The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database

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

For a list of book indices included, see here.

135 results for "weiss"

1. Septuagint, 2 Esdras, 6.17-6.28 (10th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 874

2. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 66.12, 69.22, 124.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. •weiss, ruhama Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68; Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 267

69.22. וַיִּתְּנוּ בְּבָרוּתִי רֹאשׁ וְלִצְמָאִי יַשְׁקוּנִי חֹמֶץ׃

69.22. Yea, they put poison into my food; And in my thirst they gave me vinegar to drink.

3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 4.7, 4.34, 19.21, 24.1-24.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68; Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134, 136

4.7. כִּי מִי־גוֹי גָּדוֹל אֲשֶׁר־לוֹ אֱלֹהִים קְרֹבִים אֵלָיו כַּיהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ בְּכָּל־קָרְאֵנוּ אֵלָיו׃ 4.34. אוֹ הֲנִסָּה אֱלֹהִים לָבוֹא לָקַחַת לוֹ גוֹי מִקֶּרֶב גּוֹי בְּמַסֹּת בְּאֹתֹת וּבְמוֹפְתִים וּבְמִלְחָמָה וּבְיָד חֲזָקָה וּבִזְרוֹעַ נְטוּיָה וּבְמוֹרָאִים גְּדֹלִים כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לָכֶם יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם בְּמִצְרַיִם לְעֵינֶיךָ׃ 19.21. וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל׃ 24.1. כִּי־תַשֶּׁה בְרֵעֲךָ מַשַּׁאת מְאוּמָה לֹא־תָבֹא אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ לַעֲבֹט עֲבֹטוֹ׃ 24.1. כִּי־יִקַּח אִישׁ אִשָּׁה וּבְעָלָהּ וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִמְצָא־חֵן בְּעֵינָיו כִּי־מָצָא בָהּ עֶרְוַת דָּבָר וְכָתַב לָהּ סֵפֶר כְּרִיתֻת וְנָתַן בְּיָדָהּ וְשִׁלְּחָהּ מִבֵּיתוֹ׃ 24.2. וְיָצְאָה מִבֵּיתוֹ וְהָלְכָה וְהָיְתָה לְאִישׁ־אַחֵר׃ 24.2. כִּי תַחְבֹּט זֵיתְךָ לֹא תְפָאֵר אַחֲרֶיךָ לַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה יִהְיֶה׃

4.7. For what great nation is there, that hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is whensoever we call upon Him? 4.34. Or hath God assayed to go and take Him a nation from the midst of another nation, by trials, by signs, and by wonders, and by war, and by a mighty hand, and by an outstretched arm, and by great terrors, according to all that the LORD your God did for you in Egypt before thine eyes? 19.21. And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot. 24.1. When a man taketh a wife, and marrieth her, then it cometh to pass, if she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some unseemly thing in her, that he writeth her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house, 24.2. and she departeth out of his house, and goeth and becometh another man’s wife,

4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 13.7, 13.9-13.10, 21.3, 21.24, 24.1-24.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss •weiss, zeev, and ehud netzer Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 82; Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119, 125; Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134; Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 285

13.7. מַצּוֹת יֵאָכֵל אֵת שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ חָמֵץ וְלֹא־יֵרָאֶה לְךָ שְׂאֹר בְּכָל־גְּבֻלֶךָ׃ 13.9. וְהָיָה לְךָ לְאוֹת עַל־יָדְךָ וּלְזִכָּרוֹן בֵּין עֵינֶיךָ לְמַעַן תִּהְיֶה תּוֹרַת יְהוָה בְּפִיךָ כִּי בְּיָד חֲזָקָה הוֹצִאֲךָ יְהֹוָה מִמִּצְרָיִם׃ 21.3. אִם־כֹּפֶר יוּשַׁת עָלָיו וְנָתַן פִּדְיֹן נַפְשׁוֹ כְּכֹל אֲשֶׁר־יוּשַׁת עָלָיו׃ 21.3. אִם־בְּגַפּוֹ יָבֹא בְּגַפּוֹ יֵצֵא אִם־בַּעַל אִשָּׁה הוּא וְיָצְאָה אִשְׁתּוֹ עִמּוֹ׃ 21.24. עַיִן תַּחַת עַיִן שֵׁן תַּחַת שֵׁן יָד תַּחַת יָד רֶגֶל תַּחַת רָגֶל׃ 24.1. וַיִּרְאוּ אֵת אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְתַחַת רַגְלָיו כְּמַעֲשֵׂה לִבְנַת הַסַּפִּיר וּכְעֶצֶם הַשָּׁמַיִם לָטֹהַר׃ 24.1. וְאֶל־מֹשֶׁה אָמַר עֲלֵה אֶל־יְהוָה אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן נָדָב וַאֲבִיהוּא וְשִׁבְעִים מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהִשְׁתַּחֲוִיתֶם מֵרָחֹק׃ 24.2. וְנִגַּשׁ מֹשֶׁה לְבַדּוֹ אֶל־יְהוָה וְהֵם לֹא יִגָּשׁוּ וְהָעָם לֹא יַעֲלוּ עִמּוֹ׃

13.7. Unleavened bread shall be eaten throughout the seven days; and there shall no leavened bread be seen with thee, neither shall there be leaven seen with thee, in all thy borders. 13.9. And it shall be for a sign unto thee upon thy hand, and for a memorial between thine eyes, that the law of the LORD may be in thy mouth; for with a strong hand hath the LORD brought thee out of Egypt. 13.10. Thou shalt therefore keep this ordice in its season from year to year. 21.3. If he come in by himself, he shall go out by himself; if he be married, then his wife shall go out with him. 21.24. eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 24.1. And unto Moses He said: ‘Come up unto the LORD, thou, and Aaron, Nadab, and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel; and worship ye afar off; 24.2. and Moses alone shall come near unto the LORD; but they shall not come near; neither shall the people go up with him.’

5. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 1.5, 33.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 8; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 220

1.5. וַיִּקְרָא אֱלֹהִים לָאוֹר יוֹם וְלַחֹשֶׁךְ קָרָא לָיְלָה וַיְהִי־עֶרֶב וַיְהִי־בֹקֶר יוֹם אֶחָד׃ 33.17. וְיַעֲקֹב נָסַע סֻכֹּתָה וַיִּבֶן לוֹ בָּיִת וּלְמִקְנֵהוּ עָשָׂה סֻכֹּת עַל־כֵּן קָרָא שֵׁם־הַמָּקוֹם סֻכּוֹת׃

1.5. And God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. And there was evening and there was morning, one day. 33.17. And Jacob journeyed to Succoth, and built him a house, and made booths for his cattle. Therefore the name of the place is called Succoth.

6. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 2.21-2.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, isaac h. Found in books: Kaplan, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs (2015) 12

2.21. וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי לְעוֹלָם וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בְּצֶדֶק וּבְמִשְׁפָּט וּבְחֶסֶד וּבְרַחֲמִים׃ 2.22. וְאֵרַשְׂתִּיךְ לִי בֶּאֱמוּנָה וְיָדַעַתְּ אֶת־יְהוָה׃

2.21. And I will betroth thee unto Me for ever; Yea, I will betroth thee unto Me in righteousness, and in justice, And in lovingkindness, and in compassion. 2.22. And I will betroth thee unto Me in faithfulness; And thou shalt know the LORD.

7. Hebrew Bible, Jonah, 4.6-4.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 210

4.6. וַיְמַן יְהוָה־אֱלֹהִים קִיקָיוֹן וַיַּעַל מֵעַל לְיוֹנָה לִהְיוֹת צֵל עַל־רֹאשׁוֹ לְהַצִּיל לוֹ מֵרָעָתוֹ וַיִּשְׂמַח יוֹנָה עַל־הַקִּיקָיוֹן שִׂמְחָה גְדוֹלָה׃ 4.7. וַיְמַן הָאֱלֹהִים תּוֹלַעַת בַּעֲלוֹת הַשַּׁחַר לַמָּחֳרָת וַתַּךְ אֶת־הַקִּיקָיוֹן וַיִּיבָשׁ׃

4.6. And the LORD God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his evil. So Jonah was exceeding glad because of the gourd. 4.7. But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd, that it withered.

8. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.18, 24.17-24.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134, 136

19.18. לֹא־תִקֹּם וְלֹא־תִטֹּר אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 24.17. וְאִישׁ כִּי יַכֶּה כָּל־נֶפֶשׁ אָדָם מוֹת יוּמָת׃ 24.18. וּמַכֵּה נֶפֶשׁ־בְּהֵמָה יְשַׁלְּמֶנָּה נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ׃ 24.19. וְאִישׁ כִּי־יִתֵּן מוּם בַּעֲמִיתוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשָׂה כֵּן יֵעָשֶׂה לּוֹ׃

19.18. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD. 24.17. And he that smiteth any man mortally shall surely be put to death. 24.18. And he that smiteth a beast mortally shall make it good: life for life. 24.19. And if a man maim his neighbour; as he hath done, so shall it be done to him: 24.20. breach for breach, eye for eye, tooth for tooth; as he hath maimed a man, so shall it be rendered unto him.

9. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 28.15, 29.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68

10. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.1-1.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 31, 137, 156, 190

1.1. בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי כְּטוֹב לֵב־הַמֶּלֶךְ בַּיָּיִן אָמַר לִמְהוּמָן בִּזְּתָא חַרְבוֹנָא בִּגְתָא וַאֲבַגְתָא זֵתַר וְכַרְכַּס שִׁבְעַת הַסָּרִיסִים הַמְשָׁרְתִים אֶת־פְּנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ׃ 1.1. וַיְהִי בִּימֵי אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הוּא אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ הַמֹּלֵךְ מֵהֹדּוּ וְעַד־כּוּשׁ שֶׁבַע וְעֶשְׂרִים וּמֵאָה מְדִינָה׃ 1.2. וְנִשְׁמַע פִּתְגָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה בְּכָל־מַלְכוּתוֹ כִּי רַבָּה הִיא וְכָל־הַנָּשִׁים יִתְּנוּ יְקָר לְבַעְלֵיהֶן לְמִגָּדוֹל וְעַד־קָטָן׃ 1.2. בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם כְּשֶׁבֶת הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ עַל כִּסֵּא מַלְכוּתוֹ אֲשֶׁר בְּשׁוּשַׁן הַבִּירָה׃ 1.3. בִּשְׁנַת שָׁלוֹשׁ לְמָלְכוֹ עָשָׂה מִשְׁתֶּה לְכָל־שָׂרָיו וַעֲבָדָיו חֵיל פָּרַס וּמָדַי הַפַּרְתְּמִים וְשָׂרֵי הַמְּדִינוֹת לְפָנָיו׃

1.1. NOW IT came to pass in the days of Ahasuerus—this is Ahasuerus who reigned, from India to Ethiopia, over a hundred and seven and twenty provinces— 1.2. that in those days, when the king Ahasuerus sat on the throne of his kingdom, which was in Shushan the castle, 1.3. in the third year of his reign, he made a feast unto all his princes and his servants; the army of Persia and Media, the nobles and princes of the provinces, being before him;

11. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 1.8, 58.7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 220

58.7. הֲלוֹא פָרֹס לָרָעֵב לַחְמֶךָ וַעֲנִיִּים מְרוּדִים תָּבִיא בָיִת כִּי־תִרְאֶה עָרֹם וְכִסִּיתוֹ וּמִבְּשָׂרְךָ לֹא תִתְעַלָּם׃

58.7. Is it not to deal thy bread to the hungry, And that thou bring the poor that are cast out to thy house? When thou seest the naked, that thou cover him, And that thou hide not thyself from thine own flesh?

12. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 4.13 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, ruhama Found in books: Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 267

4.13. כִּי הִנֵּה יוֹצֵר הָרִים וּבֹרֵא רוּחַ וּמַגִּיד לְאָדָם מַה־שֵּׂחוֹ עֹשֵׂה שַׁחַר עֵיפָה וְדֹרֵךְ עַל־בָּמֳתֵי אָרֶץ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי־צְבָאוֹת שְׁמוֹ׃

4.13. For, lo, He that formeth the mountains, and createth the wind, And declareth unto man what is his thought, That maketh the morning darkness, And treadeth upon the high places of the earth; The LORD, the God of hosts, is His name.

13. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 16.7 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, isaac h. Found in books: Kaplan, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs (2015) 12

16.7. רְבָבָה כְּצֶמַח הַשָּׂדֶה נְתַתִּיךְ וַתִּרְבִּי וַתִּגְדְּלִי וַתָּבֹאִי בַּעֲדִי עֲדָיִים שָׁדַיִם נָכֹנוּ וּשְׂעָרֵךְ צִמֵּחַ וְאַתְּ עֵרֹם וְעֶרְיָה׃

16.7. I cause thee to increase, even as the growth of the field. And thou didst increase and grow up, and thou camest to excellent beauty: thy breasts were fashioned, and thy hair was grown; yet thou wast naked and bare.

14. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 8 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 216

8. And all the congregation of them that were come back out of the captivity made booths, and dwelt in the booths; for since the days of Joshua the son of Nun unto that day had not the children of Israel done so. And there was very great gladness.,Then he said unto them: ‘Go your way, eat the fat, and drink the sweet, and send portions unto him for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy unto our Lord; neither be ye grieved; for the joy of the LORD is your strength.’,So the Levites stilled all the people, saying: ‘Hold your peace, for the day is holy; neither be ye grieved.’,And Ezra the scribe stood upon a pulpit of wood, which they had made for the purpose; and beside him stood Mattithiah, and Shema, and Anaiah, and Uriah, and Hilkiah, and Maaseiah, on his right hand; and on his left hand, Pedaiah, and Mishael, and Malchijah, and Hashum, and Hashbaddanah, Zechariah, and Meshullam.,And Ezra opened the book in the sight of all the people—for he was above all the people—and when he opened it, all the people stood up.,And Ezra blessed the LORD, the great God. And all the people answered: ‘Amen, Amen’, with the lifting up of their hands; and they bowed their heads, and fell down before the LORD with their faces to the ground.,Also day by day, from the first day unto the last day, he read in the book of the Law of God. And they kept the feast seven days;,And he read therein before the broad place that was before the water gate from early morning until midday, in the presence of the men and the women, and of those that could understand; and the ears of all the people were attentive unto the book of the Law.,So the people went forth, and brought them, and made themselves booths, every one upon the roof of his house, and in their courts, and in the courts of the house of God, and in the broad place of the water gate, and in the broad place of the gate of Ephraim.,all the people gathered themselves together as one man into the broad place that was before the water gate; and they spoke unto Ezra the scribe to bring the book of the Law of Moses, which the LORD had commanded to Israel.,And all the people went their way to eat, and to drink, and to send portions, and to make great mirth, because they had understood the words that were declared unto them.,And they found written in the Law, how that the LORD had commanded by Moses, that the children of Israel should dwell in booths in the feast of the seventh month;,and that they should publish and proclaim in all their cities, and in Jerusalem, saying: ‘Go forth unto the mount, and fetch olive branches, and branches of wild olive, and myrtle branches, and palm branches, and branches of thick trees, to make booths, as it is written.’,Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Ha, Pelaiah, even the Levites, caused the people to understand the Law; and the people stood in their place.,And Ezra the priest brought the Law before the congregation, both men and women, and all that could hear with understanding, upon the first day of the seventh month.,And Nehemiah, who was the Tirshatha, and Ezra the priest the scribe, and the Levites that taught the people, said unto all the people: ‘This day is holy unto the LORD your God; mourn not, nor weep.’ For all the people wept, when they heard the words of the Law.,And on the second day were gathered together the heads of fathers’houses of all the people, the priests, and the Levites, unto Ezra the scribe, even to give attention to the words of the Law.,And they read in the book, in the Law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading.

15. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 9.9 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68

9.9. כִּי־עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעַבְדֻתֵנוּ לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַיַּט־עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס לָתֶת־לָנוּ מִחְיָה לְרוֹמֵם אֶת־בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְהַעֲמִיד אֶת־חָרְבֹתָיו וְלָתֶת־לָנוּ גָדֵר בִּיהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם׃

9.9. For we are bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a fence in Judah and in Jerusalem.

16. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 10.18 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68

10.18. בַּעֲצַלְתַּיִם יִמַּךְ הַמְּקָרֶה וּבְשִׁפְלוּת יָדַיִם יִדְלֹף הַבָּיִת׃

10.18. By slothfulness the rafters sink in; And through idleness of the hands the house leaketh.

17. Aristophanes, The Rich Man, a b c d\n0 '6.3 '6.3 '6 3\n1 '1.36 '1.36 '1 36\n2 '4.15 '4.15 '4 15\n3 '3.39 '3.39 '3 39\n4 25.4 25.4 25 4 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

18. Septuagint, Wisdom of Solomon, 1.5, 13.1, 13.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 874

1.5. They were exalted unto the stars; They said they would never fall. 1.5. For a holy and disciplined spirit will flee from deceit,and will rise and depart from foolish thoughts,and will be ashamed at the approach of unrighteousness. 13.1. The right hand of the Lord hath covered me; The right hand of the Lord hath spared us. 13.1. For all men who were ignorant of God were foolish by nature;and they were unable from the good things that are seen to know him who exists,nor did they recognize the craftsman while paying heed to his works; 13.8. For He correcteth the righteous as a beloved son, And his chastisement is as that of a firstborn. 13.8. Yet again, not even they are to be excused;

19. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 17.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 874

17.7. He filled them with knowledge and understanding,and showed them good and evil.

20. Philo of Alexandria, On The Contemplative Life, '26 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes, pauline style Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 102

21. Philo of Alexandria, On Dreams, a b c d\n0 '2.127 '2.127 '2 127 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes, pauline style Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 102

22. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Joseph, 143-144 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 730

23. Livy, History, a b c d\n0 '1.7.12 '1.7.12 '1 7 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

24. Philo of Alexandria, Questions On Exodus, 2.28 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, zeev, and ehud netzer Found in books: Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 285

25. Diodorus Siculus, Historical Library, a b c d\n0 '3.43.7 '3.43.7 '3 43 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

26. Philo of Alexandria, On The Life of Moses, 1.43-1.44, 1.149-1.162 (1st cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes •weiss, zeev, and ehud netzer Found in books: Klawans, Purity, Sacrifice, and the Temple: Symbolism and Supersessionism in the Study of Ancient Judaism (2009) 285; Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

1.43. for some of their overseers were very savage and furious men, being, as to their cruelty, not at all different from poisonous serpents or carnivorous beasts--wild beasts in human form--being clothed with the form of a human body so as to give an appearance of gentleness in order to deceive and catch their victim, but in reality being harder than iron or adamant. 1.44. One of these men, then, the most violent of them, when, in addition to yielding nothing of his purpose, he was even exasperated at the exhortations of Moses and rendered more savage by them, beating those who did not labour with energy and unremittingly at the work which was imposed upon them, and insulting them and subjecting them to every kind of ill-treatment, so as even to be the death of many, Moses slew, thinking the deed a pious action; and, indeed, it was a pious action to destroy one who only lived for the destruction of others. 1.149. For, as he had abandoned the chief authority in Egypt, which he might have had as the grandson of the reigning king, on account of the iniquities which were being perpetrated in that country, and by reason of his nobleness of soul and of the greatness of his spirit, and the natural detestation of wickedness, scorning and rejecting all the hopes which he might have conceived from those who had adopted him, it seemed good to the Ruler and Governor of the universe to recompense him with the sovereign authority over a more populous and more powerful nation, which he was about to take to himself out of all other nations and to consecrate to the priesthood, that it might for ever offer up prayers for the whole universal race of mankind, for the sake of averting evil from them and procuring them a participation in blessings. 1.150. And when he had received this authority, he did not show anxiety, as some persons do, to increase the power of his own family, and promote his sons (for he had two 1.151. for he kept one most invariable object always steadily before him, namely, that of benefiting those who were subjected to his authority, and of doing everything both in word and deed, with a view to their advantage, never omitting any opportunity of doing anything that might tend to their prosperity. 1.152. Therefore he alone of all the persons who have ever enjoyed supreme authority, neither accumulated treasures of silver and gold, nor levied taxes, nor acquired possession of houses, or property, or cattle, or servants of his household, or revenues, or anything else which has reference to magnificence and superfluity, although he might have acquired an unlimited abundance of them all. 1.153. But as he thought it a token of poverty of soul to be anxious about material wealth, he despised it as a blind thing, but he honoured the far-sighted wealth of nature, and was as great an admirer as any one in the world of that kind of riches, as he showed himself to be in his clothes, and in his food, and in his whole system and manner of life, not indulging in any theatrical affectation of pomp and magnificence, but cultivating the simplicity and unpretending affable plainness of a private individual, but a sumptuousness which was truly royal, in those things which it is becoming for a ruler to desire and to abound in; 1.154. and these things are, temperance, and fortitude, and continence, and presence of mind, and acuteness, and knowledge, and industry, and patience under evil, and contempt of pleasure, and justice, and exhortations to virtue and blame, and lawful punishment of offenders, and, on the contrary, praise and honour to those who did well in accordance with law. 1.155. Therefore, as he had utterly discarded all desire of gain and of those riches which are held in the highest repute among men, God honoured him, and gave him instead the greatest and most perfect wealth; and this is the Wealth{2}{the text here is very corrupt.} of all the earth and sea, and of all the rivers, and of all the other elements, and all combinations whatever; for having judged him deserving of being made a partaker with himself in the portion which he had reserved for himself, he gave him the whole world as a possession suitable for his heir: 1.156. therefore, every one of the elements obeyed him as its master, changing the power which it had by nature and submitting to his commands. And perhaps there was nothing wonderful in this; for if it be true according to the proverb, --"That all the property of friends is common;" 1.157. for God possesses everything and is in need of nothing; but the good man has nothing which is properly his own, no, not even himself, but he has a share granted to him of the treasures of God as far as he is able to partake of them. And this is natural enough; for he is a citizen of the world; on which account he is not spoken of as to be enrolled as a citizen of any particular city in the habitable world, since he very appropriately has for his inheritance not a portion of a district, but the whole world. 1.158. What more shall I say? Has he not also enjoyed an even greater communion with the Father and Creator of the universe, being thought unworthy of being called by the same appellation? For he also was called the god and king of the whole nation, and he is said to have entered into the darkness where God was; that is to say, into the invisible, and shapeless, and incorporeal world, the essence, which is the model of all existing things, where he beheld things invisible to mortal nature; for, having brought himself and his own life into the middle, as an excellently wrought picture, he established himself as a most beautiful and Godlike work, to be a model for all those who were inclined to imitate him. 1.159. And happy are they who have been able to take, or have even diligently laboured to take, a faithful copy of this excellence in their own souls; for let the mind, above all other parts, take the perfect appearance of virtue, and if that cannot be, at all events let it feel an unhesitating and unvarying desire to acquire that appearance; 1.160. for, indeed, there is no one who does not know that men in a lowly condition are imitators of men of high reputation, and that what they see, these last chiefly desire, towards that do they also direct their own inclinations and endeavours. Therefore, when the chief of a nation begins to indulge in luxury and to turn aside to a delicate and effeminate life, then the whole of his subjects, or very nearly the whole, carry their desire for indulging the appetites of the belly and the parts below the belly beyond all reasonable bounds, except that there may be some persons who, through the natural goodness of their disposition, have a soul far removed from treachery, being rather merciful and kind. 1.161. If, on the other hand, the chief of a people adopts a more austere and dignified course of life, then even those of his subjects, who are inclined to be very incontinent, change and become temperate, hastening, either out of fear or out of shame, to give him an idea that they are devoted to the same pursuits and inclinations that he is; and, in fact, the lower orders will never, no, nor will mad men even, reject the customs and habits of their superiors: 1.162. but, perhaps, since Moses was also destined to be the lawgiver of his nation, he was himself long previously, through the providence of God, a living and reasonable law, since that providence appointed him to the lawgiver, when as yet he knew nothing of his appointment.

27. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, a b c d\n0 '7.38 '7.38 '7 38\n1 2.163 2.163 2 163\n2 2.162 2.162 2 162 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

28. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 13.171-13.173, 13.297-13.298, 18.11-18.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes, pauline style •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74; Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 102

13.171. Κατὰ δὲ τὸν χρόνον τοῦτον τρεῖς αἱρέσεις τῶν ̓Ιουδαίων ἦσαν, αἳ περὶ τῶν ἀνθρωπίνων πραγμάτων διαφόρως ὑπελάμβανον, ὧν ἡ μὲν Φαρισαίων ἐλέγετο, ἡ δὲ Σαδδουκαίων, ἡ τρίτη δὲ ̓Εσσηνῶν. 13.172. οἱ μὲν οὖν Φαρισαῖοι τινὰ καὶ οὐ πάντα τῆς εἱμαρμένης ἔργον εἶναι λέγουσιν, τινὰ δ' ἐφ' ἑαυτοῖς ὑπάρχειν συμβαίνειν τε καὶ μὴ γίνεσθαι. τὸ δὲ τῶν ̓Εσσηνῶν γένος πάντων τὴν εἱμαρμένην κυρίαν ἀποφαίνεται καὶ μηδὲν ὃ μὴ κατ' ἐκείνης ψῆφον ἀνθρώποις ἀπαντᾶν. 13.173. Σαδδουκαῖοι δὲ τὴν μὲν εἱμαρμένην ἀναιροῦσιν οὐδὲν εἶναι ταύτην ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ κατ' αὐτὴν τὰ ἀνθρώπινα τέλος λαμβάνειν, ἅπαντα δὲ ἐφ' ἡμῖν αὐτοῖς κεῖσθαι, ὡς καὶ τῶν ἀγαθῶν αἰτίους ἡμᾶς γινομένους καὶ τὰ χείρω παρὰ τὴν ἡμετέραν ἀβουλίαν λαμβάνοντας. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων ἀκριβεστέραν πεποίημαι δήλωσιν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τῆς ̓Ιουδαϊκῆς πραγματείας. 13.297. περὶ μέντοι τούτων αὖθις ἐροῦμεν. νῦν δὲ δηλῶσαι βούλομαι, ὅτι νόμιμά τινα παρέδοσαν τῷ δήμῳ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι ἐκ πατέρων διαδοχῆς, ἅπερ οὐκ ἀναγέγραπται ἐν τοῖς Μωυσέως νόμοις, καὶ διὰ τοῦτο ταῦτα τὸ Σαδδουκαίων γένος ἐκβάλλει, λέγον ἐκεῖνα δεῖν ἡγεῖσθαι νόμιμα τὰ γεγραμμένα, τὰ δ' ἐκ παραδόσεως τῶν πατέρων μὴ τηρεῖν. 13.298. καὶ περὶ τούτων ζητήσεις αὐτοῖς καὶ διαφορὰς γίνεσθαι συνέβαινεν μεγάλας, τῶν μὲν Σαδδουκαίων τοὺς εὐπόρους μόνον πειθόντων τὸ δὲ δημοτικὸν οὐχ ἑπόμενον αὐτοῖς ἐχόντων, τῶν δὲ Φαρισαίων τὸ πλῆθος σύμμαχον ἐχόντων. ἀλλὰ περὶ μὲν τούτων τῶν δύο καὶ τῶν ̓Εσσηνῶν ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ μου τῶν ̓Ιουδαϊκῶν ἀκριβῶς δεδήλωται. 18.11. ̓Ιουδαίοις φιλοσοφίαι τρεῖς ἦσαν ἐκ τοῦ πάνυ ἀρχαίου τῶν πατρίων, ἥ τε τῶν ̓Εσσηνῶν καὶ ἡ τῶν Σαδδουκαίων, τρίτην δὲ ἐφιλοσόφουν οἱ Φαρισαῖοι λεγόμενοι. καὶ τυγχάνει μέντοι περὶ αὐτῶν ἡμῖν εἰρημένα ἐν τῇ δευτέρᾳ βίβλῳ τοῦ ̓Ιουδαϊκοῦ πολέμου, μνησθήσομαι δ' ὅμως καὶ νῦν αὐτῶν ἐπ' ὀλίγον. 18.11. ἐρασθεὶς δὲ ̔Ηρωδιάδος τῆς τούτου γυναικός, θυγάτηρ δὲ ἦν ̓Αριστοβούλου καὶ οὗτος ἀδελφὸς αὐτῶν, ̓Αγρίππου δὲ ἀδελφὴ τοῦ μεγάλου, τολμᾷ λόγων ἅπτεσθαι περὶ γάμου. καὶ δεξαμένης συνθῆκαι γίνονται μετοικίσασθαι παρ' αὐτόν, ὁπότε ἀπὸ ̔Ρώμης παραγένοιτο. ἦν δὲ ἐν ταῖς συνθήκαις ὥστε καὶ τοῦ ̓Αρέτα τὴν θυγατέρα ἐκβαλεῖν. 18.12. Οἵ τε γὰρ Φαρισαῖοι τὴν δίαιταν ἐξευτελίζουσιν οὐδὲν ἐς τὸ μαλακώτερον ἐνδιδόντες, ὧν τε ὁ λόγος κρίνας παρέδωκεν ἀγαθῶν ἕπονται τῇ ἡγεμονίᾳ περιμάχητον ἡγούμενοι τὴν φυλακὴν ὧν ὑπαγορεύειν ἠθέλησεν. τιμῆς γε τοῖς ἡλικίᾳ προήκουσιν παραχωροῦσιν οὐδ' ἐπ' ἀντιλέξει τῶν εἰσηγηθέντων ταῦτα οἱ θράσει ἐπαιρόμενοι. 18.12. Οὐιτέλλιος δὲ παρασκευασάμενος ὡς εἰς πόλεμον τὸν πρὸς ̓Αρέταν δυσὶ τάγμασιν ὁπλιτῶν ὅσοι τε περὶ αὐτὰ ψιλοὶ καὶ ἱππεῖς συμμαχοῦντες ἐκ τῶν ὑπὸ ̔Ρωμαίοις βασιλειῶν ἀγόμενος, ἐπὶ τῆς Πέτρας ἠπείγετο καὶ ἔσχε Πτολεμαί̈δα. 18.13. πράσσεσθαί τε εἱμαρμένῃ τὰ πάντα ἀξιοῦντες οὐδὲ τοῦ ἀνθρωπείου τὸ βουλόμενον τῆς ἐπ' αὐτοῖς ὁρμῆς ἀφαιροῦνται δοκῆσαν τῷ θεῷ κρίσιν γενέσθαι καὶ τῷ ἐκείνης βουλευτηρίῳ καὶ τῶν ἀνθρώπων τῷ ἐθελήσαντι προσχωρεῖν μετ' ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας. 18.13. ̔Ηρώδῃ τῷ μεγάλῳ θυγατέρες ἐκ Μαριάμμης τῆς ̔Υρκανοῦ θυγατρὸς γίνονται δύο, Σαλαμψιὼ μὲν ἡ ἑτέρα, ἣ γαμεῖται Φασαήλῳ τῷ αὐτῆς ἀνεψιῷ Φασαήλου παιδὶ ὄντι τοῦ ̔Ηρώδου ἀδελφοῦ δεδωκότος τοῦ πατρὸς αὐτήν, Κύπρος δὲ ̓Αντιπάτρῳ καὶ αὐτὴ ἀνεψιῷ ̔Ηρώδου παιδὶ τῆς ἀδελφῆς Σαλώμης. 18.14. ἀθάνατόν τε ἰσχὺν ταῖς ψυχαῖς πίστις αὐτοῖς εἶναι καὶ ὑπὸ χθονὸς δικαιώσεις τε καὶ τιμὰς οἷς ἀρετῆς ἢ κακίας ἐπιτήδευσις ἐν τῷ βίῳ γέγονεν, καὶ ταῖς μὲν εἱργμὸν ἀίδιον προτίθεσθαι, ταῖς δὲ ῥᾳστώνην τοῦ ἀναβιοῦν. 18.14. ̓Αλεξάνδρῳ δὲ Τιγράνης ὁμώνυμος τῷ ἀδελφῷ γίνεται παῖς καὶ βασιλεὺς ̓Αρμενίας ὑπὸ Νέρωνος ἐκπέμπεται υἱός τε ̓Αλέξανδρος αὐτῷ γίνεται. γαμεῖ δ' οὗτος ̓Αντιόχου τοῦ Κομμαγηνῶν βασιλέως θυγατέρα ̓Ιωτάπην, ἡσίοδός τε τῆς ἐν Κιλικίᾳ Οὐεσπασιανὸς αὐτὸν ἵσταται βασιλέα. 18.15. καὶ δι' αὐτὰ τοῖς τε δήμοις πιθανώτατοι τυγχάνουσιν καὶ ὁπόσα θεῖα εὐχῶν τε ἔχεται καὶ ἱερῶν ποιήσεως ἐξηγήσει τῇ ἐκείνων τυγχάνουσιν πρασσόμενα. εἰς τοσόνδε ἀρετῆς αὐτοῖς αἱ πόλεις ἐμαρτύρησαν ἐπιτηδεύσει τοῦ ἐπὶ πᾶσι κρείσσονος ἔν τε τῇ διαίτῃ τοῦ βίου καὶ λόγοις. 18.15. οὐ μὴν ἐπὶ πλεῖόν γε ̔Ηρώδης ἐνέμεινε τοῖς δεδογμένοις, καίτοι γε οὐδ' ὣς ἀρκοῦντα ἦν: ἐν γὰρ Τύρῳ παρὰ συνουσίαν ὑπὸ οἴνου γενομένων αὐτοῖς λοιδοριῶν, ἀνεκτὸν οὐχ ἡγησάμενος ̓Αγρίππας τοῦ ̔Ηρώδου τε ἐπονειδίσαντος εἰς ἀπορίαν καὶ τροφῆς ἀναγκαίας μετάδοσιν, ὡς Φλάκκον τὸν ὑπατικὸν εἴσεισιν φίλον ἐπὶ ̔Ρώμης τὰ μάλιστα αὐτῷ γεγονότα πρότερον: Συρίαν δὲ ἐν τῷ τότε διεῖπεν. 18.16. Σαδδουκαίοις δὲ τὰς ψυχὰς ὁ λόγος συναφανίζει τοῖς σώμασι, φυλακῇ δὲ οὐδαμῶς τινων μεταποίησις αὐτοῖς ἢ τῶν νόμων: πρὸς γὰρ τοὺς διδασκάλους σοφίας, ἣν μετίασιν, ἀμφιλογεῖν ἀρετὴν ἀριθμοῦσιν. 18.16. ἡ δὲ ὑπισχνεῖτο, καὶ ὁ ̓Αλέξανδρος πέντε τάλαντα αὐτοῖς ἐν τῇ ̓Αλεξανδρείᾳ δοὺς τὸ λοιπὸν ἐν Δικαιαρχείᾳ γενομένοις παρέξειν ἐπηγγέλλετο, δεδιὼς τοῦ ̓Αγρίππου τὸ εἰς τὰ ἀναλώματα ἕτοιμον. καὶ Κύπρος μὲν ἀπαλλάξασα τὸν ἄνδρα ἐπὶ τῆς ̓Ιταλίας πλευσούμενον αὐτὴ μετὰ τῶν τέκνων ἐπὶ ̓Ιουδαίας ἀνέζευξεν. 18.17. εἰς ὀλίγους δὲ ἄνδρας οὗτος ὁ λόγος ἀφίκετο, τοὺς μέντοι πρώτους τοῖς ἀξιώμασι, πράσσεταί τε ἀπ' αὐτῶν οὐδὲν ὡς εἰπεῖν: ὁπότε γὰρ ἐπ' ἀρχὰς παρέλθοιεν, ἀκουσίως μὲν καὶ κατ' ἀνάγκας, προσχωροῦσι δ' οὖν οἷς ὁ Φαρισαῖος λέγει διὰ τὸ μὴ ἄλλως ἀνεκτοὺς γενέσθαι τοῖς πλήθεσιν. 18.17. οὔτε γὰρ πρεσβειῶν ὑποδοχὰς ἐκ τοῦ ὀξέος ἐποιεῖτο ἡγεμόσι τε ἢ ἐπιτρόποις ὑπ' αὐτοῦ σταλεῖσιν οὐδεμία ἦν διαδοχή, ὁπότε μὴ φθαῖεν τετελευτηκότες: ὅθεν καὶ δεσμωτῶν ἀκροάσεως ἀπερίοπτος ἦν.

13.171. 9. At this time there were three sects among the Jews, who had different opinions concerning human actions; the one was called the sect of the Pharisees, another the sect of the Sadducees, and the other the sect of the Essenes. 13.172. Now for the Pharisees, they say that some actions, but not all, are the work of fate, and some of them are in our own power, and that they are liable to fate, but are not caused by fate. But the sect of the Essenes affirm, that fate governs all things, and that nothing befalls men but what is according to its determination. 13.173. And for the Sadducees, they take away fate, and say there is no such thing, and that the events of human affairs are not at its disposal; but they suppose that all our actions are in our own power, so that we are ourselves the causes of what is good, and receive what is evil from our own folly. However, I have given a more exact account of these opinions in the second book of the Jewish War. 13.297. but of these matters we shall speak hereafter. What I would now explain is this, that the Pharisees have delivered to the people a great many observances by succession from their fathers, which are not written in the laws of Moses; and for that reason it is that the Sadducees reject them, and say that we are to esteem those observances to be obligatory which are in the written word, but are not to observe what are derived from the tradition of our forefathers. 13.298. And concerning these things it is that great disputes and differences have arisen among them, while the Sadducees are able to persuade none but the rich, and have not the populace obsequious to them, but the Pharisees have the multitude on their side. But about these two sects, and that of the Essenes, I have treated accurately in the second book of Jewish affairs. 18.11. 2. The Jews had for a great while had three sects of philosophy peculiar to themselves; the sect of the Essenes, and the sect of the Sadducees, and the third sort of opinions was that of those called Pharisees; of which sects, although I have already spoken in the second book of the Jewish War, yet will I a little touch upon them now. 18.11. However, he fell in love with Herodias, this last Herod’s wife, who was the daughter of Aristobulus their brother, and the sister of Agrippa the Great. This man ventured to talk to her about a marriage between them; which address, when she admitted, an agreement was made for her to change her habitation, and come to him as soon as he should return from Rome: one article of this marriage also was this, that he should divorce Aretas’s daughter. 18.12. 3. Now, for the Pharisees, they live meanly, and despise delicacies in diet; and they follow the conduct of reason; and what that prescribes to them as good for them they do; and they think they ought earnestly to strive to observe reason’s dictates for practice. They also pay a respect to such as are in years; nor are they so bold as to contradict them in any thing which they have introduced; 18.12. 3. So Vitellius prepared to make war with Aretas, having with him two legions of armed men; he also took with him all those of light armature, and of the horsemen which belonged to them, and were drawn out of those kingdoms which were under the Romans, and made haste for Petra, and came to Ptolemais. 18.13. and when they determine that all things are done by fate, they do not take away the freedom from men of acting as they think fit; since their notion is, that it hath pleased God to make a temperament, whereby what he wills is done, but so that the will of man can act virtuously or viciously. 18.13. 4. Herod the Great had two daughters by Mariamne, the [grand] daughter of Hyrcanus; the one was Salampsio, who was married to Phasaelus, her first cousin, who was himself the son of Phasaelus, Herod’s brother, her father making the match; the other was Cypros, who was herself married also to her first cousin Antipater, the son of Salome, Herod’s sister. 18.14. They also believe that souls have an immortal rigor in them, and that under the earth there will be rewards or punishments, according as they have lived virtuously or viciously in this life; and the latter are to be detained in an everlasting prison, but that the former shall have power to revive and live again; 18.14. Alexander had a son of the same name with his brother Tigranes, and was sent to take possession of the kingdom of Armenia by Nero; he had a son, Alexander, who married Jotape, the daughter of Antiochus, the king of Commagena; Vespasian made him king of an island in Cilicia. 18.15. on account of which doctrines they are able greatly to persuade the body of the people; and whatsoever they do about divine worship, prayers, and sacrifices, they perform them according to their direction; insomuch that the cities give great attestations to them on account of their entire virtuous conduct, both in the actions of their lives and their discourses also. 18.15. Yet did not Herod long continue in that resolution of supporting him, though even that support was not sufficient for him; for as once they were at a feast at Tyre, and in their cups, and reproaches were cast upon one another, Agrippa thought that was not to be borne, while Herod hit him in the teeth with his poverty, and with his owing his necessary food to him. So he went to Flaccus, one that had been consul, and had been a very great friend to him at Rome formerly, and was now president of Syria. 18.16. 4. But the doctrine of the Sadducees is this: That souls die with the bodies; nor do they regard the observation of any thing besides what the law enjoins them; for they think it an instance of virtue to dispute with those teachers of philosophy whom they frequent: 18.16. o she undertook to repay it. Accordingly, Alexander paid them five talents at Alexandria, and promised to pay them the rest of that sum at Dicearchia [Puteoli]; and this he did out of the fear he was in that Agrippa would soon spend it. So this Cypros set her husband free, and dismissed him to go on with his navigation to Italy, while she and her children departed for Judea. 18.17. but this doctrine is received but by a few, yet by those still of the greatest dignity. But they are able to do almost nothing of themselves; for when they become magistrates, as they are unwillingly and by force sometimes obliged to be, they addict themselves to the notions of the Pharisees, because the multitude would not otherwise bear them. 18.17. for he did not admit ambassadors quickly, and no successors were despatched away to governors or procurators of the provinces that had been formerly sent, unless they were dead; whence it was that he was so negligent in hearing the causes of prisoners;

29. New Testament, James, 2.14-2.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 728

2.14. Τί ὄφελος, ἀδελφοί μου, ἐὰν πίστιν λέγῃ τις ἔχειν ἔργα δὲ μὴ ἔχῃ; 2.15. μὴ δύναται ἡ πίστις σῶσαι αὐτόν; ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν καὶ λειπόμενοι τῆς ἐφημέρου τροφῆς, 2.16. εἴπῃ δέ τις αὐτοῖς ἐξ ὑμῶν Ὑπάγετε ἐν εἰρήνῃ, θερμαίνεσθε καὶ χορτάζεσθε, μὴ δῶτε δὲ αὐτοῖς τὰ ἐπιτήδεια τοῦ σώματος, τί ὄφελος; 2.17. οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις, ἐὰν μὴ ἔχῃ ἔργα, νεκρά ἐστιν καθʼ ἑαυτήν. 2.18. ἀλλʼ ἐρεῖ τις Σὺ πίστιν ἔχεις κἀγὼ ἔργα ἔχω. δεῖξον μοι τὴν πίστιν σου χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων, κἀγώ σοι δείξω ἐκ τῶν ἔργων μου τὴν πίστιν. 2.19. σὺ πιστεύεις ὅτι εἷς θεὸς ἔστιν; καλῶς ποιεῖς· καὶ τὰ δαιμόνια πιστεύουσιν καὶ φρίσσουσιν. 2.20. θέλεις δὲ γνῶναι, ὦ ἄνθρωπε κενέ, ὅτι ἡ πίστις χωρὶς τῶν ἔργων ἀργή ἐστιν; 2.21. Ἀβραὰμ ὁ πατὴρ ἡμῶν οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ἀνενέγκας Ἰσαὰκ τὸν υἱὸν αὐτοῦ ἐπὶ τὸ θυσιαστήριον; 2.22. βλέπεις ὅτι ἡ πίστις συνήργει τοῖς ἔργοις αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐκ τῶν ἔργων ἡ πίστις ἐτελειώθη, καὶ ἐπληρώθη ἡ γραφὴ ἡ λέγουσα 2.23. Ἐπίστευσεν δὲ Ἀβραὰμ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἐλογίσθη αὐτῷ εἰς δικαιοσύνην, καὶ φίλος θεοῦ ἐκλήθη. 2.24. ὁρᾶτε ὅτι ἐξ ἔργων δικαιοῦται ἄνθρωπος καὶ οὐκ ἐκ πίστεως μόνον. 2.25. ὁμοίως δὲ καὶ Ῥαὰβ ἡ πόρνη οὐκ ἐξ ἔργων ἐδικαιώθη, ὑποδεξαμένη τοὺς ἀγγέλους καὶ ἑτέρᾳ ὁδῷ ἐκβαλοῦσα; 2.26. ὥσπερ τὸ σῶμα χωρὶς πνεύματος νεκρόν ἐστιν, οὕτως καὶ ἡ πίστις χωρὶς ἔργων νεκρά ἐστιν.

2.14. What good is it, my brothers, if a man says he has faith, but has no works? Can that faith save him? 2.15. And if a brother or sister is naked and in lack of daily food, 2.16. and one of you tells them, "Go in peace, be warmed and filled;" and yet you didn't give them the things the body needs, what good is it? 2.17. Even so faith, if it has no works, is dead in itself. 2.18. Yes, a man will say, "You have faith, and I have works." Show me your faith from your works, and I by my works will show you my faith. 2.19. You believe that God is one. You do well. The demons also believe, and shudder. 2.20. But do you want to know, vain man, that faith apart from works is dead? 2.21. Wasn't Abraham our father justified by works, in that he offered up Isaac his son on the altar? 2.22. You see that faith worked with his works, and by works faith was perfected; 2.23. and the Scripture was fulfilled which says, "Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him as righteousness;" and he was called the friend of God. 2.24. You see then that by works, a man is justified, and not only by faith. 2.25. In like manner wasn't Rahab the prostitute also justified by works, in that she received the messengers, and sent them out another way? 2.26. For as the body apart from the spirit is dead, even so faith apart from works is dead.

30. New Testament, Matthew, 5.1-7.28, 5.38, 5.39, 5.40, 5.41, 5.42, 5.43, 5.44, 5.45, 5.46, 5.47, 5.48, 10.1, 10.25, 16.13, 16.14, 16.15, 16.16, 16.17, 16.18, 16.19, 23.8, 23.10 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134

5.38. Ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη Ὀφθαλμὸν ἀντὶ ὀφθαλμοῦ καὶ ὀδόντα ἀντὶ ὀδόντος.

5.38. "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth.'

31. New Testament, Romans, 2.1, 43862, 2.15, 1.2, 1.21.00, 3.9, 3.1-6a (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 874

2.1. Διὸ ἀναπολόγητος εἶ, ὦ ἄνθρωπε πᾶς ὁ κρίνων· ἐν ᾧ γὰρ κρίνεις τὸν ἕτερον, σεαυτὸν κατακρίνεις, τὰ γὰρ αὐτὰ πράσσεις ὁ κρίνων·

2.1. Therefore you are without excuse, O man, whoever you are who judge. For in that which you judge another, you condemn yourself. For you who judge practice the same things.

32. New Testament, Luke, 10.7 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 501

10.7. ἐν αὐτῇ δὲ τῇ οἰκίᾳ μένετε, ἔσθοντες καὶ πίνοντες τὰ παρʼ αὐτῶν, ἄξιος γὰρ ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ. μὴ μεταβαίνετε ἐξ οἰκίας εἰς οἰκίαν.

10.7. Remain in that same house, eating and drinking the things they give, for the laborer is worthy of his wages. Don't go from house to house.

33. Ignatius, To The Romans, a b c d\n0 '5.1 '5.1 '5 1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

34. Mishnah, Avodah Zarah, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 137

1.7. אֵין מוֹכְרִין לָהֶם דֻּבִּין וַאֲרָיוֹת וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁיֶּשׁ בּוֹ נֵזֶק לָרַבִּים. אֵין בּוֹנִין עִמָּהֶם בָּסִילְקִי, גַּרְדּוֹם, וְאִצְטַדְיָא, וּבִימָה. אֲבָל בּוֹנִים עִמָּהֶם בִּימוֹסְיָאוֹת וּבֵית מֶרְחֲצָאוֹת. הִגִּיעוּ לַכִּפָּה שֶׁמַּעֲמִידִין בָּהּ עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה, אָסוּר לִבְנוֹת:

1.7. One should not sell them bears, lions or anything which may injure the public. One should not join them in building a basilica, a scaffold, a stadium, or a platform. But one may join them in building public or private bathhouses. When however he reaches the cupola in which the idol is placed he must not build.

35. Mishnah, Avot, 1.1-1.2, 1.4, 1.6, 1.12, 3.11, 4.13, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187; Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

1.1. משֶׁה קִבֵּל תּוֹרָה מִסִּינַי, וּמְסָרָהּ לִיהוֹשֻׁעַ, וִיהוֹשֻׁעַ לִזְקֵנִים, וּזְקֵנִים לִנְבִיאִים, וּנְבִיאִים מְסָרוּהָ לְאַנְשֵׁי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הֵם אָמְרוּ שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים, הֱווּ מְתוּנִים בַּדִּין, וְהַעֲמִידוּ תַלְמִידִים הַרְבֵּה, וַעֲשׂוּ סְיָג לַתּוֹרָה: 1.1. שְׁמַעְיָה וְאַבְטַלְיוֹן קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. שְׁמַעְיָה אוֹמֵר, אֱהֹב אֶת הַמְּלָאכָה, וּשְׂנָא אֶת הָרַבָּנוּת, וְאַל תִּתְוַדַּע לָרָשׁוּת: 1.2. שִׁמְעוֹן הַצַּדִּיק הָיָה מִשְּׁיָרֵי כְנֶסֶת הַגְּדוֹלָה. הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, עַל שְׁלשָׁה דְבָרִים הָעוֹלָם עוֹמֵד, עַל הַתּוֹרָה וְעַל הָעֲבוֹדָה וְעַל גְּמִילוּת חֲסָדִים: 1.4. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה וְיוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹחָנָן אִישׁ יְרוּשָׁלַיִם קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יוֹסֵי בֶן יוֹעֶזֶר אִישׁ צְרֵדָה אוֹמֵר, יְהִי בֵיתְךָ בֵית וַעַד לַחֲכָמִים, וֶהֱוֵי מִתְאַבֵּק בַּעֲפַר רַגְלֵיהֶם, וֶהֱוֵי שׁוֹתֶה בְצָמָא אֶת דִּבְרֵיהֶם: 1.6. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה וְנִתַּאי הָאַרְבֵּלִי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן פְּרַחְיָה אוֹמֵר, עֲשֵׂה לְךָ רַב, וּקְנֵה לְךָ חָבֵר, וֶהֱוֵי דָן אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לְכַף זְכוּת: 1.12. הִלֵּל וְשַׁמַּאי קִבְּלוּ מֵהֶם. הִלֵּל אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי מִתַּלְמִידָיו שֶׁל אַהֲרֹן, אוֹהֵב שָׁלוֹם וְרוֹדֵף שָׁלוֹם, אוֹהֵב אֶת הַבְּרִיּוֹת וּמְקָרְבָן לַתּוֹרָה: 3.11. רַבִּי אֶלְעָזָר הַמּוֹדָעִי אוֹמֵר, הַמְחַלֵּל אֶת הַקָּדָשִׁים, וְהַמְבַזֶּה אֶת הַמּוֹעֲדוֹת, וְהַמַּלְבִּין פְּנֵי חֲבֵרוֹ בָרַבִּים, וְהַמֵּפֵר בְּרִיתוֹ שֶׁל אַבְרָהָם אָבִינוּ עָלָיו הַשָּׁלוֹם, וְהַמְגַלֶּה פָנִים בַּתּוֹרָה שֶׁלֹּא כַהֲלָכָה, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁיֵּשׁ בְּיָדוֹ תוֹרָה וּמַעֲשִׂים טוֹבִים, אֵין לוֹ חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא: 4.13. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הֱוֵי זָהִיר בַּתַּלְמוּד, שֶׁשִּׁגְגַת תַּלְמוּד עוֹלָה זָדוֹן. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אוֹמֵר, שְׁלשָׁה כְתָרִים הֵם, כֶּתֶר תּוֹרָה וְכֶתֶר כְּהֻנָּה וְכֶתֶר מַלְכוּת, וְכֶתֶר שֵׁם טוֹב עוֹלֶה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן: 5.5. עֲשָׂרָה נִסִּים נַעֲשׂוּ לַאֲבוֹתֵינוּ בְּבֵית הַמִּקְדָּשׁ. לֹא הִפִּילָה אִשָּׁה מֵרֵיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ, וְלֹא הִסְרִיחַ בְּשַׂר הַקֹּדֶשׁ מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא נִרְאָה זְבוּב בְּבֵית הַמִּטְבָּחַיִם, וְלֹא אֵרַע קֶרִי לְכֹהֵן גָּדוֹל בְּיוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים, וְלֹא כִבּוּ גְשָׁמִים אֵשׁ שֶׁל עֲצֵי הַמַּעֲרָכָה, וְלֹא נָצְחָה הָרוּחַ אֶת עַמּוּד הֶעָשָׁן, וְלֹא נִמְצָא פְסוּל בָּעֹמֶר וּבִשְׁתֵּי הַלֶּחֶם וּבְלֶחֶם הַפָּנִים, עוֹמְדִים צְפוּפִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים רְוָחִים, וְלֹא הִזִּיק נָחָשׁ וְעַקְרָב בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם מֵעוֹלָם, וְלֹא אָמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ צַר לִי הַמָּקוֹם שֶׁאָלִין בִּירוּשָׁלַיִם:

1.1. Moses received the torah at Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the elders, and the elders to the prophets, and the prophets to the Men of the Great Assembly. They said three things: Be patient in [the administration of] justice, raise many disciples and make a fence round the Torah. 1.2. Shimon the Righteous was one of the last of the men of the great assembly. He used to say: the world stands upon three things: the Torah, the Temple service, and the practice of acts of piety. 1.4. Yose ben Yoezer (a man) of Zeredah and Yose ben Yoha [a man] of Jerusalem received [the oral tradition] from them [i.e. Shimon the Righteous and Antigonus]. Yose ben Yoezer used to say: let thy house be a house of meeting for the Sages and sit in the very dust of their feet, and drink in their words with thirst. 1.6. Joshua ben Perahiah and Nittai the Arbelite received [the oral tradition] from them. Joshua ben Perahiah used to say: appoint for thyself a teacher, and acquire for thyself a companion and judge all men with the scale weighted in his favor. 1.12. Hillel and Shammai received [the oral tradition] from them. Hillel used to say: be of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and pursuing peace, loving mankind and drawing them close to the Torah. 3.11. Rabbi Elazar of Modiin said: one who profanes sacred things, and one who despises the festivals, and one who causes his fellow’s face to blush in public, and one who annuls the covet of our father Abraham, may he rest in peace, and he who is contemptuous towards the Torah, even though he has to his credit [knowledge of the] Torah and good deeds, he has not a share in the world to come. 4.13. Rabbi Judah said: be careful in study, for an error in study counts as deliberate sin. Rabbi Shimon said: There are three crowns: the crown of torah, the crown of priesthood, and the crown of royalty, but the crown of a good name supersedes them all. 5.5. Ten wonders were wrought for our ancestors in the Temple: [1] no woman miscarried from the odor of the sacred flesh; [2] the sacred flesh never became putrid; [3] no fly was ever seen in the slaughterhouse; [4] no emission occurred to the high priest on the Day of Atonement; [5] the rains did not extinguish the fire of the woodpile; [6] the wind did not prevail against the column of smoke; [7] no defect was found in the omer, or in the two loaves, or in the showbread; [8] the people stood pressed together, yet bowed down and had room enough; [9] never did a serpent or a scorpion harm anyone in Jerusalem; [10] and no man said to his fellow: the place is too congested for me to lodge overnight in Jerusalem.

36. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 3.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 213

37. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 4.8-4.9, 6.4-6.5, 11.6, 11.23-11.29 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes •weiss, johannes, pauline style Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 102, 665

4.8. ἐν παντὶ θλιβόμενοι ἀλλʼ οὐ στενοχωρούμενοι, ἀπορούμενοι ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐξαπορούμενοι, 4.9. διωκόμενοι ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἐγκαταλειπόμενοι;, καταβαλλόμενοι ἀλλʼ οὐκ ἀπολλύμενοι, 6.4. ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ συνιστάνοντες ἑαυτοὺς ὡς θεοῦ διάκονοι· ἐν ὑπομονῇ πολλῇ, ἐν θλίψεσιν, ἐν ἀνάγκαις, ἐν στενοχωρίαις, 6.5. ἐν πληγαῖς, ἐν φυλακαῖς, ἐν ἀκαταστασίαις, ἐν κόποις, ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις, ἐν νηστείαις, 11.6. εἰ δὲ καὶ ἰδιώτης τῷ λόγῳ, ἀλλʼ οὐ τῇ γνώσει, ἀλλʼ ἐν παντὶ φανερώσαντες ἐν πᾶσιν εἰς ὑμᾶς. 11.23. παραφρονῶν λαλῶ, ὕπερ ἐγώ· ἐν κόποις περισσοτέρως, ἐν φυλακαῖς περισσοτέρως, ἐν πληγαῖς ὑπερβαλλόντως, ἐν θανάτοις πολλάκις· 11.24. ὑπὸ Ἰουδαίων πεντάκις τεσσεράκοντα παρὰ μίαν ἔλαβον, 11.25. τρὶς ἐραβδίσθην, ἅπαξ ἐλιθάσθην, τρὶς ἐναυάγησα, νυχθήμερον ἐν τῷ βυθῷ πεποίηκα· ὁδοιπορίαις πολλάκις, 11.26. κινδύνοις ποταμῶν, κινδύνοις λῃστῶν, κινδύνοις ἐκ γένους, κινδύνοις ἐξ ἐθνῶν, κινδύνοις ἐν πόλει, κινδύνοις ἐν ἐρημίᾳ, κινδύνοις ἐν θαλάσσῃ, κινδύνοις ἐν ψευδαδέλφοις, 11.27. κόπῳ καὶ μόχθῳ, ἐν ἀγρυπνίαις πολλάκις, ἐν λιμῷ καὶ δίψει, ἐν νηστείαις πολλάκις, ἐν ψύχει καὶ γυμνότητι· 11.28. χωρὶς τῶν παρεκτὸς ἡ ἐπίστασίς μοι ἡ καθʼ ἡμέραν, ἡ μέριμνα πασῶν τῶν ἐκκλησιῶν. τίς ἀσθενεῖ, καὶ οὐκ ἀσθενῶ; 11.29. τίς σκανδαλίζεται, καὶ οὐκ ἐγὼ πυροῦμαι;

38. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 5.17-5.18 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 501

5.17. Οἱ καλῶς προεστῶτες πρεσβύτεροι διπλῆς τιμῆς ἀξιούσθωσαν, μάλιστα οἱ κοπιῶντες ἐν λόγῳ καὶ διδασκαλίᾳ· 5.18. λέγει γὰρ ἡ γραφήΒοῦν ἀλοῶντα οὐ φιμώσεις·καὶ Ἄξιος ὁ ἐργάτης τοῦ μισθοῦ αὐτοῦ.

5.17. Let the elders who rule well be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who labor in the word and in teaching. 5.18. For the Scripture says, "You shall not muzzle the ox when it treads out the grain." And, "The laborer is worthy of his wages."

39. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 4.12, 9.01.00, 9.4, 9.9, 9.10, 11.1, 15.32.00, 13.3, 4.13, 9.18, 9, 4.10, 9.5, 9.14.00, 9.8, 9.13.00, 7.25, 4.11, 8, 8.13, 9.12.00, 9.23, 8.09.00, 15.34.00, 8.1, 9.6, 10.1, 9.10b, 10a (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

4.12. καὶ κοπιῶμεν ἐργαζόμενοι ταῖς ἰδίαις χερσίν· λοιδορούμενοι εὐλογοῦμεν, διωκόμενοι ἀνεχόμεθα,

4.12. We toil,working with our own hands. Being reviled, we bless. Being persecuted,we endure.

40. Anon., Didache, a b c d\n0 '13.1 '13.1 '13 1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 501

41. Musonius Rufus, Fragments, 19b, 8a (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

42. Mishnah, Yoma, 2.1-2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 136

2.1. בָּרִאשׁוֹנָה כָּל מִי שֶׁרוֹצֶה לִתְרֹם אֶת הַמִּזְבֵּחַ, תּוֹרֵם. וּבִזְמַן שֶׁהֵן מְרֻבִּין, רָצִין וְעוֹלִין בַּכֶּבֶשׁ, וְכָל הַקּוֹדֵם אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ בְאַרְבַּע אַמּוֹת זָכָה. וְאִם הָיוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם שָׁוִין, הַמְמֻנֶּה אוֹמֵר לָהֶם הַצְבִּיעוּ. וּמָה הֵן מוֹצִיאִין, אַחַת אוֹ שְׁתַּיִם, וְאֵין מוֹצִיאִין אֲגֻדָּל בַּמִּקְדָּשׁ: 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:

2.1. Originally anyone who wished to remove [the ashes from] the altar did so. When they were many, they would run up the ramp [of the altar] and he that came first within four cubits won the privilege. If two were even, the officer would say to them [all:] raise the finger! And how many did they put out? One or two but one does not put out a thumb in the Temple. 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.

43. Mishnah, Tamid, beshallah 5, beshallah 7, pisha 13, shirta 6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Kaplan, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs (2015) 13

44. Mishnah, Taanit, 1.1-1.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 176

1.1. מֵאֵימָתַי מַזְכִּירִין גְּבוּרוֹת גְּשָׁמִים. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל חָג. רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ אוֹמֵר, מִיּוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חָג. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ. הוֹאִיל וְאֵין הַגְּשָׁמִים אֶלָּא סִימַן קְלָלָה בֶּחָג, לָמָּה מַזְכִּיר. אָמַר לוֹ רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, אַף אֲנִי לֹא אָמַרְתִּי לִשְׁאוֹל, אֶלָּא לְהַזְכִּיר מַשִּׁיב הָרוּחַ וּמוֹרִיד הַגֶּשֶׁם בְּעוֹנָתוֹ. אָמַר לוֹ, אִם כֵּן, לְעוֹלָם יְהֵא מַזְכִּיר: 1.2. אֵין שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים אֶלָּא סָמוּךְ לַגְּשָׁמִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, הָעוֹבֵר לִפְנֵי הַתֵּבָה בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָאַחֲרוֹן שֶׁל חַג, הָאַחֲרוֹן מַזְכִּיר, הָרִאשׁוֹן אֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר. בְּיוֹם טוֹב הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁל פֶּסַח, הָרִאשׁוֹן מַזְכִּיר, הָאַחֲרוֹן אֵינוֹ מַזְכִּיר. עַד אֵימָתַי שׁוֹאֲלִין אֶת הַגְּשָׁמִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיַּעֲבֹר הַפָּסַח. רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיֵּצֵא נִיסָן, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (יואל ב) וַיּוֹרֶד לָכֶם גֶּשֶׁם, מוֹרֶה וּמַלְקוֹשׁ בָּרִאשׁוֹן:

1.1. From when do they mention the powers of [bringing] rain? Rabbi Eliezer says: from the first day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua says: on the last day of the Festival [of Sukkot]. Rabbi Joshua said to him: Since rain on the Festival is nothing but a sign of [God’s] curse why should he mention it? Rabbi Eliezer said to him: I also did not say to request [rain] but to make mention, “He causes the wind to blow and the rain to fall” in its due season. He replied to him: if so one should at all times make mention of it. 1.2. They don’t pray for rain except close to the rainy season. Rabbi Judah says: One who goes down before the ark on the last day of Sukkot the last one mentions [rain], the first does not; on the first day of Pesah, the first mentions, the last does not. Up until when do they request rain? Rabbi Judah says: Until Pesah is over. Rabbi Meir says: Until Nissan is over, as it says, “Now He makes the rain fall in the first month, early rain and late rain” (Joel 2:23).

45. Mishnah, Sukkah, 1.2-1.7, 2.1, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 207, 210, 213, 216, 221

2.1. הַיָּשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה בַסֻּכָּה, לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוּדָה, נוֹהֲגִין הָיִינוּ, שֶׁהָיִינוּ יְשֵׁנִים תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה בִּפְנֵי הַזְּקֵנִים, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לָנוּ דָבָר. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַעֲשֶׂה בְטָבִי עַבְדּוֹ שֶׁל רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל שֶׁהָיָה יָשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, וְאָמַר לָהֶן רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל לַזְּקֵנִים, רְאִיתֶם טָבִי עַבְדִּי, שֶׁהוּא תַלְמִיד חָכָם וְיוֹדֵעַ שֶׁעֲבָדִים פְּטוּרִין מִן הַסֻּכָּה, לְפִיכָךְ יָשֵׁן הוּא תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה. וּלְפִי דַרְכֵּנוּ לָמַדְנוּ, שֶׁהַיָּשֵׁן תַּחַת הַמִּטָּה, לֹא יָצָא יְדֵי חוֹבָתוֹ: 2.7. מִי שֶׁהָיָה רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, בֵּית שַׁמַּאי פּוֹסְלִין, וּבֵית הִלֵּל מַכְשִׁירִין. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית הִלֵּל לְבֵית שַׁמַּאי, לֹא כָךְ הָיָה מַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁהָלְכוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי וְזִקְנֵי בֵית הִלֵּל לְבַקֵּר אֶת רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן הַחוֹרָנִי, וּמְצָאוּהוּ שֶׁהָיָה יוֹשֵׁב רֹאשׁוֹ וְרֻבּוֹ בַסֻּכָּה, וְשֻׁלְחָנוֹ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, וְלֹא אָמְרוּ לוֹ דָבָר. אָמְרוּ לָהֶן בֵּית שַׁמַּאי, מִשָּׁם רְאָיָה, אַף הֵם אָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִם כֵּן הָיִיתָ נוֹהֵג, לֹא קִיַּמְתָּ מִצְוַת סֻכָּה מִיָּמֶיךָ:

2.1. He who sleeps under a bed in the sukkah has not fulfilled his obligation. Rabbi Judah said: we had the custom to sleep under a bed in the presence of the elders, and they didn’t say anything to us. Rabbi Shimon said: it happened that Tabi, the slave of Rabba Gamaliel, used to sleep under the bed. And Rabban Gamaliel said to the elders, “Have you seen Tabi my slave, who is a scholar, and knows that slaves are exempt from [the law of] a sukkah, therefore he sleep under the bed.” And incidentally we learned that he who sleeps under a bed has not fulfilled his obligation. 2.7. One whose head and the greater part of his body were within the sukkah and his table within the house: Bet Shammai say: it is invalid and Bet Hillel say it valid. Bet Hillel said to Bet Shammai: Did it not in fact happen that the elders of Bet Shammai and the elders of Bet Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoha ben HaHoroni and found him sitting with his head and the greater part of his body within the sukkah and his table within the house, and they didn’t say anything to him? Bet Shammai said to them: From there [you bring] proof? Indeed they said to him, “If this is your custom, then you have never in your whole life fulfilled the commandment of the sukkah.

46. Mishnah, Shabbat, 16.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 84

47. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 9.5, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 137; Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

9.5. מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ מִתְבַּקָּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לָחַץ: 10.1. כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו:

9.5. He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction. 10.1. All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”

48. Mishnah, Peah, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 136

2.6. מַעֲשֶׂה שֶׁזָּרַע רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן אִישׁ הַמִּצְפָּה לִפְנֵי רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל, וְעָלוּ לְלִשְׁכַּת הַגָּזִית וְשָׁאָלוּ. אָמַר נַחוּם הַלַּבְלָר, מְקֻבָּל אֲנִי מֵרַבִּי מְיָאשָׁא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מֵאַבָּא, שֶׁקִּבֵּל מִן הַזּוּגוֹת, שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ מִן הַנְּבִיאִים, הֲלָכָה לְמשֶׁה מִסִּינַי, בְּזוֹרֵעַ אֶת שָׂדֵהוּ שְׁנֵי מִינֵי חִטִּין, אִם עֲשָׂאָן גֹּרֶן אַחַת, נוֹתֵן פֵּאָה אַחַת. שְׁתֵּי גְרָנוֹת, נוֹתֵן שְׁתֵּי פֵאוֹת:

2.6. It happened that Rabbi Shimon of Mitzpah planted his field [with two different kinds] and came before Rabban Gamaliel. They both went up to the Chamber of Hewn Stone and asked [about the law]. Nahum the scribe said: I have a tradition from Rabbi Meyasha, who received it from Abba, who received it from the pairs [of sage], who received it from the prophets, a halakhah of Moses from Sinai, that one who plants his field with two species of wheat, if he makes up of it one threshing-floor, he gives only one peah, but if two threshing-floors, he gives two peahs.

49. Mishnah, Megillah, 1.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 124

50. Mishnah, Kilayim, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 220

51. Mishnah, Kiddushin, 1.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 91

1.7. כָּל מִצְוֹת הַבֵּן עַל הָאָב, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוֹת הָאָב עַל הַבֵּן, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֲנָשִׁים חַיָּבִין וְנָשִׁים פְּטוּרוֹת. וְכָל מִצְוַת עֲשֵׂה שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין. וְכָל מִצְוַת לֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, בֵּין שֶׁהַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ בֵּין שֶׁלֹּא הַזְּמָן גְּרָמָהּ, אֶחָד אֲנָשִׁים וְאֶחָד נָשִׁים חַיָּבִין, חוּץ מִבַּל תַּשְׁחִית וּבַל תַּקִּיף וּבַל תִּטַּמָּא לְמֵתִים:

1.7. All obligations of the son upon the father, men are obligated, but women are exempt. But all obligations of the father upon the son, both men and women are obligated. All positive, time-bound commandments, men are obligated and women are exempt. But all positive non-time-bound commandments both men and women are obligated. And all negative commandments, whether time-bound or not time-bound, both men and women are obligated, except for, the prohibition against rounding [the corners of the head], and the prohibition against marring [the corner of the beard], and the prohibition [for a priest] to become impure through contact with the dead.

52. Mishnah, Ketuvot, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

4.11. בְּנָן נֻקְבִין דְּיֶהֶוְיָן לִיכִי מִנַּאי, יֶהֶוְיָן יָתְבָן בְּבֵיתִי וּמִתְּזָנָן מִנִּכְסַי עַד דְּתִנַּסְּבָן לְגֻבְרִין, חַיָּב, שֶׁהוּא תְנַאי בֵּית דִּין:

4.11. If he did not write for her, “the female children that I will have from you will dwell in my house and be maintained out of my estate until they are taken in marriage”, he is nevertheless liable, because [this clause] is a condition laid down by the court.

53. Mishnah, Eruvin, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 82, 84, 94

54. Mishnah, Berachot, 3.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 91, 94, 137, 176

3.3. נָשִׁים וַעֲבָדִים וּקְטַנִּים פְּטוּרִין מִקְּרִיאַת שְׁמַע וּמִן הַתְּפִלִּין, וְחַיָּבִין בִּתְפִלָּה וּבִמְזוּזָה, וּבְבִרְכַּת הַמָּזוֹן:

3.3. Women, slaves and minors are exempt from reciting the Shema and putting on tefillin, but are obligated for tefillah, mezuzah, and Birkat Hamazon (the blessing after meals).

55. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134

8.1. הַחוֹבֵל בַּחֲבֵרוֹ חַיָּב עָלָיו מִשּׁוּם חֲמִשָּׁה דְבָרִים, בְּנֶזֶק, בְּצַעַר, בְּרִפּוּי, בְּשֶׁבֶת, וּבְבֹשֶׁת. בְּנֶזֶק כֵּיצַד. סִמָּא אֶת עֵינוֹ, קָטַע אֶת יָדוֹ, שִׁבֵּר אֶת רַגְלוֹ, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלּוּ הוּא עֶבֶד נִמְכָּר בַּשּׁוּק וְשָׁמִין כַּמָּה הָיָה יָפֶה וְכַמָּה הוּא יָפֶה. צַעַר, כְּוָאוֹ בְשַׁפּוּד אוֹ בְמַסְמֵר, וַאֲפִלּוּ עַל צִפָּרְנוֹ, מְקוֹם שֶׁאֵינוֹ עוֹשֶׂה חַבּוּרָה, אוֹמְדִין כַּמָּה אָדָם כַּיּוֹצֵא בָזֶה רוֹצֶה לִטֹּל לִהְיוֹת מִצְטַעֵר כָּךְ. רִפּוּי, הִכָּהוּ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. עָלוּ בוֹ צְמָחִים, אִם מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, חַיָּב. שֶׁלֹּא מֵחֲמַת הַמַּכָּה, פָּטוּר. חָיְתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה, חָיְתָה וְנִסְתְּרָה, חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. חָיְתָה כָל צָרְכָּהּ, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב לְרַפְּאֹתוֹ. שֶׁבֶת, רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ כְּאִלוּ הוּא שׁוֹמֵר קִשּׁוּאִין, שֶׁכְּבָר נָתַן לוֹ דְמֵי יָדוֹ וּדְמֵי רַגְלוֹ. בֹּשֶׁת, הַכֹּל לְפִי הַמְבַיֵּשׁ וְהַמִּתְבַּיֵּשׁ. הַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הֶעָרֹם, הַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַסּוּמָא, וְהַמְבַיֵּשׁ אֶת הַיָּשֵׁן, חַיָּב. וְיָשֵׁן שֶׁבִּיֵּשׁ, פָּטוּר. נָפַל מִן הַגָּג, וְהִזִּיק וּבִיֵּשׁ, חַיָּב עַל הַנֶּזֶק וּפָטוּר עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כה) וְשָׁלְחָה יָדָהּ וְהֶחֱזִיקָה בִּמְבֻשָׁיו, אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַל הַבֹּשֶׁת עַד שֶׁיְהֵא מִתְכַּוֵּן:

8.1. He who wounds his fellow is liable to compensate him on five counts: for injury, for pain, for healing, for loss of income and for indignity. ‘For injury’: How so? If he blinded his fellow’s eye, cut off his hand or broke his foot, [his fellow] is looked upon as if he was a slave to be sold in the market and they assess how much he was worth and how much he is worth. ‘For pain’? If he burned him with a spit or a nail, even though it was on his fingernail, a place where it leaves no wound, they estimate how much money such a man would be willing to take to suffer so. ‘Healing’? If he struck him he is liable to pay the cost of his healing. If sores arise on him on account of the blow, he is liable [for the cost of their healing]. If not on account of the blow, he is not liable. If the wound healed and then opened and healed and then opened, he is liable for the cost of the healing. If it healed completely, he is no longer liable to pay the cost of the healing. ‘Loss of income’: He is looked upon as a watchman of a cucumber field, since he already gave him compensation for the loss of his hand or foot. ‘Indignity’: All is according to the status of the one that inflicts indignity and the status of the one that suffers indignity. If a man inflicted indignity on a naked man, or a blind man, or a sleeping man, he is [still] liable. If a man fell from the roof and caused injury and inflicted indignity, he is liable for the injury but not for the indignity, as it says, “And she puts forth her hand and grabs him by the private parts”, a man is liable only when he intended [to inflict indignity].

56. New Testament, Galatians, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 874

4.8. Ἀλλὰ τότε μὲν οὐκ εἰδότες θεὸν ἐδουλεύσατε τοῖς φύσει μὴ οὖσι θεοῖς·

4.8. However at that time, not knowing God, youwere in bondage to those who by nature are not gods.

57. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

2.7. בִּגְדֵי עַם הָאָרֶץ מִדְרָס לַפְּרוּשִׁין. בִּגְדֵי פְרוּשִׁין מִדְרָס לְאוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה. בִּגְדֵי אוֹכְלֵי תְרוּמָה מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. בִּגְדֵי קֹדֶשׁ מִדְרָס לְחַטָּאת. יוֹסֵף בֶּן יוֹעֶזֶר הָיָה חָסִיד שֶׁבַּכְּהֻנָּה, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַקֹּדֶשׁ. יוֹחָנָן בֶּן גֻּדְגְּדָא הָיָה אוֹכֵל עַל טָהֳרַת הַקֹּדֶשׁ כָּל יָמָיו, וְהָיְתָה מִטְפַּחְתּוֹ מִדְרָס לַחַטָּאת:

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification.

58. Plutarch, Can Virtue Be Taught, '439 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

59. Tosefta, Taanit, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 176

60. Appian, Civil Wars, a b c d\n0 '2.61 '2.61 '2 61 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

61. Tosefta, Eduyot, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

1.1. חמשה דברים היה ר\"ע דורש כמין אגדה בחמשה דברים אדם זוכה לבן וחכמים אומרים עד הפרק זכה לו מיכן ואילך הוא זוכה לעצמו אמר ר\"ע היכן מצינו שהיו חיגרין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפשטו ושהיו חרשין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתפקחו ושהיו סומין עד הפרק כשהגיע הפרק נתפתחו והיאך זוכה לו עד אותה השעה אמרו לו כי מצינו שהיו פשוטים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחגרו ושהיו פקחין עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נתחרשו ושהיו פתוחים עד הפרק וכשהגיע הפרק נסתמו הא אין זוכה לו אלא עד אותה השעה בלבד. 1.1. כשנכנסו חכמים לכרם ביבנה אמרו עתידה שעה שיהא אדם מבקש דבר מדברי תורה ואינו מוצא מדברי סופרים ואינו מוצא שנאמר (עמוס ח׳:י״ב) <לכן> הנה ימים באים נאם ה' וגו' ישוטטו לבקש את דבר ה' ולא ימצאו דבר ה' זו נבואה דבר ה' זה הקץ דבר ה' שלא יהא דבר מד\"ת דומה לחברו אמרו נתחיל מהלל ומשמאי שמאי אומר מקב חלה הלל אומר מקבים וחכ\"א לא כדברי זה ולא כדברי זה אלא קב ומחצה חייב בחלה שנאמר (במדבר ט״ו:כ׳) ראשית עריסותיכם כדי עיסתכם וכמה עיסתכם כדי עיסת מדבר וכמה עיסת מדבר עומר שנאמר (שמות ט״ז:ל״ו) והעומר עשירית האיפה הוא שיערו חכמים שבעה רבעים ועוד מדברית שהן חמשה רבעי צפורית שהן קב ומחצה ירושלמית.

1.1. When the Sages entered the Vineyard in Yavneh, they said, \"In the future, there will come an hour when a person seeks a teaching from the teachings of the Torah and he will not find it, or in the teachings of the Scribes, and he will not find it.\" As it says, \"Behold, days are coming, says the Lord, etc. they will seek out the word of God and they will not find it (Amos 8).\" 'The word of God' refers to prophecy. 'The word of God' refers to the End (of Days). 'The word of God', so that there shall not be one word of Torah similar to its fellow. They said, \"Let us begin from Hillel and Shammai!\"...

62. Tosefta, Eruvin, a b c d\n0 7(5).3 7(5).3 7(5) 3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 137

63. Tosefta, Ketuvot, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

4.8. מצוה לזון את הבנות ואין צריך לומר את הבנים ר' יוחנן בן ברוקה אומר חובה לזון את הבנות.

4.8. Ideally, one should feed [his] daughters, and it is not necessary to say [also his] sons. Rabbi Yoha ben Berokah says: It is required to feed daughters.

64. Tosefta, Kiddushin, 1.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 69

65. Tosefta, Sukkah, 1.4-1.7, 1.11, 2.10 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 210, 216

2.10. If one does not have a citron, he must not take in his hand a quince, or any other fruit. Withered fruits are valid, but dried ones are not valid. Rabbi Yehudah, however, says that even dried-up ones are valid. And again he says: There is a story of the men of Carbin that they used to transmit their lulavs in the time of persecution. They said to him, The time of persecution is no proof.

66. Tosefta, Maasrot, 2.21 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 221

67. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.11-7.12 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

7.11. (דברים כ׳:ו׳) ומיה איש אשר נטע כרם ולא חללו ילך וישוב לביתו אחד הנוטע את הכרם ואחד חמשה אילני מאכל מחמשת המינין אפילו בחמש עיירות ה\"ז חוזר ר' אליעזר בן יעקב אומר אין לי במשמע אלא כרם. 7.12. (דברים כ׳:ז׳) ומי האיש אשר ארש אשה אחד [מארס] ואחד [מייבם] אפילו שומרת יבם לחמשה אחין ואפי' חמשה אחין ששמעו שמת אחיהם במלחמה כולן חוזרין ובאין אין לי אלא בנה ביתו ולא חנכו נטע כרם ולא חללו ארס אשה ולא לקחה בנה בית וחנכו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש נטע כרם וחללו ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש ארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה שנים עשר חדש מנין שאין זזין ממקומן ת\"ל (דברים כ״ד:ה׳) כי יקח איש אשה חדשה דבר זה בכלל היה ולמה יצא להקיש אליו מה זה מיוחד שארס אשה ולקחה ולא שהה י\"ב חדש שאין [זזין ממקומן] אף כולן כן.

7.11. A person might think: 'since the Academy of Shammai declares unclean that which the Academy of Hillel declares clean, one prohibits that which the other permits, how, then, can I learn Torah?' This is way Torah repeats: \"words...the words...these are the words...\" All of the words have been given by a single Shepherd, one God fashioned them, one Provider gave them, Source of all deeds, blessed be God, has spoken them. So make for yourself a heart with many rooms, and bring into it the words of the Academy of Shammai and the words of the Academy of Hillel, the words of who declare unclean and those that declare clean.

68. Dio Chrysostom, Orations, 8.11-8.26 (1st cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

8.20. "But there is another battle more terrible and a struggle not slight but much greater than this and fraught with greater danger, I mean the fight against pleasure. Nor is it like that battle which Homer speaks of when he says, Fiercely then around the ships The struggle was renewed. With halberds and with trenchant battle-axe They fought, with mighty sword and two-edged spear. < 8.21. No, it is no such battle, for pleasure uses no open force but deceives and casts a spell with baneful drugs, just as Homer says Circe drugged the comrades of Odysseus, and some forthwith became swine, some wolves, and some other kinds of beasts. Yes, such is this thing pleasure, that hatches no single plot but all kinds of plots, and aims to undo men through sight, sound, smell, taste, and touch, with food too, and drink and carnal lust, tempting the waking and the sleeping alike. < 8.22. For it is not possible to set guards and then lie down to sleep as in ordinary warfare, since it is just then of all times that she makes her attack, at one time weakening and enslaving the soul by means of sleep itself, at another, sending mischievous and insidious dreams that suggest her. < 8.23. "Now work is carried on by means of touch for the most part and proceeds in that way, but pleasure assails a man through each and every sense that he has; and while he must face and grapple with work, to pleasure he must give the widest berth possible and have none but unavoidable dealings with her. < 8.24. And herein the strongest man is indeed strongest, one might almost say, who can keep the farthest away from pleasures; for it is impossible to dwell with pleasure or even to dally with her for any length of time without being completely enslaved. Hence when she gets the mastery and overpowers the soul by her charms, the rest of Circe's sorcery at once follows. With a stroke of her wand pleasure coolly drives her victim into a sort of sty and pens him up, < 8.25. and now from that time forth the man goes on living as a pig or a wolf. Pleasure also brings divers and deadly vipers into being, and other crawling things that attend constantly upon her as they lie about her doors, and though yearning for pleasure and serving her, they yet suffer a thousand hardships all in vain. < 8.26. For pleasure, after overpowering and taking possession of her victims, delivers them over to hardships, the most hateful and most difficult to endure. "This is the contest which I steadfastly maintain, and in which I risk my life against pleasure and hardship, yet not a single wretched mortal gives heed to me, but only to the jumpers and runners and dancers. <

69. Epictetus, Discourses, a b c d\n0 '3.22.48 '3.22.48 '3 22 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 289

70. Palestinian Talmud, Eruvin, 26a (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 69, 82

71. Palestinian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, 3.1 (42c) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 137

72. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 140 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 210

73. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 4.2, 22a (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan

74. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, 61c (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Alexander, Gender and Timebound Commandments in Judaism (2013) 69

75. Palestinian Talmud, Horayot, 8 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119, 124, 125, 127

76. Athenagoras, Apology Or Embassy For The Christians, a b c d\n0 '4.1 '4.1 '4 1 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

77. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 75 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187

75. " (Bamidbar 10:8) \"And the sons of Aaron the Cohanim shall blow on the trumpets\": What is the intent of this? From (Ibid. 3) \"And they shall blow with them,\" I would think that Israelites, too, may do so; it is, therefore, written \"the sons of Aaron.\" \"the Cohanim\": whether whole or blemished. These are the words of R. Tarfon. R. Akiva says: whole, not blemished, viz.: It is written here \"Cohanim,\" and, elsewhere, (Vayikra 3:2) \"Cohanim.\" Just as there, whole, not blemished; here, too, whole, not blemished. R. Tarfon: Akiva, how long will you pile up words against us! May I lose my sons if I did not see Shimon, my mother's brother, who was lame in one leg, standing and blowing the trumpets! R. Akiva: Might it be that you saw this on Rosh Hashanah or on Yom Kippur of the Jubilee year? R. Tarfon: I swear that you have not erred! Happy are you Abraham our father, from whose loins Akiva came forth! Tarfon saw and forgot (the day). Akiva expounded of himself and seconded the halachah. Anyone who departs from you departs from his life! (Ibid.) \"And they (the trumpets) shall be to you for a statute forever\": What is the intent of this? From \"Make for yourself two silver trumpets,\" I would understand that once he made them they would be a heirloom for (all) the generations. It is, therefore, written \"to you for a statute forever.\" They have been given as a statute and not for (all) the generations. From here they said: All the implements that Moses made in the desert were kasher for all of the generations, except the trumpets.",

78. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Shimeon Ben Yohai, beshallah 24.2 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, isaac h. Found in books: Kaplan, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs (2015) 13

79. Anon., Genesis Rabba, 4.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 137; Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

80. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, nezikin 2 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 136

81. Palestinian Talmud, Sukkah, 1.1-1.4, 1.7-1.8, 1.10 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 210, 213, 216, 220

82. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 26.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175; Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

26.2. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי מִמִּלְחַיָא וְרַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ דְּסִכְנִין בְּשֵׁם רַבִּי לֵוִי אָמְרוּ, מָצִינוּ תִּינוֹקוֹת בִּימֵי דָוִד עַד שֶׁלֹּא טָעֲמוּ טַעַם חֵטְא הָיוּ יוֹדְעִין לִדְרשׁ אֶת הַתּוֹרָה מ"ט פָּנִים טָמֵא וּמ"ט פָּנִים טָהוֹר, וַהֲוָה דָּוִד מַצְלֵי עֲלַיְהוּ, הֲדָא הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים יב, ח): אַתָּה ה' תִּשְׁמְרֵם, אַתָּה ה' נְטַר אוֹרַיְתְהוֹן בְּלִבֵּהוֹן, [עפ"י (תהלים יב, ח)]: תִּנְצְרֵם מִן הַדּוֹר זוּ לְעוֹלָם, מִן הַדּוֹר הַהוּא שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב כְּלָיָה, אַחַר כָּל הַשֶּׁבַח הַזֶּה יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹפְלִין, אֶלָּא עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיוּ בָּהֶם דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ נוֹפְלִין, הוּא שֶׁדָּוִד אוֹמֵר (תהלים נז, ה): נַפְשִׁי בְּתוֹךְ לְבָאִם, לְבָאִם זֶה אַבְנֵר וַעֲמָשָׂא שֶׁהָיוּ לְבָאִים בַּתּוֹרָה. (תהלים נז, ה): אֶשְׁכְּבָה לֹהֲטִים, זֶה דּוֹאֵג וַאֲחִיתֹפֶל שֶׁהָיוּ לְהוּטִין אַחַר לָשׁוֹן הָרָע. (תהלים נז, ה): בְּנֵי אָדָם שִׁנֵּיהֶם חֲנִית וְחִצִּים, אֵלּוּ אַנְשֵׁי קְעִילָה דִּכְתִיב בָּהֶם (שמואל א כג, יא): הֲיַסְגִּרֻנִי בַעֲלֵי קְעִילָה בְיָדוֹ. (תהלים נז, ה): וּלְשׁוֹנָם חֶרֶב חַדָּה, אֵלּוּ הַזִּיפִים דִּכְתִיב בְּהוֹן (תהלים נד, ב): בְּבוֹא הַזִּיפִים וַיֹּאמְרוּ לְשָׁאוּל, בְּאוֹתָהּ שָׁעָה אָמַר דָּוִד וְכִי מָה הַשְּׁכִינָה עוֹשָׂה בָּאָרֶץ (תהלים נז, ב): רוּמָה עַל הַשָּׁמַיִם אֱלֹהִים, סַלֵּק שְׁכִינָתְךָ מִבֵּינֵיהוֹן. אֲבָל דּוֹרוֹ שֶׁל אַחְאָב כֻּלָּן עוֹבְדֵי עֲבוֹדַת כּוֹכָבִים הָיוּ, וְעַל יְדֵי שֶׁלֹּא הָיוּ בָּהֶן דֵּילָטוֹרִין הָיוּ יוֹצְאִין לַמִּלְחָמָה וְנוֹצְחִין, הוּא שֶׁעוֹבַדְיָה אָמַר לְאֵלִיָּהוּ (מלכים א יח, יג): הֲלֹא הֻגַּד לַאדֹנִי וגו' וָאֲכַלְכְּלֵם לֶחֶם וָמָיִם, אִם לֶחֶם לָמָּה מָיִם, אֶלָּא מְלַמֵּד שֶׁהָיוּ הַמַּיִם קָשִׁים לוֹ לְהָבִיא יוֹתֵר מִן הַלֶּחֶם, וְאֵלִיָּהוּ מַכְרִיז בְּהַר הַכַּרְמֶל וְאוֹמֵר (מלכים א יח, כב): אֲנִי נוֹתַרְתִּי נָבִיא לַה' לְבַדִּי, וְכָל עַמָּא יָדְעֵי וְלָא מְפַרְסְמֵי לְמַלְכָּא. אָמַר רַבִּי שְׁמוּאֵל בַּר נַחְמָנִי אָמְרוּ לוֹ לַנָּחָשׁ מִפְּנֵי מָה אַתָּה מָצוּי בֵּין הַגְּדֵרוֹת, אָמַר לָהֶם מִפְּנֵי שֶׁפָּרַצְתִּי גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם. תָּנֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן יוֹחָאי הַנָּחָשׁ פָּרַץ גִּדְרוֹ שֶׁל עוֹלָם תְּחִלָּה לְפִיכָךְ נַעֲשָׂה סְפֶּקָלָטוֹר לְכָל פּוֹרְצֵי גְדֵרוֹת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ, מָה אַתָּה מוֹעִיל, אֲרִי דּוֹרֵס וְאוֹכֵל, זְאֵב טוֹרֵף וְאוֹכֵל, וְאַתְּ נוֹשֵׁךְ וּמֵמִית. אָמַר לָהֶם (קהלת י, יא): אִם יִשֹּׁךְ הַנָּחָשׁ בְּלוֹא לָחַשׁ, אֶפְשָׁר דַּאֲנָא עָבֵיד כְּלוּם אֶלָּא אִם מִתְאֲמַר לִי מִן עֲלִיּוּתָא. אָמְרוּ לוֹ לָמָּה אַתָּה נוֹשֵׁךְ בְּאֵבֶר אֶחָד וְאַרְסְךָ מְהַלֵּךְ בְּכָל הָאֵבָרִים, אָמַר לָהֶם וְלִי אַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים (קהלת י, יא): אֵין יִתְרוֹן לְבַעַל הַלָּשׁוֹן, דְּיָתֵיב בְּרוֹמִי וְקָטֵל בְּסוּרְיָא, בְּסוּרְיָא וְקָטֵל בְּרוֹמִי. וְלָמָּה קוֹרֵא שְׁלִישִׁי, שֶׁהוּא הוֹרֵג שְׁלשָׁה, הָאוֹמְרוֹ, הַמְּקַבְּלוֹ וְהַנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו. עוֹבָדָא הֲוָה בִּגְבַר דַּהֲוַת לֵיהּ כַּלָּה בִּישָׁא וַהֲוַת צְמִידָה אֲמָרָה לִשָּׁן בִּישׁ, וַהֲוָה מְפַיֵּס יָתָהּ תְּרֵין זִמְנִין בְּיוֹמָא, חַד בְּרַמְשָׁא וְחַד בְּצַפְרָא, אֲמַר לָהּ אֲנָא בָּעֵי מִינָךְ דְּלָא תֵימְרִין לִשַּׁן בִּישׁ, מָה עֲבָדַת אֲזָלַת וַאֲמָרַת לְבַעֲלָהּ הָדֵין אֲבוּךְ בָּעֵי לְשַׁמָּשָׁא יָתִי, וְאִי לֵית אַתְּ מְהֵימַנְתְּ לִי עוּל אָתֵית לְרַמְשָׁא וְאַתְּ מַשְׁכַּח יָתֵיהּ יָתֵיב וּמְפַיֵּס לִי, אָזַל וּרְצַד עֲלוֹי וְחָמָא יָתֵיהּ קָאֵים גָּחִין וְסָיַח יָתָהּ. אֲמַר כְּבָר מִלָּא קוּשְׁטָן, מָה עֲבַד מְחָא לַאֲבוֹי וּקְטָלֵיהּ. אוֹבִילִין יָתֵיהּ לְדִינָא וְאִתְחַיַּיב קָטוֹלִין, וּלְהַהִיא אִנְתְּתָא דַּאֲמָרַת עַל אֲבוֹי לָשׁוֹן הָרָע וְאִיתְחַיְיבָא קָטוֹלִין, וְאִשְׁתַּכַּח לִשָּׁנָא קָטֵל תְּלָתֵיהוֹן. וּבִימֵי שָׁאוּל הָרַג אַרְבָּעָה, דּוֹאֵג שֶׁאָמַר, שָׁאוּל שֶׁקִּבְּלוֹ, אֲחִימֶלֶךְ שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר עָלָיו, אַבְנֵר לָמָּה נֶהֱרַג, אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן לֵוִי אַבְנֵר נֶהֱרַג עַל שֶׁעָשָׂה דָמָן שֶׁל נְעָרִים שְׂחוֹק, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ב, יד): וַיֹּאמֶר אַבְנֵר אֶל יוֹאָב יָקוּמוּ נָא הַנְּעָרִים וִישַׂחֲקוּ לְפָנֵינוּ. רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן לָקִישׁ אָמַר עַל שֶׁהִקְדִּים שְׁמוֹ לְשֵׁם דָּוִד, הֲדָא הוּא דִכְתִיב (שמואל ב ג, יב): וַיִּשְׁלַח אַבְנֵר מַלְאָכִים אֶל דָּוִד תַּחְתָּיו לֵאמֹר לְמִי אָרֶץ, וְהָכֵי כָּתַב לֵיהּ מֵאַבְנֵר לְדָוִד. וְרַבָּנָן אָמְרוּ עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה לוֹ לְשָׁאוּל לְהִתְפַּיֵּס בְּדָוִד וְלֹא הִנִּיחוֹ אַבְנֵר, שֶׁאָמַר לוֹ דָּוִד (שמואל א כד, יא): וְאָבִי רְאֵה גַּם רְאֵה, אֲמַר לֵיהּ מָה אַתְּ בָּעֵי, מִן גְּלַגּוֹי דִּידָךְ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, כַּד אָתוֹן לַמַּעֲגָל. אָמַר לוֹ (שמואל א כו, יד): הֲלוֹא תַעֲנֶה אַבְנֵר, בַּכָּנָף אָמַרְתָּ בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדָה, חֲנִית וְצַפַּחַת בְּסִירָה הוּעֲדוּ. וְיֵשׁ אוֹמְרִים עַל יְדֵי שֶׁהָיָה סִפֵּק בְּיָדוֹ לִמְחוֹת בְּשָׁאוּל עַל נוֹב וְלֹא מִחָה.

83. Palestinian Talmud, Taanit, 1.1 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 173, 174

84. Palestinian Talmud, Yevamot, 1.6, 3b (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan

85. Palestinian Talmud, Berachot, 1.1, 6b (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 84

86. Vettius Valens, Anthologies, a b c d\n0 '2.40 '2.40 '2 40 (2nd cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 41

87. Nag Hammadi, The Gospel of Thomas, 13 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Falcetta, Early Christian Teachers: The 'Didaskaloi' From Their Origins to the Middle of the Second Century (2020) 37

13. Jesus said to his disciples, "Compare me to something and tell me what I am like." Simon Peter said to him, "You are like a just messenger." Matthew said to him, "You are like a wise philosopher." Thomas said to him, "Teacher, my mouth is utterly unable to say what you are like." Jesus said, "I am not your teacher. Because you have drunk, you have become intoxicated from the bubbling spring that I have tended." And he took him, and withdrew, and spoke three sayings to him. When Thomas came back to his friends they asked him, "What did Jesus say to you?" Thomas said to them, "If I tell you one of the sayings he spoke to me, you will pick up rocks and stone me, and fire will come from the rocks and devour you."

88. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, 12a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 161

89. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 141a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

90. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, 27b, 33a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

91. Babylonian Talmud, Eruvin, 71a, 95b, 13b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

13b. ונמלך ומצאו בן עירו ואמר שמך כשמי ושם אשתך כשם אשתי פסול לגרש בו,הכי השתא התם (דברים כד, א) וכתב לה כתיב בעינן כתיבה לשמה הכא ועשה לה כתיב בעינן עשייה לשמה עשייה דידה מחיקה היא,א"ר אחא בר חנינא גלוי וידוע לפני מי שאמר והיה העולם שאין בדורו של רבי מאיר כמותו ומפני מה לא קבעו הלכה כמותו שלא יכלו חביריו לעמוד על סוף דעתו שהוא אומר על טמא טהור ומראה לו פנים על טהור טמא ומראה לו פנים,תנא לא ר"מ שמו אלא רבי נהוראי שמו ולמה נקרא שמו ר"מ שהוא מאיר עיני חכמים בהלכה ולא נהוראי שמו אלא רבי נחמיה שמו ואמרי לה רבי אלעזר בן ערך שמו ולמה נקרא שמו נהוראי שמנהיר עיני חכמים בהלכה,אמר רבי האי דמחדדנא מחבראי דחזיתיה לר' מאיר מאחוריה ואילו חזיתיה מקמיה הוה מחדדנא טפי דכתיב (ישעיהו ל, כ) והיו עיניך רואות את מוריך,א"ר אבהו א"ר יוחנן תלמיד היה לו לר"מ וסומכוס שמו שהיה אומר על כל דבר ודבר של טומאה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טומאה ועל כל דבר ודבר של טהרה ארבעים ושמונה טעמי טהרה,תנא תלמיד ותיק היה ביבנה שהיה מטהר את השרץ במאה וחמשים טעמים,אמר רבינא אני אדון ואטהרנו ומה נחש שממית ומרבה טומאה טהור שרץ שאין ממית ומרבה טומאה לא כ"ש,ולא היא מעשה קוץ בעלמא קעביד,א"ר אבא אמר שמואל שלש שנים נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו והללו אומרים הלכה כמותנו יצאה בת קול ואמרה אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן והלכה כב"ה,וכי מאחר שאלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים מפני מה זכו ב"ה לקבוע הלכה כמותן מפני שנוחין ועלובין היו ושונין דבריהן ודברי ב"ש ולא עוד אלא שמקדימין דברי ב"ש לדבריהן,כאותה ששנינו מי שהיה ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית בית שמאי פוסלין וב"ה מכשירין אמרו ב"ה לב"ש לא כך היה מעשה שהלכו זקני ב"ש וזקני ב"ה לבקר את ר' יוחנן בן החורנית ומצאוהו יושב ראשו ורובו בסוכה ושלחנו בתוך הבית אמרו להן בית שמאי (אי) משם ראיה אף הן אמרו לו אם כך היית נוהג לא קיימת מצות סוכה מימיך,ללמדך שכל המשפיל עצמו הקב"ה מגביהו וכל המגביה עצמו הקב"ה משפילו כל המחזר על הגדולה גדולה בורחת ממנו וכל הבורח מן הגדולה גדולה מחזרת אחריו וכל הדוחק את השעה שעה דוחקתו וכל הנדחה מפני שעה שעה עומדת לו,ת"ר שתי שנים ומחצה נחלקו ב"ש וב"ה הללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא והללו אומרים נוח לו לאדם שנברא יותר משלא נברא נמנו וגמרו נוח לו לאדם שלא נברא יותר משנברא עכשיו שנברא יפשפש במעשיו ואמרי לה ימשמש במעשיו,

13b. but later reconsidered and did not divorce her, and a resident of his city found him and said: Your name is the same as my name, and your wife’s name is the same as my wife’s name, and we reside in the same town; give me the bill of divorce, and I will use it to divorce my wife, then this document is invalid to divorce with it? Apparently, a man may not divorce his wife with a bill of divorce written for another woman, and the same should apply to the scroll of a sota.,The Gemara rejects this argument: How can you compare the two cases? There, with regard to a bill of divorce, it is written: “And he shall write for her” (Deuteronomy 24:1), and therefore we require writing it in her name, specifically for her; whereas here, with regard to a sota, it is written: “And he shall perform with her all this ritual” (Numbers 5:30), and therefore we require performance in her name. In her case, the performance is erasure; however, writing of the scroll need not be performed specifically for her.,On the topic of Rabbi Meir and his Torah study, the Gemara cites an additional statement. Rabbi Aḥa bar Ḥanina said: It is revealed and known before the One Who spoke and the world came into being that in the generation of Rabbi Meir there was no one of the Sages who is his equal. Why then didn’t the Sages establish the halakha in accordance with his opinion? It is because his colleagues were unable to ascertain the profundity of his opinion. He was so brilliant that he could present a cogent argument for any position, even if it was not consistent with the prevalent halakha. As he would state with regard to a ritually impure item that it is pure, and display justification for that ruling, and likewise he would state with regard to a ritually pure item that it is impure, and display justification for that ruling. The Sages were unable to distinguish between the statements that were halakha and those that were not.,It was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Meir was not his name; rather, Rabbi Nehorai was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Meir? It was because he illuminates [meir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha. And Rabbi Nehorai was not the name of the tanna known by that name; rather, Rabbi Neḥemya was his name, and some say: Rabbi Elazar ben Arakh was his name. And why was he called by the name Rabbi Nehorai? It is because he enlightens [manhir] the eyes of the Sages in matters of the halakha.,The Gemara relates that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi said: The fact that I am more incisive than my colleagues is due to the fact that I saw Rabbi Meir from behind, i.e., I sat behind him when I was his student. Had I seen him from the front, I would be even more incisive, as it is written: “And your eyes shall see your teacher” (Isaiah 30:20). Seeing the face of one’s teacher increases one’s understanding and sharpens one’s mind.,And the Gemara stated that Rabbi Abbahu said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: Rabbi Meir had a disciple, and his name was Sumakhus, who would state with regard to each and every matter of ritual impurity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of impurity, and with regard to each and every matter of ritual purity forty-eight reasons in support of the ruling of purity.,It was taught in a baraita: There was a distinguished disciple at Yavne who could with his incisive intellect purify the creeping animal, explicitly deemed ritually impure by the Torah, adducing one hundred and fifty reasons in support of his argument.,Ravina said: I too will deliberate and purify it employing the following reasoning: And just as a snake that kills people and animals and thereby increases ritual impurity in the world, as a corpse imparts impurity through contact, through being carried, and by means of a tent, is ritually pure and transmits no impurity, a creeping animal that does not kill and does not increase impurity in the world, all the more so should it be pure.,The Gemara rejects this: And it is not so; that is not a valid a fortiori argument, as it can be refuted. A snake is performing a mere act of a thorn. A thorn causes injury and even death; nevertheless, it is not ritually impure. The same applies to a snake, and therefore this a fortiori argument is rejected.,Rabbi Abba said that Shmuel said: For three years Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion, and these said: The halakha is in accordance with our opinion. Ultimately, a Divine Voice emerged and proclaimed: Both these and those are the words of the living God. However, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel.,The Gemara asks: Since both these and those are the words of the living God, why were Beit Hillel privileged to have the halakha established in accordance with their opinion? The reason is that they were agreeable and forbearing, showing restraint when affronted, and when they taught the halakha they would teach both their own statements and the statements of Beit Shammai. Moreover, when they formulated their teachings and cited a dispute, they prioritized the statements of Beit Shammai to their own statements, in deference to Beit Shammai.,As in the mishna that we learned: In the case of one whose head and most of his body were in the sukka, but his table was in the house, Beit Shammai deem this sukka invalid; and Beit Hillel deem it valid. Beit Hillel said to Beit Shammai: Wasn’t there an incident in which the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel went to visit Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, and they found him sitting with his head and most of his body in the sukka, but his table was in the house? Beit Shammai said to them: From there do you seek to adduce a proof? Those visitors, too, said to him: If that was the manner in which you were accustomed to perform the mitzva, you have never fulfilled the mitzva of sukka in all your days. It is apparent from the phrasing of the mishna that when the Sages of Beit Hillel related that the Elders of Beit Shammai and the Elders of Beit Hillel visited Rabbi Yoḥa ben HaḤoranit, they mentioned the Elders of Beit Shammai before their own Elders.,This is to teach you that anyone who humbles himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, exalts him, and anyone who exalts himself, the Holy One, Blessed be He, humbles him. Anyone who seeks greatness, greatness flees from him, and, conversely, anyone who flees from greatness, greatness seeks him. And anyone who attempts to force the moment and expends great effort to achieve an objective precisely when he desires to do so, the moment forces him too, and he is unsuccessful. And conversely, anyone who is patient and yields to the moment, the moment stands by his side, and he will ultimately be successful.,The Sages taught the following baraita: For two and a half years, Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel disagreed. These say: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. And those said: It is preferable for man to have been created than had he not been created. Ultimately, they were counted and concluded: It would have been preferable had man not been created than to have been created. However, now that he has been created, he should examine his actions that he has performed and seek to correct them. And some say: He should scrutinize his planned actions and evaluate whether or not and in what manner those actions should be performed, so that he will not sin.,The cross beam, which the Sages stated may be used to render an alleyway fit for one to carry within it, must be wide enough to receive and hold a small brick. And this small brick is half a large brick, which measures three handbreadths, i.e., a handbreadth and a half. It is sufficient that the cross beam will be a handbreadth in width, not a handbreadth and a half, enough to hold a small brick across its width.,And the cross beam must be wide enough to hold a small brick and also sturdy enough to hold a small brick and not collapse. Rabbi Yehuda says: If it is wide enough to hold the brick, even though it is not sturdy enough to actually support it, it is sufficient. Therefore, even if the cross beam is made of straw or reeds, one considers it as though it were made of metal.,If the cross beam is curved, so that a small brick cannot rest on it, one considers it as though it were straight; if it is round, one considers it as though it were square. The following principle was stated with regard to a round cross beam: Any beam with a circumference of three handbreadths is a handbreadth in width, i.e., in diameter.

92. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 68b, 6b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

6b. ואי עבדת אהנית מאי אי עבדת אהנית דאי אתי בעל מערער לא משגחינן ביה,כדתניא מעשה באדם אחד שהביא גט לפני רבי ישמעאל אמר לו צריך אני לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם או איני צריך אמר לו בני מהיכן אתה אמר לו רבי מכפר סיסאי אני אמר לו צריך אתה לומר. בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם שלא תיזקק לעדים,לאחר שיצא נכנס לפניו רבי אלעאי אמר לו רבי והלא כפר סיסאי מובלעת בתחום ארץ ישראל וקרובה לציפורי יותר מעכו ותנן רבי מאיר אומר עכו כארץ ישראל לגיטין ואפי' רבנן לא פליגי עליה דר"מ אלא בעכו דמרחקא אבל כפר סיסאי דמקרבא לא,אמר לו שתוק בני שתוק הואיל ויצא הדבר בהיתר יצא,הא איהו נמי שלא תיזקק לעדים קאמר ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,שלח ליה ר' אביתר לרב חסדא גיטין הבאים משם לכאן אין צריך לומר בפני נכתב ובפני נחתם לימא קסבר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה והני גמירי,ותסברא והא רבה אית ליה דרבא אלא דכ"ע בעינן לקיימו וכיון דאיכא רבים דסלקי ונחתי מישכח שכיחי,אמר רב יוסף מאן לימא לן דר' אביתר בר סמכא הוא ועוד הא איהו דשלח ליה לרב יהודה בני אדם העולין משם לכאן הן קיימו בעצמן (יואל ד, ג) ויתנו (את) הילד בזונה והילדה מכרו ביין וישתו וכתב ליה בלא שירטוט,וא"ר יצחק שתים כותבין שלש אין כותבין במתניתא תנא שלש כותבין ארבע אין כותבין,א"ל אביי אטו כל דלא ידע הא דר' יצחק לאו גברא רבה הוא בשלמא מילתא דתליא בסברא לחיי הא גמרא היא וגמרא לא שמיע ליה,ועוד הא ר' אביתר הוא דאסכים מריה על ידיה דכתיב (שופטים יט, ב) ותזנה עליו פילגשו רבי אביתר אמר זבוב מצא לה ר' יונתן אמר נימא מצא לה,ואשכחיה ר' אביתר לאליהו א"ל מאי קא עביד הקב"ה א"ל עסיק בפילגש בגבעה ומאי קאמר אמר ליה אביתר בני כך הוא אומר יונתן בני כך הוא אומר,א"ל ח"ו ומי איכא ספיקא קמי שמיא א"ל אלו ואלו דברי אלהים חיים הן זבוב מצא ולא הקפיד נימא מצא והקפיד,אמר רב יהודה זבוב בקערה ונימא באותו מקום זבוב מאיסותא ונימא סכנתא איכא דאמרי אידי ואידי בקערה זבוב אונסא ונימא פשיעותא,אמר רב חסדא לעולם אל יטיל אדם אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו שהרי פילגש בגבעה הטיל עליה בעלה אימה יתירה והפילה כמה רבבות מישראל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב כל המטיל אימה יתירה בתוך ביתו סוף הוא בא לידי שלש עבירות גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וחילול שבת,אמר רבה בר בר חנה הא דאמרי רבנן שלשה דברים צריך אדם לומר בתוך ביתו ערב שבת עם חשיכה עשרתם ערבתם הדליקו את הנר צריך

6b. But if you do this then you provide benefit. The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of the expression: If you do this you provide benefit? This means that if the husband comes to contest the validity of the bill of divorce, we pay no attention to him and his claim.,As it is taught in the Tosefta (1:3): An incident occurred involving a man who brought a bill of divorce before Rabbi Yishmael, and said to him: Am I required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, or am I not required to state that declaration? Rabbi Yishmael said to him: My son, where are you from? He said to Rabbi Yishmael: My teacher, I am from the village of Sisai. Rabbi Yishmael said to him: You are required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses if the husband contests its validity.,After that man left, Rabbi Elai entered before Rabbi Yishmael and said to him: My teacher, but isn’t the village of Sisai located within the boundary of Eretz Yisrael, and it is even closer to Tzippori, which is within the main portion of Eretz Yisrael, more so than Akko. And we learned in the mishna that Rabbi Meir says: Akko is like Eretz Yisrael with regard to bills of divorce. And even the Rabbis disagree with Rabbi Meir only with regard to Akko, which is distant. However, with regard to the village of Sisai, which is close, no, they do not dispute the ruling of Rabbi Meir.,Rabbi Yishmael said to Rabbi Elai: Be silent my son, be silent. Since the matter of her divorce was issued as permitted, it was issued, and her divorce is valid. This incident proves that the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is effective to the extent that the divorce is considered to have been performed in an entirely permitted manner, and the husband cannot contest its validity at a later stage.,The Gemara asks: Why was it necessary for Rabbi Yishmael to explain the meaning of his ruling to Rabbi Elai? But after all, when he issued his ruling Rabbi Yishmael also stated his reason, as he said to the man: Do this so that you will not cause the woman to need to find witnesses. The Gemara answers: Those who were present did not conclude Rabbi Yishmael’s statement before Rabbi Elai. Rabbi Elai was unaware of Rabbi Yishmael’s reasoning, and therefore he questioned him.,§ The Gemara relates that Rabbi Evyatar sent a letter from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia to Rav Ḥisda in which he wrote the following: With regard to bills of divorce that come from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, the agent is not required to say: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence. The Gemara asks: Shall we say that Rabbi Evyatar holds that the reason for the declaration: It was written in my presence and it was signed in my presence, is because they are not experts in writing a bill of divorce for her sake, and these residents of Babylonia are learned with regard to this issue?,The Gemara challenges: And can you understand it in this way? After all, Rabba is of the opinion that the reason is also in accordance with the opinion of Rava, that the declaration serves to ratify the bill of divorce. Rather, everyone agrees that we require the declaration to ratify the document. But since there are many people who ascend to Eretz Yisrael and descend from there to Babylonia, witnesses are frequently available, and there is no reason to be concerned about the ratification of the bill of divorce.,Rav Yosef said: Who will tell us that Rabbi Evyatar is a reliable authority? And furthermore, there is good reason to question his statement: He is the one who sent a letter to Rav Yehuda, and wrote: People who ascend from there, Babylonia, to here, Eretz Yisrael, fulfill by themselves the verse: “And they have given a boy for a prostitute, and sold a girl for wine, and have drunk” (Joel 4:3), i.e., these people abandon their families. And Rabbi Evyatar wrote him this verse without scoring, i.e., etching lines into, the parchment upon which he wrote the letter.,And Rabbi Yitzḥak says with regard to the writing of a verse from the Torah: One may write two words without scoring the parchment, but one may not write three words without scoring the parchment. Instead, one scores the parchment before writing the verse, as one does when writing a Torah scroll. This ensures that the writing will be done on a straight line, thereby rendering it more beautiful. And it was taught in a baraita: One may write three, but one may not write four. Since Rabbi Evyatar wrote more than three words from a verse without scoring the parchment, his halakhic rulings are evidently unreliable.,Abaye said to him: Is that to say that anyone who does not know this halakha of Rabbi Yitzḥak is not a great man? Granted, with regard to a matter that depends on reasoning, it is well, as it is possible to say that an individual who does not know a halakha that can be inferred by logical reasoning cannot be considered a reliable authority. However, this halakha is a tradition, and it is possible that Rabbi Evyatar simply did not hear this tradition.,And furthermore, Rabbi Evyatar is the one that his Master, the Holy One, Blessed be He, agreed with in his interpretation of a verse, as it is written with regard to the episode involving the concubine in Gibeah: “And his concubine went away from him” (Judges 19:2). The Sages discussed what occurred that caused her husband to become so angry with her that she left him, and Rabbi Evyatar says: He found her responsible for a fly in the food that she prepared for him, while Rabbi Yonatan says: He found her responsible for a hair [nima].,And Rabbi Evyatar found Elijah the prophet and said to him: What is the Holy One, Blessed be He, doing now? Elijah said to him: He is currently engaged in studying the episode of the concubine in Gibeah. Rabbi Evyatar asked him: And what is He saying about it? Elijah said to him that God is saying the following: Evyatar, My son, says this and Yonatan, My son, says that. It is seen here that God saw fit to cite the statement of Rabbi Evyatar.,Rabbi Evyatar said to him: God forbid, is there uncertainty before Heaven? Doesn’t God know what happened? Why does He mention both opinions? Elijah said to him: Both these and those are the words of the living God, i.e., both incidents happened. The incident occurred in the following manner: He found a fly in his food and did not take umbrage, and later he found a hair and took umbrage.,Rav Yehuda says a different explanation: The man found a fly in the dish that she cooked for him, and he found a hair in that place, i.e., in her genital area. When he found a fly it produced a reaction of disgust, and he did not grow angry with her, but the hair was a matter of danger, as he might be hurt by it, and therefore he became angry with her. There are those who say: This and that were found in a dish. The difference is that the fly was a result of circumstances beyond her control, as it fell into the dish on its own, but the hair was found in the dish due to her negligence.,Rav Ḥisda says: A person should never impose excessive fear upon the members of his household, as the husband of the concubine of Gibeah imposed excessive fear upon her and this ultimately caused the downfall of many tens of thousands of Jews in the resulting war (see Judges 19–20).,Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: Anyone who imposes excessive fear upon the members of his household will ultimately come to commit three sins: Engaging in forbidden sexual intercourse, as the wife will be so fearful of her husband that she will sometimes tell him that she has immersed in a ritual bath after her menstruation has ended when she has not done so; and he will also end up committing bloodshed, as she is likely to run away from him and expose herself to dangers; and desecration of Shabbat, as she will cook for him on Shabbat because she is scared that he will be angry with her for neglecting to do so beforehand.,Rabba bar bar Ḥana said a halakha with regard to this statement that the Sages said: There are three matters a person must say in his home on Shabbat eve at nightfall. He should ask the members of his household: Have you tithed the produce that required tithing? Have you placed the eiruv for joining the courtyards? If you have already done so, light the lamp in honor of Shabbat. Rabba bar bar Ḥana said that one must

93. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, 3b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

3b. (דברי הימים א יז, כא) ומי כעמך ישראל גוי אחד בארץ,ואף הוא פתח ודרש (קהלת יב, יא) דברי חכמים כדרבונות וכמסמרות נטועים בעלי אסופות נתנו מרועה אחד למה נמשלו דברי תורה לדרבן לומר לך מה דרבן זה מכוין את הפרה לתלמיה להוציא חיים לעולם אף דברי תורה מכוונין את לומדיהן מדרכי מיתה לדרכי חיים אי מה דרבן זה מטלטל אף דברי תורה מטלטלין ת"ל מסמרות,אי מה מסמר זה חסר ולא יתר אף דברי תורה חסירין ולא יתירין ת"ל נטועים מה נטיעה זו פרה ורבה אף דברי תורה פרין ורבין בעלי אסופות אלו תלמידי חכמים שיושבין אסופות אסופות ועוסקין בתורה הללו מטמאין והללו מטהרין הללו אוסרין והללו מתירין הללו פוסלין והללו מכשירין,שמא יאמר אדם היאך אני למד תורה מעתה תלמוד לומר כולם נתנו מרועה אחד אל אחד נתנן פרנס אחד אמרן מפי אדון כל המעשים ברוך הוא דכתיב (שמות כ, א) וידבר אלהים את כל הדברים האלה,אף אתה עשה אזניך כאפרכסת וקנה לך לב מבין לשמוע את דברי מטמאים ואת דברי מטהרים את דברי אוסרין ואת דברי מתירין את דברי פוסלין ואת דברי מכשירין בלשון הזה אמר להם אין דור יתום שר' אלעזר בן עזריה שרוי בתוכו,ולימרו ליה בהדיא משום מעשה שהיה דתניא מעשה בר' יוסי בן דורמסקית שהלך להקביל פני ר' אלעזר בלוד אמר לו מה חידוש היה בבהמ"ד היום,א"ל נמנו וגמרו עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית,אמר לו יוסי פשוט ידיך וקבל עיניך פשט ידיו וקבל עיניו בכה ר' אלעזר ואמר (תהלים כה, יד) סוד ה' ליראיו ובריתו להודיעם,אמר לו לך אמור להם אל תחושו למניינכם כך מקובלני מרבן יוחנן בן זכאי ששמע מרבו ורבו מרבו הלכתא למשה מסיני עמון ומואב מעשרין מעשר עני בשביעית מה טעם הרבה כרכים כבשו עולי מצרים ולא כבשום עולי בבל,מפני שקדושה ראשונה קדשה לשעתה ולא קדשה לעתיד לבא והניחום כדי שיסמכו עליהן עניים בשביעית,תנא לאחר שנתיישבה דעתו אמר יהי רצון שיחזרו עיני יוסי למקומן וחזרו,ת"ר איזהו שוטה היוצא יחידי בלילה והלן בבית הקברות והמקרע את כסותו איתמר רב הונא אמר עד שיהו כולן בבת אחת ר' יוחנן אמר אפי' באחת מהן,היכי דמי אי דעביד להו דרך שטות אפי' בחדא נמי אי דלא עביד להו דרך שטות אפילו כולהו נמי לא,לעולם דקא עביד להו דרך שטות והלן בבית הקברות אימור כדי שתשרה עליו רוח טומאה הוא דקא עביד והיוצא יחידי בלילה אימור גנדריפס אחדיה והמקרע את כסותו אימור בעל מחשבות הוא כיון דעבדינהו לכולהו הוה להו

3b. “And who is like Your people, Israel, one nation in the land?” (I Chronicles 17:21).,The Gemara adds: And Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya also commenced his lecture and taught: It is written: “The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails well fastened are those that are composed in collections; they are given from one shepherd” (Ecclesiastes 12:11). Why are matters of Torah compared to a goad? To tell you that just as this goad directs the cow to her furrow to bring forth sustece for life to the world, so too the words of Torah direct those who study them from the paths of death to the paths of life. The Gemara asks: If so, derive the following from that same analogy: Just as this goad is movable and not rigid, so too matters of Torah are movable in accordance with circumstance and are not permanent. Therefore, the verse states: “Nails,” which are permanent.,The Gemara further asks: If so, one can explain as follows: Just as this nail is diminished in size and does not expand, as it wastes away over time, so too matters of Torah are gradually diminished and do not expand. Therefore, the verse states: “Well fastened [netuim].” Just as this plant [neti’a] flourishes and multiplies, so too matters of Torah flourish and multiply. “Those that are composed in collections [ba’alei asufot]”: These are Torah scholars who sit in many groups [asupot] and engage in Torah study. There are often debates among these groups, as some of these Sages render an object or person ritually impure and these render it pure; these prohibit an action and these permit it; these deem an item invalid and these deem it valid.,Lest a person say: Now, how can I study Torah when it contains so many different opinions? The verse states that they are all “given from one shepherd.” One God gave them; one leader, i.e., Moses, said them from the mouth of the Master of all creation, Blessed be He, as it is written: “And God spoke all these words” (Exodus 20:1). The plural form “words” indicates that God transmitted all the interpretations of the Ten Commandments. Since the Sages invariably utilize the Torah itself or the statements of the prophets as the sources for their opinions, there is a certain unity to the study of Torah, despite the numerous explanations and applications.,So too you, the student, make your ears like a funnel and acquire for yourself an understanding heart to hear both the statements of those who render objects ritually impure and the statements of those who render them pure; the statements of those who prohibit actions and the statements of those who permit them; the statements of those who deem items invalid and the statements of those who deem them valid. When Rabbi Yehoshua heard these interpretations, he said to them in these words: No generation is considered orphaned, i.e. without a leader, if Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya dwells among it.,The Gemara asks: But Rabbi Yoḥa ben Beroka and Rabbi Elazar ben Ḥisma should have told Rabbi Yehoshua these statements of Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya directly, without delay. Why did they hesitate at first? The Gemara answers: They were hesitant due to an incident that occurred. As it is taught in a baraita: There was an incident involving Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit, who went to greet Rabbi Eliezer in Lod. Rabbi Elazar said to him: What novel idea was taught today in the study hall?,Rabbi Yosei ben Durmaskit said to him: The Sages assembled, counted the votes, and concluded that although the lands of Ammon and Moab on the eastern side of the Jordan River are not part of Eretz Yisrael, and therefore the halakhot of the Sabbatical Year and tithes should not apply to them, as these lands are adjacent to Eretz Yisrael, one separates the poor man’s tithe there in the Sabbatical Year. Since the Sages debated which tithes should be separated, they had to take a vote to determine the halakha in this regard.,Rabbi Elazar said to him in anger: Yosei, extend your hands and catch your eyes, which are about to come out of their sockets. He extended his hands and caught his eyes. Rabbi Elazar wept and said the verse: “The counsel of the Lord is with them who fear Him; and His covet, to make them know it” (Psalms 25:14), i.e., the Sages arrived at the correct conclusion, although they were unaware of the proper rationale behind it.,Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yosei to go and say to the Sages in the study hall: Do not be concerned with regard to your counting, that you might not have ruled properly, as you have not in fact instituted a new ordice at all. This is the tradition that I received from Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai, who heard from his teacher, and his teacher from his teacher: It is a halakha transmitted to Moses from Sinai that in Ammon and Moab one separates the poor man’s tithe in the Sabbatical Year. What is the reason? Those who ascended from Egypt conquered many cities, and those who ascended from Babylonia did not conquer them after the destruction of the First Temple.,This difference is important, because the first consecration of Eretz Yisrael, by those who ascended from Egypt, caused it to be sanctified only for its time and it was not sanctified forever, as that depended on the renewed conquest of the land by the Jewish people. And those who ascended from Babylonia left those cities aside and did not consider them part of Eretz Yisrael even after Jewish settlement was renewed there. They would plow and harvest in these places in the Sabbatical Year and tithe the poor man’s tithe, so that the poor of Eretz Yisrael, who did not have sufficient income from the previous years, could rely upon that produce in the Sabbatical Year, receiving help from this tithe.,It was taught that after Rabbi Elazar’s mind was put at ease, he said: May it be God’s will that Rabbi Yosei’s eyes should return to their place. And indeed his eyes returned. Due to this event, in which Rabbi Elazar responded harshly when his disciple related what he considered a novel idea, the students of Rabbi Yehoshua hesitated to recount what they had heard until their teacher encouraged them to do so.,§ The Sages taught: Who is considered an imbecile? One who goes out alone at night, and one who sleeps in a cemetery, and one who rends his garment. It was stated that Rav Huna said: One does not have the halakhic status of an imbecile until there are all of these signs present in him at the same time. Rabbi Yoḥa said: He is considered an imbecile even due to the appearance of one of these signs.,The Gemara asks: What are the circumstances of the case under discussion? If he performs them in a deranged manner, then even the appearance of one sign should be enough to classify him as an imbecile. If he does not perform these actions in a deranged manner, but has a reason to act this way, then even if he performs all of them he should not be deemed an imbecile.,The Gemara answers: Actually, the baraita is referring to one who performs these actions in a deranged manner, but each action on its own could be explained rationally. With regard to one who sleeps in the cemetery, one could say that he is doing so in order that an impure spirit should settle upon him. Although it is inappropriate to do this, as there is a reason for this behavior it is not a sign of madness. And with regard to one who goes out alone at night, one could say that perhaps a fever took hold of him and he is trying to cool himself down. And as for one who tears his garments, one could say that he is a man engaged in thought, and out of anxiety he tears his clothing unintentionally. Despite these possible explanations, since one performed all of these together they are considered

94. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, 55b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 68, 69

95. Babylonian Talmud, Horayot, 7a, 3a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

96. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 13a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

97. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, 81b, 78b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

98. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, 64b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

64b. חוצבתם ואל מקבת בור נוקרתם וכתיב (ישעיהו נא, ב) הביטו אל אברהם אביכם ואל שרה תחוללכם,אמר רב נחמן אמר רבה בר אבוה שרה אמנו אילונית היתה שנאמר (בראשית יא, ל) ותהי שרי עקרה אין לה ולד אפי' בית ולד אין לה,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרב שמואל בר שילת משמיה דרב לא שנו אלא בדורות הראשונים ששנותיהן מרובות אבל בדורות האחרונים ששנותיהן מועטות שתי שנים ומחצה כנגד שלשה עיבורים רבה אמר רב נחמן שלש שנים כנגד שלש פקידות דאמר מר בר"ה נפקדו שרה רחל וחנה,אמר רבה ליתנהו להני כללי מכדי מתני' מאן תקין רבי והא בימי דוד אימעוט שני דכתיב (תהלים צ, י) ימי שנותינו בהם שבעים שנה,והאי שמא לא זכה להבנות הימנה ודלמא איהי דלא זכיא איהי כיון דלא מפקדא אפריה ורביה לא מיענשה,איני והא אמרו ליה רבנן לר' אבא בר זבדא נסיב איתתא ואוליד בני ואמר להו אי זכאי הוו לי מקמייתא התם דחוי קא מדחי להו לרבנן דר' אבא בר זבדא איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא,רב גידל איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רבי חלבו איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רב ששת איעקר מפרקיה דרב הונא רב אחא בר יעקב אחדתיה סוסכינתא תליוה בארזא דבי רב ונפק מיניה כהוצא ירקא אמר רב אחא בר יעקב שיתין סבי הוינא וכולהו איעקור מפרקיה דרב הונא לבר מאנא דקיימי בנפשאי (קהלת ז, יב) החכמה תחיה בעליה:,גירשה מותרת וכו': שני אין שלישי לא,מתניתין מני רבי היא דתניא מלה הראשון ומת שני ומת שלישי לא תמול דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר שלישי תמול רביעי לא תמול,והתניא איפכא הי מינייהו אחריניתא,ת"ש דאמר ר' חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן מעשה בארבע אחיות בצפורי שמלה ראשונה ומת שניה ומת שלישית ומת רביעית באת לפני רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אמר לה אל תמולי,ודלמא אי אתיא שלישית נמי הוה אמר לה א"כ מאי אסהדותיה דר' חייא בר אבא ודלמא הא קמ"ל דאחיות מחזקות,אמר רבא השתא דאמרת אחיות מחזקות לא ישא אדם אשה לא ממשפחת נכפין ולא ממשפחת מצורעים והוא דאתחזק תלתא זימני,מאי הוה עלה כי אתא רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר עובדא הוה קמיה דר' יוחנן בכנישתא דמעון ביוה"כ שחל להיות בשבת ומלה ראשונה ומת שניה ומת שלישית באה לפניו אמר לה לכי ומולי,א"ל אביי חזי דקשרית איסורא וסכנתא,סמך עלה אביי ואזל נסבה לחומה ברתא דאיסי בריה דרב יצחק בריה דרב יהודה דנסבה רחבא דפומבדיתא ושכיב רב יצחק בריה דרבה בר בר חנה ושכיב ונסבה הוא ושכיב,אמר רבא ומי איכא דעביד עובדא בנפשיה כי האי והא איהו דאמר אבין דסמכא יצחק סומקא לאו בר סמכא אבין ישנו בחזרה יצחק סומקא אינו בחזרה ועוד אימר דפליגי לענין מילה בנישואין מי פליגי,אין והתניא ניסת לראשון ומת לשני ומת לשלישי לא תנשא דברי רבי רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר לשלישי תנשא לרביעי לא תנשא,בשלמא גבי מילה איכא משפחה דרפי דמא ואיכא משפחה דקמיט דמא אלא נישואין מ"ט א"ל רב מרדכי לרב אשי הכי אמר אבימי מהגרוניא משמיה דרב הונא מעין גורם ורב אשי אמר מזל גורם,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאירסה ומית אי נמי דנפל מדיקלא ומית,א"ל רב יוסף בריה דרבא לרבא בעי מיניה מרב יוסף הלכה כרבי ואמר לי אין הלכה כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל ואמר לי אין אחוכי אחיך בי,א"ל לא סתמי היא ופשיט לך נישואין ומלקיות כרבי וסתות ושור המועד כרבן שמעון בן גמליאל,נישואין הא דאמרן מלקיות דתנן מי שלקה ושנה ב"ד כונסין אותו לכיפה ומאכילין אותו שעורים עד שתהא כריסו נבקעת וסתות דתנן אין האשה

64b. from where you were hewn, and to the hole of the pit from where you were dug” (Isaiah 51:1), and it is written in the next verse: “Look to Abraham your father and to Sarah who bore you” (Isaiah 51:2), which indicates that sexual organs were fashioned for them, signified by the words hewn and dug, over the course of time.,Rav Naḥman said that Rabba bar Avuh said: Our mother Sarah was initially a sexually underdeveloped woman [aylonit], as it is stated: “And Sarah was barren; she had no child” (Genesis 11:30). The superfluous words: “She had no child,” indicate that she did not have even a place, i.e., a womb, for a child.,Rav Yehuda, son of Rav Shmuel bar Sheilat, said in the name of Rav: They taught that he waits ten years only with regard to the people who lived in former generations, whose years were numerous, i.e., they lived longer. However, with regard to the people who live in later generations, whose years are few, he waits only two and half years before divorcing her, corresponding to the time period of three pregcies. Rabba said in the name of Rav Naḥman: He waits three years, corresponding to the three remembrances of barren women by God, as the Master said: On Rosh HaShana Sarah, Rachel, and Hannah were remembered, i.e., God gave them children. Since God determines on Rosh HaShana whether barren women will conceive that year, one may remain married until three such opportunities have passed.,However, Rabba himself said: These principles are not accepted as halakha. Why not? Now consider, who established the content of the mishna? Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Yet, in the days of King David, many years before the time of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, the years of an average lifespan were already diminished, as it is written: “The days of our years are seventy years, and if with strength eighty years” (Psalms 90:10). Consequently, if Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi included in the mishna the statement that one remains married for ten years, that must apply even nowadays.,The Gemara asks about the language of the baraita. And what about this expression: Perhaps he did not merit to be built from her; perhaps it was she who did not merit to build a family. The Gemara answers: She, since she is not commanded to be fruitful and multiply, is not punished. Their worthiness therefore depends on him, not her.,The Gemara challenges the mishna’s statement that if one did not have children after ten years he should marry a different woman. Is that so? Didn’t the Sages say to Rabbi Abba bar Zavda: Marry a woman and have children, and he said to them: If I had merited, I would already have children from my first wife? This indicates that there is no obligation to remarry if one did not have children with his first wife. The Gemara answers: There, Rabbi Abba bar Zavda was merely putting the Rabbis off with an excuse, as the real reason why he would not marry was because Rabbi Abba bar Zavda became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. Rav Huna’s students would hold back from relieving themselves until his lengthy sermons were finished, which caused them to become sterile.,The Gemara similarly relates that Rav Giddel became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse, Rav Ḥelbo became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse, and Rav Sheshet became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse. The Gemara relates: Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov was afflicted by suskhinta, a disease caused by holding back from urinating. They suspended him from the cedar column that supported the study hall, and a substance that was as green as a palm leaf emerged from him, and he was healed. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said: We were sixty elders present at the time, and they all became impotent from Rav Huna’s discourse, aside from me, as I fulfilled with regard to myself the verse: “Wisdom preserves the life of he who has it” (Ecclesiastes 7:12). I used the above cure to avoid becoming impotent.,§ It was taught in the mishna that if a man divorced his wife after ten years without children, she is permitted to marry a second man, who may remain married to her for ten years. The Gemara comments: A second husband, yes, but a third one, no. Once she has been married to two men without children for ten years each, it is presumed that she is unable to have children.,The Gemara comments: Who is the tanna of the mishna? It is Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, who holds that a legal presumption [ḥazaka] is established after two occurrences. As it is taught in a baraita: If a woman circumcised her first son and he died as a result of the circumcision, and she circumcised her second son and he also died, she should not circumcise her third son, as the deaths of the first two produce a presumption that this woman’s sons die as a result of circumcision. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She should circumcise her third son, as there is not considered to be a legal presumption that her sons die from circumcision, but she should not circumcise her fourth son if her first three sons died from circumcision.,The Gemara asks: Isn’t the reverse taught in a baraita, that Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi holds that the woman’s third son must be circumcised and Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds that he is not circumcised? Which of them was composed later and is therefore presumed to be more reliable?,The Gemara suggests: Come and hear, as Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said that Rabbi Yoḥa said: An incident occurred involving four sisters in Tzippori, that the first sister circumcised her son and he died, and the second sister circumcised her son and he died, and the third one circumcised her son and he too died. The fourth sister came before Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, who said to her: Do not circumcise him. This indicates that according to Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel a presumption is established only after three occurrences.,The Gemara refutes this proof: Perhaps if the third sister had come before him he would also have said to her the same ruling. The Gemara asks: If so, what is the purpose of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba’s testimony? Why would he have related this incident if it does not teach us anything? The Gemara answers: Perhaps he comes to teach us that sisters establish a presumption in a case like this even though the children who died were not from the same mother.,Rava said: Now that you have said that sisters establish a presumption, a man should not marry a woman from a family of epileptics or from a family of lepers, as these diseases might be hereditary. The Gemara adds: And this applies only if it was established three times, i.e., three members of the family are afflicted with the disease.,The Gemara asks: Which halakhic conclusion was about this matter? Is a presumption established after two occurrences or only after three? When Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef came from Eretz Yisrael, he said: An incident occurred before Rabbi Yoḥa in the synagogue of the town of Maon on a Yom Kippur that occurred on Shabbat. The first sister had circumcised her son and he died; the second sister circumcised her son and he also died. The third sister came before him, and he said to her: Go and circumcise your son, as a presumption is not established after only two occurrences.,Abaye said to Rav Yitzḥak: See to it that your report is accurate, as you are permitting an action that would otherwise constitute a prohibition and a danger. If the third baby should not be circumcised, doing so would be a prohibited labor and would endanger the life of the child.,The Gemara comments: Abaye relied on this report and went and married Ḥuma, the daughter of Isi, son of Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rav Yehuda. Ḥuma had previously married Raḥava of Pumbedita, and he died, and then she married Rav Yitzḥak, son of Rabba bar bar Ḥana, and he died; and he, Abaye, married her nevertheless, without concern that she had been established to be a woman whose husbands die; and he died as well while married to her.,Rava said: Is there anyone who performs an action like this and endangers himself by marrying such a woman? Wasn’t it he, Abaye, who said that Avin is reliable but Yitzḥak the Red, i.e., Rav Yitzḥak bar Yosef, is not reliable? He proceeds to explain the difference between them: Avin returns to Eretz Yisrael and hears whether the Sages there rescind their previous rulings, whereas Yitzḥak the Red does not return to Eretz Yisrael and never finds out if the Sages there rescind their rulings. And furthermore, say that they disagree with regard to whether a presumption is established by two or by three deaths due to circumcision, but do they necessarily argue with regard to marriage?,The Gemara responds: Yes, and it is taught in a baraita: If a woman was married to her first husband and he died, to a second one and he also died, she may not get married to a third husband. This is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi. Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: She may get married to a third husband, but if he also dies, she may not get married to a fourth husband.,The Gemara asks: Granted with regard to circumcision a presumption of death due to circumcision can be established because there are families whose blood is thin and does not clot well, and there are families whose blood clots. However, in the case of marriage, what is the reason for concern that a subsequent husband will die? Rav Mordekhai said to Rav Ashi: Avimi of Hagron-ya said in the name of Rav Huna as follows: Her spring is the cause. In other words, the woman has some sort of condition that causes those who have intercourse with her to die. And Rav Ashi said that her constellation is the cause of her husbands’ deaths.,The Gemara asks: What is the practical difference between them? The Gemara answers: There is a difference between them in a case where a man betrothed her and died before the wedding; alternatively, in a case where he fell off a palm tree and died. If the concern is due to intercourse, then in these cases the husband’s death cannot be attributed to his wife. Conversely, if the concern is due to her bad fortune, the husband’s death can be attributed to his wife even in these cases.,Rav Yosef, son of Rava, said to Rava: I inquired of Rav Yosef whether the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi, and he said to me: Yes. I subsequently asked him if the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, and he said to me: Yes. Was he mocking me by issuing contradictory rulings?,Rava said to him: No, there are unattributed mishnayot in accordance with each opinion, and he resolved for you that the halakha is in accordance with each opinion in particular cases. With regard to marriage and lashings the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that two occurrences are sufficient for a presumption. Concerning set patterns of menstrual bleeding and a forewarned ox, the halakha is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel that a presumption is established after three occurrences.,The Gemara identifies the aforementioned halakhot. Marriage is referring to that which we said with regard to a woman whose husbands have died. The case of lashings is as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 63b): One who was flogged for transgressing a Torah law, and repeated the same transgression and was flogged again, if he then repeats the sin a third time, the court places him in a narrow, vaulted chamber and they feed him barley until his stomach bursts. Once he has sinned and been flogged twice he has established a presumption of wickedness, and when he sins again he is caused to die so that he will not continue to sin. The case of set patterns of menstrual bleeding is as we learned in a mishna (Nidda 63b): A woman does not

99. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 13a, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187

100. Babylonian Talmud, Taanit, 1.8, 2a, 2b, 4a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 187; Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 174

101. Babylonian Talmud, Sukkah, 10a, 10a9b-, 10b, 11b, 14a, 14b, 15a, 21b, 23a, 3a, 54a, 8b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 220, 221

102. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, 52b, 53b, 97b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

103. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, 150a, 62a, 31a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

31a. שהמרו זה את זה אמרו כל מי שילך ויקניט את הלל יטול ד' מאות זוז אמר אחד מהם אני אקניטנו אותו היום ע"ש היה והלל חפף את ראשו הלך ועבר על פתח ביתו אמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה ראשיהן של בבליים סגלגלות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שאין להם חיות פקחות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו אמר לו בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה עיניהן של תרמודיין תרוטות אמר לו בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין החולות,הלך והמתין שעה אחת חזר ואמר מי כאן הלל מי כאן הלל נתעטף ויצא לקראתו א"ל בני מה אתה מבקש א"ל שאלה יש לי לשאול א"ל שאל בני שאל מפני מה רגליהם של אפרקיים רחבות א"ל בני שאלה גדולה שאלת מפני שדרין בין בצעי המים,אמר לו שאלות הרבה יש לי לשאול ומתירא אני שמא תכעוס נתעטף וישב לפניו א"ל כל שאלות שיש לך לשאול שאל א"ל אתה הוא הלל שקורין אותך נשיא ישראל א"ל הן א"ל אם אתה הוא לא ירבו כמותך בישראל א"ל בני מפני מה א"ל מפני שאבדתי על ידך ד' מאות זוז א"ל הוי זהיר ברוחך כדי הוא הלל שתאבד על ידו ד' מאות זוז וד' מאות זוז והלל לא יקפיד:,ת"ר מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי אמר לו כמה תורות יש לכם אמר לו שתים תורה שבכתב ותורה שבעל פה א"ל שבכתב אני מאמינך ושבעל פה איני מאמינך גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני תורה שבכתב גער בו והוציאו בנזיפה בא לפני הלל גייריה יומא קמא א"ל א"ב ג"ד למחר אפיך ליה א"ל והא אתמול לא אמרת לי הכי א"ל לאו עלי דידי קא סמכת דעל פה נמי סמוך עלי:,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שבא לפני שמאי א"ל גיירני ע"מ שתלמדני כל התורה כולה כשאני עומד על רגל אחת דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה אמר לו דעלך סני לחברך לא תעביד זו היא כל התורה כולה ואידך פירושה הוא זיל גמור.,שוב מעשה בנכרי אחד שהיה עובר אחורי בית המדרש ושמע קול סופר שהיה אומר (שמות כח, ד) ואלה הבגדים אשר יעשו חושן ואפוד אמר הללו למי אמרו לו לכהן גדול אמר אותו נכרי בעצמו אלך ואתגייר בשביל שישימוני כהן גדול בא לפני שמאי אמר ליה גיירני על מנת שתשימני כהן גדול דחפו באמת הבנין שבידו בא לפני הלל גייריה,א"ל כלום מעמידין מלך אלא מי שיודע טכסיסי מלכות לך למוד טכסיסי מלכות הלך וקרא כיון שהגיע (במדבר א, נא) והזר הקרב יומת אמר ליה מקרא זה על מי נאמר א"ל אפי' על דוד מלך ישראל נשא אותו גר קל וחומר בעצמו ומה ישראל שנקראו בנים למקום ומתוך אהבה שאהבם קרא להם (שמות ד, כב) בני בכורי ישראל כתיב עליהם והזר הקרב יומת גר הקל שבא במקלו ובתרמילו על אחת כמה וכמה,בא לפני שמאי א"ל כלום ראוי אני להיות כהן גדול והלא כתיב בתורה והזר הקרב יומת בא לפני הלל א"ל ענוותן הלל ינוחו לך ברכות על ראשך שהקרבתני תחת כנפי השכינה לימים נזדווגו שלשתן למקום אחד אמרו קפדנותו של שמאי בקשה לטורדנו מן העולם ענוותנותו של הלל קרבנו תחת כנפי השכינה:,אמר ר"ל מאי דכתיב (ישעיהו לג, ו) והיה אמונת עתיך חוסן ישועות חכמת ודעת וגו' אמונת זה סדר זרעים עתיך זה סדר מועד חוסן זה סדר נשים ישועות זה סדר נזיקין חכמת זה סדר קדשים ודעת זה סדר טהרות ואפ"ה (ישעיהו לג, ו) יראת ה' היא אוצרו,אמר רבא בשעה שמכניסין אדם לדין אומרים לו נשאת ונתת באמונה קבעת עתים לתורה עסקת בפו"ר צפית לישועה פלפלת בחכמה הבנת דבר מתוך דבר ואפ"ה אי יראת ה' היא אוצרו אין אי לא לא משל לאדם שאמר לשלוחו העלה לי כור חיטין לעלייה הלך והעלה לו א"ל עירבת לי בהן קב חומטון א"ל לאו א"ל מוטב אם לא העליתה,תנא דבי ר"י מערב אדם קב חומטון בכור של תבואה ואינו חושש:,אמר רבה בר רב הונא כל אדם שיש בו תורה ואין בו

31a. who wagered with each other and said: Anyone who will go and aggravate Hillel to the point that he reprimands him, will take four-hundred zuz. One of them said: I will aggravate him. That day that he chose to bother Hillel was Shabbat eve, and Hillel was washing the hair on his head. He went and passed the entrance to Hillel’s house and in a demeaning manner said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Hillel wrapped himself in a dignified garment and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. Hillel said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked him: Why are the heads of Babylonians oval? He was alluding to and attempting to insult Hillel, who was Babylonian. He said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they do not have clever midwives. They do not know how to shape the child’s head at birth.,That man went and waited one hour, a short while, returned to look for Hillel, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, Hillel wrapped himself and went out to greet him. Hillel said to him: My son, what do you seek? The man said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why are the eyes of the residents of Tadmor bleary [terutot]? Hillel said to him: My son, you have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live among the sands and the sand gets into their eyes.,Once again the man went, waited one hour, returned, and said: Who here is Hillel, who here is Hillel? Again, he, Hillel, wrapped himself and went out to greet him. He said to him: My son, what do you seek? He said to him: I have a question to ask. He said to him: Ask, my son, ask. The man asked: Why do Africans have wide feet? Hillel said to him: You have asked a significant question. The reason is because they live in marshlands and their feet widened to enable them to walk through those swampy areas.,That man said to him: I have many more questions to ask, but I am afraid lest you get angry. Hillel wrapped himself and sat before him, and he said to him: All of the questions that you have to ask, ask them. The man got angry and said to him: Are you Hillel whom they call the Nasi of Israel? He said to him: Yes. He said to him: If it is you, then may there not be many like you in Israel. Hillel said to him: My son, for what reason do you say this? The man said to him: Because I lost four hundred zuz because of you. Hillel said to him: Be vigilant of your spirit and avoid situations of this sort. Hillel is worthy of having you lose four hundred zuz and another four hundred zuz on his account, and Hillel will not get upset.,The Sages taught: There was an incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai. The gentile said to Shammai: How many Torahs do you have? He said to him: Two, the Written Torah and the Oral Torah. The gentile said to him: With regard to the Written Torah, I believe you, but with regard to the Oral Torah, I do not believe you. Convert me on condition that you will teach me only the Written Torah. Shammai scolded him and cast him out with reprimand. The same gentile came before Hillel, who converted him and began teaching him Torah. On the first day, he showed him the letters of the alphabet and said to him: Alef, bet, gimmel, dalet. The next day he reversed the order of the letters and told him that an alef is a tav and so on. The convert said to him: But yesterday you did not tell me that. Hillel said to him: You see that it is impossible to learn what is written without relying on an oral tradition. Didn’t you rely on me? Therefore, you should also rely on me with regard to the matter of the Oral Torah, and accept the interpretations that it contains.,There was another incident involving one gentile who came before Shammai and said to Shammai: Convert me on condition that you teach me the entire Torah while I am standing on one foot. Shammai pushed him away with the builder’s cubit in his hand. This was a common measuring stick and Shammai was a builder by trade. The same gentile came before Hillel. He converted him and said to him: That which is hateful to you do not do to another; that is the entire Torah, and the rest is its interpretation. Go study.,There was another incident involving one gentile who was passing behind the study hall and heard the voice of a teacher who was teaching Torah to his students and saying the verse: “And these are the garments which they shall make: A breastplate, and an efod, and a robe, and a tunic of checkered work, a mitre, and a girdle” (Exodus 28:4). The gentile said: These garments, for whom are they designated? The students said to him: For the High Priest. The gentile said to himself: I will go and convert so that they will install me as High Priest. He came before Shammai and said to him: Convert me on condition that you install me as High Priest. Shammai pushed him with the builder’s cubit in his hand. He came before Hillel; he converted him.,Hillel said to him, to the convert: Is it not the way of the world that only one who knows the protocols [takhsisei] of royalty is appointed king? Go and learn the royal protocols by engaging in Torah study. He went and read the Bible. When he reached the verse which says: “And the common man that draws near shall be put to death” (Numbers 1:51), the convert said to Hillel: With regard to whom is the verse speaking? Hillel said to him: Even with regard to David, king of Israel. The convert reasoned an a fortiori inference himself: If the Jewish people are called God’s children, and due to the love that God loved them he called them: “Israel is My son, My firstborn” (Exodus 4:22), and nevertheless it is written about them: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death; a mere convert who came without merit, with nothing more than his staff and traveling bag, all the more so that this applies to him, as well.,The convert came before Shammai and told him that he retracts his demand to appoint him High Priest, saying: Am I at all worthy to be High Priest? Is it not written in the Torah: And the common man that draws near shall be put to death? He came before Hillel and said to him: Hillel the patient, may blessings rest upon your head as you brought me under the wings of the Divine Presence. The Gemara relates: Eventually, the three converts gathered together in one place, and they said: Shammai’s impatience sought to drive us from the world; Hillel’s patience brought us beneath the wings of the Divine Presence.,The Gemara continues discussing the conduct of the Sages, citing that Reish Lakish said: What is the meaning of that which is written: “And the faith of your times shall be a strength of salvation, wisdom, and knowledge, the fear of the Lord is his treasure” (Isaiah 33:6)? Faith; that is the order of Zera’im, Seeds, in the Mishna, because a person has faith in God and plants his seeds (Jerusalem Talmud). Your times; that is the order of Moed, Festival, which deals with the various occasions and Festivals that occur throughout the year. Strength; that is the order of Nashim, Women. Salvations; that is the order of Nezikin, Damages, as one who is being pursued is rescued from the hands of his pursuer. Wisdom; that is the order of Kodashim, Consecrated Items. And knowledge; that is the order of Teharot, Purity, which is particularly difficult to master. And even if a person studies and masters all of these, “the fear of the Lord is his treasure,” it is preeminent.,With regard to the same verse, Rava said: After departing from this world, when a person is brought to judgment for the life he lived in this world, they say to him in the order of that verse: Did you conduct business faithfully? Did you designate times for Torah study? Did you engage in procreation? Did you await salvation? Did you engage in the dialectics of wisdom or understand one matter from another? And, nevertheless, beyond all these, if the fear of the Lord is his treasure, yes, he is worthy, and if not, no, none of these accomplishments have any value. There is a parable that illustrates this. A person who said to his emissary: Bring a kor of wheat up to the attic for me to store there. The messenger went and brought it up for him. He said to the emissary: Did you mix a kav of ḥomton, a preservative to keep away worms, into it for me? He said to him: No. He said to him: If so, it would have been preferable had you not brought it up. of what use is worm-infested wheat? Likewise, Torah and mitzvot without the fear of God are of no value.,On a related note, the Gemara cites a halakha that was taught in the school of Rabbi Yishmael: A person who sells wheat may, ab initio, mix a kav of ḥomton into a kor of grain and need not be concerned that by selling it all at the price of grain he will be guilty of theft, as the kav of ḥomton is essential for the preservation of the wheat.,Rabba bar Rav Huna said: Any person who has Torah in him but does not have

104. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 134, 136

16a. שילה נוב וגבעון ובית עולמים,איסי בן מנחם אומר אינו צריך ומה בטומאה קלה לא חלק הכתוב בטומאת אשת איש חמורה לא כ"ש א"כ מה ת"ל בקרקע המשכן שלא יביא מתוך קופתו,איבעיא להו אין שם עפר מהו שיתן אפר אליבא דבית שמאי לא תיבעי לך דאמרי לא מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר,כי תיבעי לך אליבא דבית הלל דאמרי מצינו אפר שקרוי עפר מאי אע"ג דאיקרי עפר הכא בקרקע המשכן כתיב או דילמא האי בקרקע המשכן לכדאיסי בן יהודה ולכדאיסי בן מנחם הוא דאתי,ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום ר' ישמעאל בשלשה מקומות הלכה עוקבת מקרא,התורה אמרה (ויקרא יז, יג) בעפר והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (במדבר ו, ה) בתער והלכה בכל דבר התורה אמרה (דברים כד, א) ספר והלכה בכל דבר,ואם איתא ליחשוב נמי האי,תנא ושייר ומאי שייר דהאי שייר שייר מצורע דתניא (ויקרא יד, ט) והיה ביום השביעי יגלח את כל שערו כלל את ראשו ואת זקנו ואת גבות עיניו פרט ואת כל שערו יגלח חזר וכלל כלל ופרט וכלל אי אתה דן אלא כעין הפרט מה פרט מפורש מקום כינוס שער ונראה אף כל מקום כינוס שער ונראה,מה רבי רבי שיער הרגלים מאי מיעט מיעט דבית השחי ודכוליה גופיה,והלכתא מגלח כדלעת דתנן בא לו להקיף את המצורע מעביר תער על כל בשרו וקתני סיפא וביום השביעי מגלחו תגלחת שניה כתגלחת ראשונה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת מקרא הא עוקבת מדרבנן היא,רב פפא אמר כי קא חשיב הלכה עוקבת ועוקרת הא עוקבת ומוספת היא,רב אשי אמר הא מתניתא מני רבי ישמעאל היא דדריש כללי ופרטי

16a. Shiloh, Nob, and Gibeon, and also the Eternal House, i.e., the Temple in Jerusalem. The dust for the sota is still brought from the ground of the Sanctuary wherever it is located, even after the Jewish people are no longer in the wilderness.,Isi ben Menaḥem says: There is no need to derive this halakha from the verse. It may be learned by an a fortiori inference: With regard to the prohibition against entering the Sanctuary in a state of impurity, a lenient matter for which there is no court-imposed capital punishment, the Torah does not differentiate. It is prohibited for an impure person to enter the Tabernacle no matter where it stands. Therefore, with regard to the impurity of a married woman, which is stringent and carries the penalty of strangulation, all the more so is it not clear that the Torah does not differentiate? The dust must be brought from the Sanctuary no matter where it stands. If so, what is the meaning when the verse states: “And of the dust that is on the floor of the Tabernacle”? It teaches that one should not bring dust from his own basket and place it directly into the water; he must first place it on the floor.,A dilemma was raised before the Sages: If there is no dust there, what is the halakha? May one place ashes in the vessel instead? The Gemara responds: There is no need to raise the dilemma if one holds in accordance with the opinion of Beit Shammai, as they say: We never find ashes referred to as dust in the Torah.,When you raise the dilemma, it is in accordance with the opinion of Beit Hillel, who say: We do find ashes referred to as dust in the context of the red heifer (Numbers 19:17). They likewise hold that ashes may also be used instead of dust to cover the blood of a slaughtered bird or undomesticated animal (see Leviticus 17:13). What is the halakha here, with regard to the water of a sota? May ashes replace dust? Although elsewhere ashes may be referred to as dust, here it is written: “On the floor of the Tabernacle,” indicating that dust in particular is required, since dust comes from the ground. Or perhaps the phrase “on the floor of the Tabernacle” comes only to teach that the halakha is in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Yehuda or in accordance with the teaching of Isi ben Menaḥem. If so, perhaps ashes are acceptable as well.,Come and hear evidence from that which Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael: In three instances the halakha supersedes the verse, i.e., the tradition alters the straightforward meaning of the verse.,The Torah states: “And whatsoever man…that takes in hunting any beast or fowl that may be eaten, he shall pour out the blood thereof, and cover it in dust” (Leviticus 17:13), but the halakha is that the blood may be covered in anything similar to dust. The Torah states with regard to the nazirite: “All the days of his vow of naziriteship there shall be no razor come upon his head” (Numbers 6:5), but the halakha is that the nazirite may not remove his hair with anything. The Torah states: “That he writes her a bill [sefer] of divorce” (Deuteronomy 24:1). The word sefer denotes a scroll, but the halakha is that the husband may inscribe the bill of divorce on anything that is detached from the ground and suitable to be written upon, not only on a scroll.,And if it is so that ashes may be placed in the water of a sota despite the verse’s stipulation of dust, consider this fourth case as well to be a halakha that supersedes the verse. Since it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s statement, it seems that ashes may not be used.,The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yishmael taught some cases and omitted others; his list is not exhaustive. The Gemara asks: What else did he omit that he omitted this? It is not reasonable that he would provide a list lacking only one item. The Gemara answers: He omitted the leper, as it is taught in a baraita (Tosefta, Nega’im 1:9): In the verse: “And it shall be on the seventh day, that he shall shave off all his hair” (Leviticus 14:9), the phrase “all his hair” is a generalization. The phrase that follows: “His head and his beard and his eyebrows,” is a detail. And with the following phrase: “Even all his hair he shall shave off,” the verse then generalized again. In any case of a generalization, and a detail, and a generalization, you may deduce that the verse is referring only to items similar to the detail. Just as the detail is explicitly referring to areas where there is a collection of hair which is visible, so too all areas on the leper that have a collection of hair which is visible must be shaven.,To what otherwise excluded case does this baraita extend the halakha? It extends the halakha of hair to include pubic hair. What does the baraita exclude? It excludes armpit hair, which is not visible, and body hair that is not collected. This is the straightforward meaning of the verse.,And yet the halakha is: The leper shaves like a gourd, i.e., his entire body must be shaved. As we learned in a mishna (Nega’im 14:2): When the priest comes to shave the leper, he passes a razor over all of his flesh. And in the latter clause, the mishna teaches: On the seventh day he shaves the leper again. The second shaving is just like the first shaving. The verse previously analyzed is referring to the second shaving, and its straightforward meaning is that not all of the leper’s flesh needs to be shaved. However, the mishna states that the leper must shave all of his flesh in the second shaving as well. This is another instance where the halakha supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse, yet it is omitted from Rabbi Yishmael’s list.,Rabbi Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rabbi Yishmael consciously omitted the halakha of the leper because he counted only instances where the halakha supersedes the straightforward meaning of the verse. This halakha of the leper, however, is an instance where the halakha supersedes only an exegetical interpretation of the Sages.,Rav Pappa said: Rabbi Yishmael counted only cases where the halakha both supersedes and uproots the straightforward meaning of the verse. This, however, is an instance where the halakha supersedes and adds. The halakha does not overrule the verse but rather adds an additional requirement, i.e., that the whole body must be shaved.,Rav Ashi said: This baraita, which teaches that only certain parts of the body must be shaved, is in accordance with whose opinion? It is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, who interprets verses by means of the principle of generalizations and details. According to this interpretation, only collected areas of hair that are visible must be shaven.

105. Origen, On Prayer, 2.2 (3rd cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 124

106. Babylonian Talmud, Rosh Hashanah, 16a, 33a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

107. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, 42b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 213

108. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, 28b, 66a, 79a, 86a, 114b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 213

114b. אמר ר"ל זאת אומרת מצות צריכות כוונה כיון דלא בעידן חיובא דמרור הוא דאכיל ליה בבורא פה"א הוא דאכיל ליה ודילמא לא איכוון למרור הלכך בעי למהדר לאטבולי לשם מרור דאי סלקא דעתך מצוה לא בעיא כוונה למה לך תרי טיבולי והא טביל ליה חדא זימנא,ממאי דילמא לעולם מצות אין צריכות כוונה ודקאמרת תרי טיבולי למה לי כי היכי דליהוי היכירא לתינוקות,וכי תימא א"כ לישמעינן שאר ירקות אי אשמעינן שאר ירקות הוה אמינא היכא דאיכא שאר ירקות הוא דבעינן תרי טיבולי אבל חזרת לחודא לא בעי תרי טיבולי קמשמע לן דאפי' חזרת בעינן תרי טיבולי כי היכי דליהוי ביה היכירא לתינוקות,ועוד תניא אכלן דמאי יצא אכלן בלא מתכוין יצא אכלן לחצאין יצא,ובלבד שלא ישהא בין אכילה לחבירתה יותר מכדי אכילת פרס,תנאי היא דתניא רבי יוסי אומר אע"פ שטיבל בחזרת מצוה להביא לפניו חזרת וחרוסת ושני תבשילין,ואכתי ממאי דילמא קסבר רבי יוסי מצות אין צריכות כוונה והאי דבעינן תרי טיבולי כי היכי דתיהוי היכירא לתינוקות א"כ מאי מצוה,מאי שני תבשילין אמר רב הונא סילקא וארוזא רבא הוה מיהדר אסילקא וארוזא הואיל ונפיק מפומיה דרב הונא,אמר רב אשי שמע מינה דרב הונא לית דחייש להא דרבי יוחנן בן נורי דתניא רבי יוחנן בן נורי אומר אורז מין דגן הוא וחייבין על חימוצו כרת ואדם יוצא בו ידי חובתו בפסח,חזקיה אמר אפי' דג וביצה שעליו רב יוסף אמר צריך שני מיני בשר אחד זכר לפסח וא' זכר לחגיגה רבינא אמר אפילו גרמא ובישולא,פשיטא היכא דאיכא שאר ירקות מברך אשאר ירקות בורא פרי האדמה ואכיל והדר מברך על אכילת מרור ואכיל,היכא דליכא אלא חסא מאי אמר רב הונא מברך מעיקרא אמרור ב"פ האדמה ואכיל ולבסוף מברך עליה על אכילת מרור ואכיל

114b. Reish Lakish said: That is to say that mitzvot require intent. One who performs a mitzva must do so with the intent to fulfill his obligation. The proof of this from the mishna is that since one does not eat the lettuce at the time of his obligation to eat bitter herbs, he eats it after reciting only one blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground. And clearly the reason is that perhaps he did not intend to fulfill his obligation to eat bitter herbs, and therefore he needs to dip it again for the purpose of bitter herbs. For if it could enter your mind that mitzvot do not require intent, why do you need two dippings? But he has already dipped the lettuce once.,The Gemara rejects this contention: From where do you know that this is the case? Perhaps I can say that actually mitzvot do not require intent. And that which you said, why do I need two dippings, perhaps the reason is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children, which will cause them to inquire into the difference between this night and all others.,And if you say: If so, let the tanna teach us this halakha with regard to other vegetables as well, as there is no obvious reason that lettuce is chosen for this distinction. In response, I would say that had the mishna taught us about other vegetables, I would have said that it is only where there are other vegetables that one requires two dippings, one for the other vegetables and one for the bitter herbs; however, if one has only ḥazeret, he does not require two dippings, as one dipping is sufficient. Therefore, the mishna teaches us that even if one has just ḥazeret he requires two dippings, so that there be a conspicuous distinction for the children.,And furthermore, it was taught in a baraita: On Passover, if one ate vegetables of doubtfully tithed produce, i.e., he bought the vegetables from an am ha’aretz, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them without the intent of the mitzva, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he ate them in halves, by eating half an olive-bulk of bitter herbs, pausing, and then eating an additional half an olive-bulk, he has fulfilled his obligation.,And the Gemara adds: With regard to this last case, one who eats an olive-bulk in halves, that is the halakha, provided that he does not pause between eating the first half an olive-bulk and the other half an olive-bulk more than the time it takes to eat a half-loaf of bread. If one takes longer than this amount of time, the two parts of bitter herbs cannot combine. This baraita indicates that even if one eats the bitter herbs without intention he has fulfilled his obligation, which presents a difficulty for Reish Lakish.,The Gemara answers: The issue of whether or not mitzvot require intent is a dispute between tanna’im, as it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei says: Although one has already dipped the ḥazeret once, it is a mitzva to bring before him ḥazeret and ḥaroset, and two cooked dishes. Apparently, he lacked intention during his first consumption of lettuce, and therefore he must be given additional lettuce with which to fulfill his obligation.,The Gemara asks: And still this is no conclusive proof, as from where do I know that Rabbi Yosei is of the opinion that mitzvot require intent? Perhaps Rabbi Yosei maintains that mitzvot do not require intent, and the reason that we require two dippings is so that there should be a conspicuous distinction for the children. The Gemara rejects this argument: If so, for what reason does Rabbi Yosei use the term mitzva? There is no mitzva from the Torah to provide a distinction to stimulate the curiosity of the young ones. The mitzva is to eat bitter herbs, and evidently this individual must return and eat them again because he lacked intention the first time.,The Gemara asks: What are these two cooked foods mentioned in the mishna? Rav Huna said: Beets and rice. The Gemara relates that Rava would seek beets and rice for his meal on Passover night, since this ruling came from Rav Huna’s mouth. Although Rava realized that Rav Huna was merely citing examples and did not mean that one must eat those specific foods, he wanted to fulfill the statement of his teacher precisely.,Rav Ashi said: Learn incidentally another halakha from this statement of Rav Huna, that there is no one who is concerned about that statement of Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri. As it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri says: Rice is a type of grain in all regards; and one is liable to receive karet for eating it in its leavened state on Passover; and one fulfills his obligation with it on Passover, if it was properly baked into matza. It can be inferred from Rav Huna’s suggestion to use cooked rice, that rice cannot become leavened.,Ḥizkiya said: The two cooked foods can even be fish and the egg that that was fried on it. Rav Yosef said: One requires two types of meat on Passover night, one in remembrance of the Paschal lamb and the other one in remembrance of the Festival peace-offering, which was also eaten on Passover night. Ravina said: For the two cooked foods one may use even the meat on the bone and the gravy in which it was cooked.,With regard to the halakha of eating vegetables, the Gemara clarifies: It is obvious that where there are other vegetables available besides bitter herbs, at the first dipping one recites over the other vegetables the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, and eats, with the intention of including in this blessing the bitter herbs he will eat later. And then, at the second dipping, he recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, on the lettuce and eats it.,However, what is the halakha where there is only lettuce available? When should one recite each blessing? Rav Huna said: One initially recites the blessing: Who creates fruit of the ground, over the bitter herbs, i.e., the lettuce, and eats them. And ultimately, after the matza, one recites the blessing: Commanded us over eating bitter herbs, over the lettuce and eats it.

109. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 16a, 87a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

110. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, 93a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

93a. if the repeated term “his offering” is not needed to counter the a fortiori inferences, why do I need these three verses? The Gemara explains: One instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on an offering of another person. Another instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. The third instance of “his offering” serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,§ The mishna states: If the owner of an offering died, then the heir is regarded as the offering’s owner. Therefore, he places his hands on the offering and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it. Although it is prohibited to perform an act of substitution, if the owner of an offering does this, his attempt is successful to the extent that the non-sacred animal is thereby consecrated, even though the original offering also remains sacred.,Rav Ḥaya taught a baraita in the presence of Rava: An heir does not place hands on an offering he inherited, and an heir cannot substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering he inherited. Rava asked: But didn’t we learn in the mishna: The heir places his hands on the offering, and brings the accompanying libations, and he can substitute a non-sacred animal for it and thereby consecrate the non-sacred animal?,Rav Ḥaya said to Rava: Should I reverse the current version of the baraita to have it be in accordance with the mishna? Rava said to him: No, as whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: An heir places hands, and an heir can effect substitution. Rabbi Yehuda says: An heir does not place hands, and an heir cannot effect substitution.,The Gemara clarifies: What is the reasoning of Rabbi Yehuda? He expounds the term “his offering” as teaching that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on one’s father’s offering that one inherited. And furthermore, Rabbi Yehuda derives the halakha concerning who can substitute a non-sacred animal for an offering, which is the initial stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands on the offering, which is the final stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir does not place his hands, so too, with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir cannot effect substitution.,And as for the Rabbis, from where do they derive their opinion? The verse states: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir] animal for animal” (Leviticus 27:10), with the doubled form of hamer yamir serving to include the heir as one capable of effecting substitution. And furthermore, they derive the halakha concerning who performs the rite of placing hands, which is the final stage of consecration, from the halakha concerning who can effect substitution, which is an initial stage of consecration: Just as with regard to the initial stage of consecration, an heir can effect substitution, so too, with regard to the final stage of consecration, an heir places his hands.,The Gemara asks: And as for the Rabbis, what do they do with this term: “His offering”? The Gemara explains how the Rabbis expound each mention of the term. One instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on an offering of a gentile. Another instance of “his offering” teaches that one places hands only on one’s own offering, but not on an offering of another person. The third instance of “his offering” serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, i.e., they are all required to place their hands on the offering.,The Gemara clarifies: And Rabbi Yehuda does not hold that one of the mentions serves to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands, so he is able to expound it to exclude an heir from the requirement. Alternatively, if he holds that one of the mentions serves to include owners of a jointly owned offering, then he must derive that one does not place hands on the offering of a gentile or of another person from the same one mention in the verse, which leaves him two more mentions in the verses. One he expounds to teach that on “his offering” he places hands, but not on his father’s offering that he inherited, and the other mention remains to include all the owners of a jointly owned offering in the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: And as for Rabbi Yehuda, what does he do with the use of the doubled form in this verse: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir]”? The Gemara answers: He requires it to include a woman among those who can effect substitution. As it is taught in a baraita: Since the entire matter of substitution is stated in the Torah only in the masculine form, what is the reason that we ultimately come to include a woman? The verse states: “If he shall substitute [hamer yamir],” using a doubled form.,And as for the Rabbis, they derive that a woman can effect substitution from the term: “And if” (Leviticus 27:10), in the phrase “and if he shall substitute.” And Rabbi Yehuda does not expound the term “and if” at all.,Everyone who brings an animal offering places hands upon its head, except for a deaf-mute, an imbecile, a minor, a blind person, a gentile, a Canaanite slave, the agent of the owner of the offering who brings the offering on the owner’s behalf, and a woman.,And the requirement of placing hands is a non-essential mitzva; therefore, failure to place hands does not prevent the owner from achieving atonement.,The rite of placing hands is performed by leaning on the head of the offering with two hands. And in the same location in the Temple that one places hands, one slaughters the animal. And immediately following the rite of placing hands, the slaughter is performed.,Granted, a deaf-mute, an imbecile, and a minor do not place their hands on the offering, as they are not mentally competent. The exclusion of a gentile is also understandable, as the verses concerning placing hands are introduced with: “Speak to the children of Israel and say to them” (Leviticus 1:2), which indicates that the children of Israel place hands upon their offerings, but gentiles do not place their hands upon their offerings. But with regard to a blind person, what is the reason that he does not place his hands on his offering?,Rav Ḥisda and Rav Yitzḥak bar Avdimi disagree as to the source of the exclusion of a blind person. One said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the bull offering brought for a community-wide violation perpetrated due to an erroneous ruling of the Sanhedrin, which is performed by the Elders of the congregation, i.e., the judges of the Sanhedrin: Just as the judges may not be blind (see Sanhedrin 34b), so too the rite of placing hands is not performed by a blind person.,And the other one said that it is derived from a verbal analogy between the mention of placing hands in the passage detailing the general requirement to do so, and the mention of placing hands stated with regard to the burnt offering of appearance brought by an individual on the pilgrimage Festivals: Just as a blind person is exempt from making the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and bringing the offering (see Ḥagiga 2a), so too he is excluding from the requirement of placing hands.,The Gemara asks: And according to the one who said that the exclusion of a blind person is derived from the burnt offering of appearance, what is the reason that he does not derive this from the placing of hands performed by the Elders of the congregation?

111. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, 10b, 11a, 11b, 15b, 7a-b, 16b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 31

16b. יכשל בו דאמר רבא בר מחסיא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב בשביל משקל שני סלעים מילת שהוסיף יעקב ליוסף משאר אחיו נתגלגל הדבר וירדו אבותינו למצרים אמר רבי בנימן בר יפת רמז רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו שיצא מלפני המלך בחמשה לבושי מלכות שנאמר ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וגו',(בראשית מה, יד) ויפול על צוארי בנימן אחיו כמה צוארין הוו ליה לבנימין אמר רבי אלעזר בכה על שני מקדשים שעתידין להיות בחלקו של בנימין ועתידין ליחרב ובנימין בכה על צואריו בכה על משכן שילה שעתיד להיות בחלקו של יוסף ועתיד ליחרב,(בראשית מה, יב) והנה עיניכם רואות ועיני אחי בנימין אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם כשם שאין בלבי על בנימין אחי שלא היה במכירתי כך אין בלבי עליכם כי פי המדבר אליכם כפי כן לבי,(בראשית מה, כג) ולאביו שלח כזאת עשרה חמורים נושאים מטוב מצרים מאי מטוב מצרים אמר ר' בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר שלח לו יין [ישן] שדעת זקנים נוחה הימנו,(בראשית נ, יח) וילכו גם אחיו ויפלו לפניו אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר היינו דאמרי אינשי תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,תעלא מאי בצירותיה מאחווה אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר (בראשית מז, לא) וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,(בראשית נ, כא) וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר מלמד שאמר להם דברים שמתקבלין על הלב ומה עשרה נרות לא יכלו לכבות נר אחד נר אחד היאך יכול לכבות עשרה נרות,(אסתר ח, טז) ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר אמר רב יהודה אורה זו תורה וכן הוא אומר (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור שמחה זה יום טוב וכן הוא אומר (דברים טז, יד) ושמחת בחגך ששון זו מילה וכן הוא אומר (תהלים קיט, קסב) שש אנכי על אמרתך,ויקר אלו תפלין וכן הוא אומר (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך ותניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש,ואת פרשנדתא וגו' עשרת בני המן אמר רב אדא דמן יפו עשרת בני המן ועשרת צריך לממרינהו בנשימה אחת מאי טעמא כולהו בהדי הדדי נפקו נשמתייהו אמר רבי יוחנן ויו דויזתא צריך למימתחה בזקיפא כמורדיא דלברות מאי טעמא כולהו בחד זקיפא אזדקיפו,אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דרש ר' שילא איש כפר תמרתא כל השירות כולן נכתבות אריח על גבי לבינה ולבינה על גבי אריח,חוץ משירה זו ומלכי כנען שאריח על גבי אריח ולבינה על גבי לבינה מ"ט שלא תהא תקומה למפלתן,ויאמר המלך לאסתר המלכה בשושן הבירה הרגו היהודים אמר רבי אבהו מלמד שבא מלאך וסטרו על פיו,ובבאה לפני המלך אמר עם הספר אמר אמרה מיבעי ליה אמר רבי יוחנן אמרה לו יאמר בפה מה שכתוב בספר,דברי שלום ואמת אמר רבי תנחום ואמרי לה אמר רבי אסי מלמד שצריכה שרטוט כאמיתה של תורה,ומאמר אסתר קיים מאמר אסתר אין דברי הצומות לא אמר רבי יוחנן דברי הצומות ומאמר אסתר קיים (את ימי) הפורים האלה,כי מרדכי היהודי משנה למלך אחשורוש וגדול ליהודים ורצוי לרוב אחיו לרוב אחיו ולא לכל אחיו מלמד שפירשו ממנו מקצת סנהדרין,אמר רב יוסף גדול ת"ת יותר מהצלת נפשות דמעיקרא חשיב ליה למרדכי בתר ד' ולבסוף בתר חמשה מעיקרא כתיב (עזרא ב, ב) אשר באו עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה שריה רעליה מרדכי בלשן ולבסוף כתיב (נחמיה ז, ז) הבאים עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה עזריה רעמיה נחמני מרדכי בלשן,אמר רב ואיתימא רב שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מבנין בית המקדש שכל זמן שברוך בן נריה קיים לא הניחו עזרא ועלה,אמר רבה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מכבוד אב ואם שכל אותן שנים שהיה יעקב אבינו בבית עבר לא נענש דאמר מר

16b. he himself should stumble by showing favoritism to Benjamin? As Rava bar Meḥaseyya said that Rav Ḥama bar Gurya said that Rav said: Due to the weight of two sela of fine wool that Jacob gave to Joseph, which he added to what he gave Joseph beyond what he gave the rest of his brothers, as he made him his special coat, the story progressed and our forefathers went down to Egypt. How then could Joseph have displayed similar favoritism toward Benjamin? Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said: He was not showing favoritism. Rather, he intimated to him that a descendant was destined to issue from him who would go out from the presence of the king wearing five royal garments, as it is stated: “And Mordecai went forth from the presence of the king in royal apparel of sky blue and white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a wrap of fine linen and purple” (Esther 8:15).,The Gemara elaborates on certain elements in the story of Joseph and his brothers. The verse states with regard to Joseph: “And he fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck [tzavarei] and wept” (Genesis 45:14). The wording of the verse gives rise to a question, as the word tzavarei is plural, meaning necks: How many necks did Benjamin have, such that the verse should use the plural tzavarei rather than the singular tzavar? Rabbi Elazar said: This intimates that Joseph cried over the two Temples that were destined to be in the tribal territory of Benjamin and were destined to be destroyed. The same verse continues: “And Benjamin wept on his neck” (Genesis 45:14); he cried over the tabernacle of Shiloh that was destined to be in the tribal territory of Joseph and was destined to be destroyed.,The verse states: “And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin” (Genesis 45:12). Rabbi Elazar said: Joseph said to his brothers as follows: Just as I certainly harbor no resentment in my heart toward my brother Benjamin, for he was not even present when I was sold, so too, I harbor no resentment toward you. The verse continues: “That it is my mouth [ki fi] that speaks to you” (Genesis 45:12), i.e., As my mouth [kefi] is, so is my heart.,The verse states: “And to his father he sent after this manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt” (Genesis 45:23). The Gemara asks: What are “the good things of Egypt” that are mentioned but not specified here? Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: He sent him aged wine, which the elderly find pleasing.,Following Jacob’s death, it states concerning Joseph: “And his brothers even went and fell down before him” (Genesis 50:18). Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: This explains the folk saying that people say: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it, i.e., if a fox is appointed king, one must bow down before and submit oneself to it.,The Gemara expresses astonishment at the use of this parable: Are you calling Joseph a fox? What, was he inferior to his brothers such that in relation to them you call him a fox? Rather, if such a statement was stated, it was stated as follows, not in connection with this verse, but rather in connection with a different verse. The verse states: “And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed” (Genesis 47:31). With regard to this, Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it, as Jacob had to bow down before his son Joseph, who had reached greatness.,It says with regard to Joseph’s remarks to his brothers: “And he comforted them and spoke to their hearts” (Genesis 50:21). Rabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said that Rabbi Elazar said: This teaches that he spoke to them words that are acceptable to the heart, and alleviated their fears. This is what he said: If ten lights could not put out one light, as all of you were unable to do me harm, how can one light put out ten lights?,§ The Gemara returns to its explanation of the Megilla. The verse states: “The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor” (Esther 8:16). Rav Yehuda said: “Light”; this is referring to the Torah that they once again studied. And similarly it says: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light” (Proverbs 6:23). “Gladness” [simḥa]; this is referring to the Festivals that they once again observed. And similarly it says: “And you shall be glad [vesamakhta] on your Festival” (Deuteronomy 16:14). “Joy” [sasson]; this is referring to circumcision, as they once again circumcised their sons. And similarly it says: “I rejoice [sas] at Your word” (Psalms 119:162), which the Sages understood as referring to David’s rejoicing over the mitzva of circumcision.,“Honor”; this is referring to phylacteries, which they once again donned. And similarly it says: “And all peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord; and they will be afraid of you” (Deuteronomy 28:10). And it was taught in a baraita: Rabbi Eliezer the Great said: This is referring to the phylacteries worn on the head. Haman had banned the fulfillment of all the mitzvot mentioned, but upon Haman’s demise the Jews returned to their observance.,The verse states: “And in Shushan the capital the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. And Parshandatha…and Vaizatha, the ten sons of Haman” (Esther 9:6–10). Rav Adda from Jaffa said: When reading the Megilla, the names of the ten sons of Haman and the word “ten” must be said in one breath. What is the reason for this? It is that their souls all departed together. Rabbi Yoḥa said: The letter vav in the name “Vaizatha” is a lengthened vav and must be elongated as a pole, like a steering oar of a ship [liberot]. What is the reason for this? To indicate that they were all hanged on one pole.,Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa said that Rabbi Sheila, a man of the village of Timarta, interpreted a verse homiletically: All of the songs in the Bible are written in the form of a half brick arranged upon a whole brick and a whole brick arranged upon a half brick, i.e., each line of the song is divided into a stitch of text, referred to as a half brick, which is separated by a blank space, referred to as a whole brick, from the concluding stitch of that line of text.,The next line of the song inverts the sequence. This is the principle for all songs in the Bible except for this song, referring to the list of Haman’s sons, and the song listing the kings of Canaan who were defeated by Joshua. These two songs are written in the form of a half brick arranged upon a half brick and a whole brick arranged upon a whole brick, i.e., one stitch of text over another, and one blank space over another. What is the reason that these two songs are written in this anomalous fashion? So that they should never rise from their downfall. Just as a wall that is built in this manner will not stand, so too, these individuals should have no resurgence.,The verse states: “And the king said to Esther the queen: The Jews have slain and destroyed five hundred men in Shushan the capital, and also the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition and it shall be granted to you; and what more do you request, and it shall be done” (Esther 9:12). Rabbi Abbahu said: This teaches that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth, so that he was unable to finish what he was saying; he started with a complaint about what the Jews were doing, but ended on an entirely different note.,The verse states: “But when she came before the king, he said with a letter” (Esther 9:25). Why does it say: “He said”? It should have said: “She said,” as it was Esther who changed the decree. Rabbi Yoḥa said: She said to Ahasuerus: Let it be said by word of mouth, indicating that that which is written in the letter should also be ordered verbally.,With regard to what is stated: “Words of peace and truth” (Esther 9:30), Rabbi Tanḥum said, and some say that Rabbi Asi said: This teaches that a Megilla scroll requires scoring, i.e., that the lines for the text must be scored onto the parchment, as the Torah itself, i.e., as is done in a Torah scroll.,The verses say: “The matters of the fasts and their cry. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim” (Esther 9:31–32). The Gemara asks: Should we say that “the decree of Esther” indeed confirmed these matters of Purim, but “the matters of the fasts” did not? But didn’t the fasts also contribute to the miracle? Rabbi Yoḥa said: These two verses, “The matters of the fasts and their cry. And the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim,” should be read as one.,The verse states: “For Mordecai the Jew was second to the king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the majority of his brethren” (Esther 10:3). The Gemara comments: The verse indicates that Mordecai was accepted only “By the majority of his brethren,” but not by all his brethren. This teaches that some members of the Sanhedrin parted from him, because he occupied himself with community needs, and was therefore compelled to neglect his Torah study. They felt that this was a mistake and that he should have remained active on the Sanhedrin.,Rav Yosef said: Studying Torah is greater than saving lives, as initially, when listing the Jewish leaders who came to Eretz Yisrael, Mordecai was mentioned after four other people, but at the end he was listed after five. This is taken to indicate that his involvement in governmental affairs instead of in Torah study lowered his stature one notch. The Gemara proves this: At first it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Ezra 2:2); but in the end in a later list it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahmani, Mordecai, Bilshan” (Nehemiah 7:7).,Rav said, and some say that Rav Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah is greater and more important than building the Temple. A proof of this is that for as long as Baruch ben Neriah was alive in Babylonia, Ezra, who was his disciple, did not leave him and go up to Eretz Yisrael to build the Temple.,Rabba said that Rav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah is greater and more important than honoring one’s father and mother, and a proof of this is that for all those years that our father Jacob spent in the house of Eber and studied Torah there he was not punished for having neglected to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s parents. As the Master said:

112. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 105a, 20a-b, 67a, 90b, 75a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

75a. ואם איתא לא לימא ליה הא בצנעה הא בפרהסיא,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב מעשה באדם אחד שנתן עיניו באשה אחת והעלה לבו טינא ובאו ושאלו לרופאים ואמרו אין לו תקנה עד שתבעל אמרו חכמים ימות ואל תבעל לו תעמוד לפניו ערומה ימות ואל תעמוד לפניו ערומה תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר ימות ולא תספר עמו מאחורי הגדר,פליגי בה ר' יעקב בר אידי ור' שמואל בר נחמני חד אמר אשת איש היתה וחד אמר פנויה היתה בשלמא למאן דאמר אשת איש היתה שפיר אלא למ"ד פנויה היתה מאי כולי האי,רב פפא אמר משום פגם משפחה רב אחא בריה דרב איקא אמר כדי שלא יהו בנות ישראל פרוצות בעריות,ולינסבה מינסב לא מייתבה דעתיה כדר' יצחק דא"ר יצחק מיום שחרב בית המקדש ניטלה טעם ביאה וניתנה לעוברי עבירה שנאמר (משלי ט, יז) מים גנובים ימתקו ולחם סתרים ינעם:,

75a. And if it is so that a descendant of Noah is commanded about the sanctification of God’s name, he should not have said to him: “Go in peace.” The Gemara answers: This situation, where Elisha permitted Naaman’s conduct, happened in private. When Naaman bowed down in the house of Rimmon, he did not do so in the presence of ten Jews. Whereas that question that was raised is whether or not a descendant of Noah must sanctify God’s name in public, in the presence of ten Jews. Consequently, the question remains without a solution.,§ Apropos the discussion of the obligation to allow oneself to be killed rather than engage in forbidden sexual intercourse, the Gemara notes that Rav Yehuda says that Rav says: There was an incident involving a certain man who set his eyes upon a certain woman and passion rose in his heart, to the point that he became deathly ill. And they came and asked doctors what was to be done with him. And the doctors said: He will have no cure until she engages in sexual intercourse with him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not engage in sexual intercourse with him. The doctors said: She should at least stand naked before him. The Sages said: Let him die, and she may not stand naked before him. The doctors suggested: The woman should at least converse with him behind a fence in a secluded area, so that he should derive a small amount of pleasure from the encounter. The Sages insisted: Let him die, and she may not converse with him behind a fence.,The Gemara comments: Rabbi Ya’akov bar Idi and Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani disagree about this issue. One of them says: The woman in question was a married woman, and the other one says: She was unmarried. The Gemara tries to clarify the issue: Granted, according to the one who says that she was a married woman, the matter is properly understood. Since the case involved a severely prohibited forbidden relationship, the Sages did not allow any activity hinting at intimacy. But according to the one who says that she was unmarried, what is the reason for all this opposition? Why did the Sages say that the man must be allowed to die, rather than have the woman do as was requested?,Rav Pappa says: This is due to the potential family flaw, i.e., harm to the family name, as it is not permitted to bring disgrace to the entire family in order to save the lovesick man. Rav Aḥa, son of Rav Ika, says: This is so that the daughters of Israel should not be promiscuous with regard to forbidden sexual relations. Were they to listen to the doctors’ recommendations, Jewish women might lose moral restraint.,The Gemara asks: But if the woman was unmarried, let the man marry her. The Gemara answers: His mind would not have been eased by marriage, in accordance with the statement of Rabbi Yitzḥak. As Rabbi Yitzḥak says: Since the day the Temple was destroyed, sexual pleasure was taken away from those who engage in permitted intercourse and given to transgressors, as it is stated: “Stolen waters are sweet, and bread eaten in secret is pleasant” (Proverbs 9:17). Therefore, the man could have been cured only by engaging in illicit sexual interaction.,,And these are the transgressors who are burned in the implementation of the court-imposed death penalty: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, and one who is the daughter of a priest and who committed adultery.,Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His daughter, and the daughter of his daughter, and the daughter of his son. Likewise, the following are also included in this category: Intercourse with the daughter of his wife, even though she is not his daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, as well as intercourse with his mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The prohibition and punishment apply both in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her daughter, and in cases where a man marries a woman and then engages in intercourse with her mother.,tanna does not teach the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married. Rather, the tanna teaches the case of one who engaged in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that both the woman and her daughter are mentioned in the mishna for the purpose of establishing that there is a prohibition of intercourse with either of them, and when he engages in intercourse with the first of them he is liable to be executed. And who are these women? The reference is to his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law.,And the tanna teaches: Additional women are included in the category of the prohibition of and the punishment for engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter. By inference, one may conclude that with regard to both his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law, the prohibition and punishment are written explicitly in the Torah, and with regard to those additional women enumerated in the mishna, the prohibition and punishment are derived by means of interpretation.,The Gemara comments: This works out well according to Abaye, who says that with regard to the dispute between Rabbi Yishmael and Rabbi Akiva cited later in the Gemara (76b), the difference between their opinions is only concerning the interpretation of the meaning of the verse, but there is no practical difference between their opinions. According to Abaye, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? It is the opinion of Rabbi Akiva. Abaye explains that Rabbi Akiva maintains that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.,But according to Rava, who says that the difference between their opinions is with regard to the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law after the death of his wife, whose opinion is expressed in the mishna? The opinion of the tanna of the mishna corresponds neither to the opinion of Rabbi Akiva nor to the opinion of Rabbi Yishmael, as they both maintain that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with the mother of one’s mother-in-law is not stated explicitly in the Torah. The Gemara answers: Rava could say to you: Emend the mishna and teach: One who engaged in intercourse with a woman whose daughter he previously married.,The mishna teaches: Included in the category of the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter and the resulting execution by burning, there are: His mother-in-law, and the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. The Gemara comments: Abaye holds that everyone agrees that the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah, and the tanna enumerates his mother-in-law together with relatives concerning whom the prohibition is derived by means of interpretation. Therefore, according to Abaye, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law is included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law as well, despite the fact the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with one’s mother-in-law is stated explicitly in the Torah.,By contrast, Rava holds that the woman and her daughter mentioned in the first clause of the mishna are his wife and his mother-in-law. Therefore, according to Rava, since the tanna seeks to teach that the mother of his father-in-law and the mother of his mother-in-law are included in the prohibition, he teaches the halakha of his mother-in-law in the latter clause as well, despite the fact that it is stated explicitly in the Torah.,§ The mishna enumerates several women with whom intercourse is forbidden who are included in the prohibition of engaging in intercourse with a woman and her daughter, which is punished by execution by burning. The Gemara asks: From where are these matters derived? They are derived as the Sages taught: “And if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is lewdness; they shall be burned with fire both him and them, and there shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14). I have derived only that this punishment applies to one who engages in intercourse with a woman and with her mother. From where is it derived that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the woman married to him, or with the daughter of her daughter, or with the daughter of her son, is also liable to be executed by burning?,The baraita continues: Lewdness is stated here, with regard to the punishment: “There shall be no lewdness among you” (Leviticus 20:14), and lewdness is stated there, with regard to the prohibition: “You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter; you shall not take her son’s daughter, or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are near kinswomen, it is lewdness” (Leviticus 18:17). It is derived by means of a verbal analogy that just as there the prohibition applies to the woman’s daughter, and the daughter of her daughter, and the daughter of her son, so too here, the punishment of burning applies to one who engages in intercourse with the woman’s daughter, and to the daughter of her daughter, and to the daughter of her son.,The baraita continues: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females with regard to this punishment? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of males like that of female relatives, so too here, the Torah renders the status of males like that of females.,From where is it derived to render the status of relatives below like the status of relatives above? Lewdness is stated here and lewdness is stated there. Just as there, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above, so too here, the Torah renders the status of relatives below like that of relatives above. And just as here, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below, so too there, the Torah renders the status of relatives above like that of relatives below.,The Gemara proceeds to elaborate on the derivations cited in the baraita. The Master says: From where is it derived to render the status of males like that of females? The Gemara asks: What is the meaning of: The status of males like that of females? If we say that it means that one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of the son of his wife is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the daughter of her daughter, the status of the daughter of her son and the daughter of her daughter are derived together in the first clause of the baraita, as both are written explicitly in the prohibition.,Rather, this clause in the baraita means that one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law is executed by burning like one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law. The Gemara asks: Now, we have not yet established the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his mother-in-law, and the baraita is seeking to derive the halakha of one who engages in intercourse with the mother of his father-in-law from the halakha of the mother of his mother-in-law?

113. Anon., Pirqei De Rabbi Eliezer, 49, 10 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 156

114. Anon., Numbers Rabba, 13.15, 15.22 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

115. Augustine, The City of God, a b c d\n0 '18.12 '18.12 '18 12 (4th cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

116. Anon., Avot Derabbi Nathan A, 5 (6th cent. CE - 8th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

117. Quran, Quran, 5.33-5.34, 6.74, 7.172, 16.11, 16.106, 17.33, 29.8, 42.12-42.13 (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, bernard Found in books: Gwynne, Logic, Rhetoric and Legal Reasoning in the Qur'an: God's Arguments (2004) 8, 10, 97

6.74. وَإِذْ قَالَ إِبْرَاهِيمُ لِأَبِيهِ آزَرَ أَتَتَّخِذُ أَصْنَامًا آلِهَةً إِنِّي أَرَاكَ وَقَوْمَكَ فِي ضَلَالٍ مُبِينٍ 7.172. وَإِذْ أَخَذَ رَبُّكَ مِنْ بَنِي آدَمَ مِنْ ظُهُورِهِمْ ذُرِّيَّتَهُمْ وَأَشْهَدَهُمْ عَلَى أَنْفُسِهِمْ أَلَسْتُ بِرَبِّكُمْ قَالُوا بَلَى شَهِدْنَا أَنْ تَقُولُوا يَوْمَ الْقِيَامَةِ إِنَّا كُنَّا عَنْ هَذَا غَافِلِينَ 42.13. شَرَعَ لَكُمْ مِنَ الدِّينِ مَا وَصَّى بِهِ نُوحًا وَالَّذِي أَوْحَيْنَا إِلَيْكَ وَمَا وَصَّيْنَا بِهِ إِبْرَاهِيمَ وَمُوسَى وَعِيسَى أَنْ أَقِيمُوا الدِّينَ وَلَا تَتَفَرَّقُوا فِيهِ كَبُرَ عَلَى الْمُشْرِكِينَ مَا تَدْعُوهُمْ إِلَيْهِ اللَّهُ يَجْتَبِي إِلَيْهِ مَنْ يَشَاءُ وَيَهْدِي إِلَيْهِ مَنْ يُنِيبُ

118. Augustine, Letters, '50 (7th cent. CE - 7th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •weiss, johannes Found in books: Malherbe et al., Light from the Gentiles: Hellenistic Philosophy and Early Christianity: Collected Essays of Abraham J (2014) 665

119. Anon., Tanhuma, beha‘alotkha 15, shofetim 11, 94 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 213, 216

120. Anon., Seder Olam, 25 Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 161

121. Anon., Ktu, 2.39 Tagged with subjects: •weiss, isaac h. Found in books: Kaplan, My Perfect One: Typology and Early Rabbinic Interpretation of Song of Songs (2015) 12

122. Diodorus, De Natura Deorum, 5.71 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

123. Anon., Questions And Answers On The Ascetic Rule, 21.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

126. Paul of Elusa, Encomium, 4b, 7b Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

127. Papyri, P.Ryl., 7, '15 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: nan nan

128. Anon., Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 49, 10 Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 156

10. "Rabbi Chanina said: (Men) of the seventy languages were there on the ship, and each one had his god in his hand, (each one) saying: And the God who shall reply and deliver us from this trouble, He shall be God. They arose and every one called upon the name of his god, but it availed nought. Now Jonah, because of the anguish of his soul, was slumbering and asleep. The captain of the ship came to him, saying, Behold, we are standing betwixt death and life, and thou art slumbering and sleeping; of what people art thou? He answered them, \"I am an Hebrew\" (Jonah 1:9). (The captain) said to him, Have we not heard that the God of the Hebrews is great? Arise, call upon thy God, perhaps He will work (salvation) for us according to all His miracles which He did for you at the Reed Sea. He answered them, It is on my account that this misfortune has befallen you; take me up and cast me into the sea and the sea will become calm unto you, as it is said, \"And he said unto them, Take me up, and cast me forth into the sea; so shall the sea be calm unto you\" (Jonah 1:12).", , "The fish said to Jonah, Dost thou not know that my day had arrived to be devoured in the midst of Leviathan's mouth? Jonah replied, Take me beside it, and I will deliver thee and myself from its mouth. It brought him next to the Leviathan. (Jonah) said to the Leviathan, On thy account have I descended to see thy abode in the sea, for, moreover, in the future will I descend and put a rope in thy tongue, and I will bring thee up and prepare thee for the great feast of the righteous. (Jonah) showed it the seal of our father Abraham (saying), Look at the Covet (seal), and Leviathan saw it and fled before Jonah a distance of two days' journey. (Jonah) said to it (

129. Dio Chrysostom, Rhodiaca, 71b Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hidary, Rabbis and Classical Rhetoric: Sophistic Education and Oratory in the Talmud and Midrash (2017) 119

130. Anon., Midrash Aseret Melakhim, 44 Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Segal, The Babylonian Esther Midrash: To the end of Esther chapter 1 (1994) 156

131. Mishnah, Ahilot, 7.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss, Found in books: Rubenstein, The History of Sukkot in the Second Temple and Rabbinic Periods (1995) 213

132. Anon., Pesikta Rabbati, 3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Hayes, What's Divine about Divine Law?: Early Perspectives (2015) 175

133. Anon., Sifre Zuta, 19.3 Tagged with subjects: •halivni, david weiss Found in books: Klawans, Heresy, Forgery, Novelty: Condemning, Denying, and Asserting Innovation in Ancient Judaism (2019) 74

134. Anon., Gospel of Thomas, 13 Tagged with subjects: •weiss, a. Found in books: Falcetta, Early Christian Teachers: The 'Didaskaloi' From Their Origins to the Middle of the Second Century (2020) 37

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database