.,However, b here, /b in the case where the son of uncertain descent is in dispute with the sons of the i yavam /i , b he, /b the son of uncertain descent, can b say to them: Bring proof /b that I am not the son of the deceased, b and /b only then can you b take /b a portion together with me. The Rabbis claim that the principle in both cases is identical: When one party has an uncontested claim to the inheritance, and another party advances a claim to receive part of the inheritance that is based on an uncertainty, the uncertain claim is not accepted. In the mishna’s case, it is the son of uncertain descent who has an uncertain claim. The Rabbis suggest that the reverse is true in the Gemara’s case: The son of uncertain decent has an uncontested claim to the inheritance because whether he is the son of the first or second husband, he certainly has a right to some inheritance. It is the sons of the i yavam /i who have an uncertain claim because they have a right to the inheritance only if the son of uncertain decent is actually their brother., b Rav Mesharshiyya said to them: Is /b the case in the mishna really b comparable? There, /b in the mishna’s case, when one of the sons dies, b they, /b the other sons in that set, have a b definite /b claim to the inheritance, since their claim is based on the fact that they are the dead son’s brothers, which is certainly true, b and he, /b the son of uncertain descent, only has an b uncertain /b claim. However, b here, each /b party has only an b uncertain /b claim. Although the son of uncertain descent claims that ultimately, whatever the nature of his relationship with the deceased is, he should have the right to inherit, nevertheless, since it is not actually known what that relationship is, his claim in reality is merely a composite of uncertain claims.,Having rejected the analogy offered by the Rabbis, Rav Mesharshiyya offers his own analogy to the case in the mishna that the Rabbis cited: b Rather, if /b there is a case that b is analogous to /b the case in b the mishna, /b then it is b to this /b following case that it is b analogous: /b It is comparable b to /b a case in which following the levirate marriage a son was born, and there is uncertainty whether he is the son of the deceased or of the i yavam /i , and that son of b uncertain /b descent b and /b the b sons of the i yavam /i come to divide up /b the b possessions of the i yavam /i himself. As there, /b those who are unquestionably the sons of the i yavam /i have a definite claim; therefore, b they /b can b say to him, /b the son of uncertain descent: b Bring proof that you are /b actually b our brother and /b only then can you b take /b a portion. Since he cannot prove this, he will not receive any of the inheritance.,The Gemara brings yet another case, that of one concerning whom there is an b uncertainty /b whether he is the son of the deceased or of the i yavam /i b and /b the b sons of the i yavam /i , /b i.e., the sons of the man who consummated the levirate marriage with the i yevama /i and has since died, b who came to divide up /b the b possessions of the i yavam /i after the i yavam /i had /b already b divided up /b the b possessions of the deceased /b brother between himself and the son of uncertain descent, as per the Gemara’s ruling in the first case above.,The i yavam /i then died and his sons and the son of uncertain descent each made a claim to the inheritance: b The sons of the i yavam /i say /b to the son of uncertain descent: b Bring proof that you are our brother, and /b only then can you b take /b a portion. The son of b uncertain /b descent b said to them: Whichever way you /b look at it, I should receive a portion of the inheritance. b If /b you assume that b I am your brother, /b then b give me a portion /b of the inheritance b together with /b all of b you, and if /b you assume that b I am the son of the deceased, /b then b give me the half /b of the possessions b that your father /b took when he b divided up /b the possessions b with me /b upon the deceased’s death, because if you assume I am his son, then I am his sole heir and your father never had any rights to his possessions.,The son of uncertain descent’s claim assumes that the original verdict to divide up the possessions of the deceased between the two sides may be reexamined in light of later developments. This assumption, however, is subject to a dispute: b Rabbi Abba said /b that b Rav /b said: b The /b original b verdict stands, /b i.e., the original division of the deceased’s possessions is considered a closed matter, and the new dispute concerning the possessions of the i yavam /i is considered independently of it. Accordingly, the son of uncertain descent’s claim cannot succeed, and so he receives no portion of the inheritance of the i yavam /i . b Rabbi Yirmeya said: The /b original b verdict is reconsidered /b in light of the new circumstances, and therefore in this case the son of uncertain descent can put forward his undeniable claim to some of the possessions of the i yavam /i based on the original uncertainties that existed with regard to the division of the deceased’s possessions., b Let us say that /b Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Yirmeya b disagree over the dispute between Admon and the Rabbis. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ketubot /i 109b): With regard to b one /b who owns a field and has the rights to a path that passes through land belonging to another, and b he traveled to a country overseas, and /b when he returned the b path to his field was lost, /b i.e., he forgot where the path was located, b Admon says: He may go /b only b on the shortest /b path to his field, as although it is not known where the path is, he definitely did have a path, and therefore at the very least he has a right to the shortest path. b The Rabbis say: He must /b either b purchase for himself /b a new b path for /b whatever price is asked, even if it is b one hundred dinars, or he will /b have to b fly through the air /b to reach his field, i.e., as long as he cannot prove where the original path was, he has no rights to any other path., b And we discussed /b the mishna and thereby established the parameters of the dispute as follows: It is difficult b for the Rabbis /b because b Admon is saying well, /b i.e., the logic of his opinion would seem to be compelling. b And /b in defense of the Rabbis’ opinion, b Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: With what are we dealing here? /b It is with a case b where /b his field was b surrounded by four individuals /b who owned the land b on /b each of its b four sides. /b Therefore, he cannot demand a path from any one of the surrounding owners, since each one can deflect his claim by suggesting that the path might have passed through one of the other owners’ land.,However, this creates a further difficulty: b If so, /b that the surrounding land is owned by different people, b what is Admon’s rationale /b for ruling that the owner of the field has a claim to the shortest path? b And /b in order to justify Admon’s opinion, b Rava said: With regard to /b a case in which there are b four /b current owners b who came /b to own their land b on the basis of /b purchase from b four /b previous owners, i.e., each of the current owners acquired their land from a different previous owner, b and /b also in a case in which there are b four /b current owners b who came /b to own their land b on the basis of /b purchase from b one /b previous owner who originally owned all four pieces of land, b everyone agrees that /b the current owners b are able to deflect him /b and his claim to a path., b When they disagree, /b it is b in /b a case in b which /b there is only b one /b current owner of all four pieces of land, b who came /b to own his land b on the basis of /b purchase from b four /b previous owners. b Admon holds /b that the owner of the field b can say to /b the current owner of the surrounding land: b Whichever way /b you construe the case, b my path /b to my field is somewhere b with you /b in the surrounding land. b And the Rabbis hold /b that the owner of the surrounding land can deflect this claim because b he can say to him: If you /b do not press your claim and b are silent, /b then b be silent, /b and I will sell you a path at a reasonable price. b But if not, /b and you insist on pressing your claim, then b I will return the bills /b of purchase of the land b to their /b previous b owners, and /b then b you will not be able to /b successfully b engage in a legal dispute with them, /b as each one could claim that the path went through one of the other pieces of land not owned by them.,Having established the parameters of the dispute, the Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that the statement of b Rabbi Abba, who said /b that the original verdict stands, b is in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b When the owner of the field forgot where his path was located, the surrounding land was owned by four different owners, and therefore at that time the verdict was that he had no ability to successfully claim his path. The Rabbis apparently assume that that verdict stands, and therefore the field owner is considered to have lost any rights to the path. Consequently, even if the surrounding pieces of land are later purchased by a single person, the owner of the field cannot make a claim for his path.,The Gemara continues: b And /b the statement of b Rabbi Yirmeya, who said /b that the original verdict is repealed, b is in accordance with /b the opinion of b Admon. /b Admon apparently assumes that although the original verdict was that the field owner has no ability to successfully claim his path, nevertheless, that does not mean he loses his rights to the path. Rather, once the situation changes and the surrounding pieces of land are purchased by a single person, the original uncertainty is revived to allow him to make a claim for at least the shortest path to his field.,The Gemara rejects the comparison: b Rabbi Abba /b could have b said to you: When I stated /b my ruling, it was b even in accordance with /b the opinion of b Admon. Admon states /b his ruling b only there, /b in the case of the lost path, b because /b the field owner b said to /b the owner of the surrounding land: b Whichever way you /b look at it, |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 171| 18b. והשחלים וחלגלוגות והביצים והגרגיר (מלכים ב ד, לט) ויצא אחד אל השדה ללקט אורות תנא משמיה דר' מאיר זה גרגיר אמר ר' יוחנן למה נקרא שמן אורות שמאירות את העינים אמר רב הונא (המוציא) גרגיר אם יכול לאכלו אוכלו ואם לאו מעבירו על גבי עיניו אמר רב פפא בגרגירא מצרנאה,אמר רב גידל אמר רב אכסנאי לא יאכל ביצים ולא יישן בטליתו של בעל הבית רב כי מקלע לדרשיש מכריז מאן הויא ליומא רב נחמן כד מקלע לשכנציב מכריז מאן הויא ליומא,והתניא ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא ישא אדם אשה במדינה זו וילך וישא אשה במדינה אחרת שמא יזדווגו זה אצל זה ונמצא אח נושא אחותו (ואב נושא בתו) וממלא כל העולם כולו ממזרות ועל זה נאמר (ויקרא יט, כט) ומלאה הארץ זמה אמרי רבנן קלא אית להו,והאמר רבא תבעוה להנשא ונתפייסה צריכה לישב שבעה נקיים רבנן אודועי הוו מודעו להו מקדם הוו מקדמי ומשדרי שלוחא,ואי בעית אימא יחודי הוו מיחדי להו לפי שאינו דומה מי שיש לו פת בסלו למי שאין לו פת בסלו, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big מסרוהו זקני בית דין לזקני כהונה והעלוהו בית אבטינס והשביעוהו ונפטרו והלכו להם ואמרו לו אישי כהן גדול אנו שלוחי בית דין ואתה שלוחנו ושליח בית דין משביעין אנו עליך במי ששכן שמו בבית הזה שלא תשנה דבר מכל מה שאמרנו לך הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין,אם (הוא) היה חכם דורש ואם לאו תלמידי חכמים דורשים לפניו ואם רגיל לקרות קורא ואם לאו קורין לפניו ובמה קורין לפניו באיוב ובעזרא ובדברי הימים זכריה בן קבוטל אומר פעמים הרבה קריתי לפניו בדניאל | 18b. b cress, purslane, eggs, and arugula. /b Apropos the arugula plant, the Gemara cites a verse: b “And one of them went out into the fields to collect i orot /i ” /b (II Kings 4:39). It was b taught in the name of Rabbi Meir /b with regard to i orot /i in this verse: b This is /b the plant called b arugula. Rabbi Yoḥa said: Why are /b these arugula plants b called i orot /i ? /b It is because b they enlighten [ i me’irot /i ] the eyes. Rav Huna said: /b With regard to b one who finds arugula, if he can eat it, he eats it, and if not, he passes it over his eyes, /b as that too is beneficial. b Rav Pappa said: Arugula /b is most effective when it grows b on the border /b of the field, where it is unadulterated by other plants., b Rav Giddel said /b that b Rav said: A guest /b should b neither eat eggs, /b because they lead to a seminal emission, b nor sleep in a garment belonging to the homeowner, /b his host, because if he experiences a seminal emission and it gets on the garment, he will be diminished in the estimation of his host. Apropos conduct of a guest, the Gemara relates: b When Rav would happen /b to come b to Darshish he would declare: Who will be /b married to me b for the day /b that I am here so that I will not be unwed in this place, after which I will divorce her? Similarly, b when Rav Naḥman would come to Shekhantziv he would declare: Who will be /b married to me b for the day /b that I am here?, b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: A man should not marry a woman in one state and go and marry /b another b woman in a different state, lest /b a b match be arranged /b between the child of b this /b wife b with /b the child of b that /b wife who are unaware of their relationship. This would b lead to a brother marrying his sister /b or b a father marrying his daughter, filling the whole world in its entirety with i mamzerim /i . And concerning this it is stated: “And the land became filled with lewdness” /b (Leviticus 19:29). The Sages b say /b in response: b The Sages generate publicity. /b Since they were well-known, the identity of their children was also undoubtedly known. Therefore, there was no concern that errors of this kind would befall their children.,The Gemara raises a different problem with the practice of Rav and Rav Naḥman. b But didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to b one who proposed marriage to /b a woman b and she agreed, /b she b is required to sit seven clean days, /b as perhaps due to the anticipatory desire she might not notice that she experienced menstrual bleeding and she is therefore impure. How, then, could these i amora’im /i marry a woman on the day that they proposed? The Gemara answers: b The Sages would inform them by sending messengers before /b their arrival. The messenger would announce that the i amora /i sought to marry a local woman. The woman who agreed would in fact wait seven clean days before marrying him., b And if you wish, say /b instead that these Sages were not actually proposing marriage; rather, they proposed so that they could b be in seclusion with /b the women, without consummating the relationship. Since the women knew that the marriage would not be consummated, they did not experience anticipatory desire. b There is no similarity between one who has bread in his basket and one who does not have bread in his basket. /b One who does not have access to bread experiences hunger more acutely than one for whom bread is available and can eat whenever he chooses. Similarly, an unmarried man experiences a more acute desire. In order to mitigate that desire, these Sages made certain that women would be designated for them., strong MISHNA: /strong b The Elders of the court /b who read the order of the service of the day before the High Priest b passed him to the Elders of the priesthood, and they took him up to the House of Avtinas. And they administered him an oath and took leave /b of him b and went on their way. /b When they administered this oath b they said to him: My Master, High Priest. We are agents of the court, and you are our agent and the agent of the court. We administer an oath to you in /b the name of b Him who housed His name in this House, that you will not change /b even one b matter from all that we have said to you /b with regard to the burning of the incense or any other service that you will perform when alone. After this oath, b he would leave /b them b and cry, and they would leave /b him b and cry /b in sorrow that the oath was necessary.,They kept him occupied throughout the night to prevent him from sleeping. b If he was a scholar, he /b would b teach /b Torah. b If /b he was b not /b a scholar, b Torah scholars /b would b teach /b Torah b before him. And if /b he was b accustomed to read /b the Bible, b he /b would b read; and if /b he was b not, they /b would b read /b the Bible b before him. And what /b books would b they read before him /b to pique his interest so that he would not fall asleep? They would read b from Job, and from Ezra, and from Chronicles. Zekharya, son of Kevutal, says: Many times I read before him from /b the book of b Daniel. /b |
|
| 9. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 16 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 332 |
| 10. Anon., Derech Eretz Zutta, 1.13 Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 322 |
| 11. Anon., Mhd (Book of A Thousand Judgments), 73.8-73.10 Tagged with subjects: •sexuality, adultery Found in books: Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 171 |
