The dog as reflected in the literature of the Sages

The article was presented as a lecture at Bar-Ilan University in the summer of 2004 * Until the Greeks and Romans came, the attitude towards dogs was mostly negative

Dr. Yehiam Sorek

I checked. The picture appears on the JEWISH.COM website in the online store. This is definitely a Jewish site and not an anti-Semitic site, otherwise I wouldn't have uploaded the picture here. post Scriptum. The item goes up
14.99 dollars. with gratitude. Avi Blizovsky

The purpose of the study

The study will examine the dog - its life, roles and function, as they appear and are reflected in the literature of sages, not only have they found a faint echo in the research literature, those that have been examined from a narrow-minded approach and saturated with historical projections, such as the essays of Loizon (1), Steinzalz (2), Shoshan ( 3) and even Felix (4) and Lieberman (5). Schwartz's latest research (6), as professional and interesting as it may be, lies in the necessary crossover between the division into historical sub-periods and the change in the attitude of ancient Jewish society towards dogs. Also, a respectable and significant chapter of "The Infidel Dog" is not given adequate treatment by him.
In this research, I will seek to trace the roots of the changing attitude towards man's mute friend, against the background of the changing historical circumstances (external and internal) as a slow and continuous process.

Biblical period
In biblical literature, the dog is usually described as an evil pest, roaming the streets in its packs and attacking passers-by (7), and the following pictorial reception perhaps says it all: "For the roving of dogs, the tribe of the Kiponi shepherds" (8), in its symbolic, allegorical meaning, it comes to reflect a situational picture and at least the public's attitude towards the dogs. The very mention of the word "dog" in the Bible is intended to present an object that is the object of cursing, scorn and contempt (9).
However, in two cases it is possible to diagnose a slightly positive attitude towards dogs, and the difference from the negative images may be clarified against the background of the ravages of time. The prophet Isaiah in an allegory for Kibbutz Nadchi Yisrael testifies that the dogs are strong-minded and connected to the flock and the shepherds (10), and Job alludes to the practice of shepherds lying next to the flock's dogs (11) as an expression of appreciation for their role in protecting the flocks.
The explosiveness of the reserved attitude of the biblical literature that was shown towards dogs stems, it seems, from the dog's failure to integrate into Israeli society and the phenomenon of its pre-domestication and pre-taming and its still being seen as an animal in the full sense of the word. The source of the negative attitude also involved the connection that existed in the ancient cultures between the dog and the world of spirits and the underworld, for example in Egyptian and Mesopotamian mythologies(12), and the symbol of pagan worship(13) that resulted from this connection.

Second House Period
A similar disapproving attitude was also expressed in the Hellenistic period (fourth-first centuries BC), but besides the negative images that emerge in Jewish external literature (14), the writers already know how to distinguish between wolves, dogs and hyenas (15), to praise Judah for saving a dog Tiger claws (16), testify to dogs guarding property (17) and even to their positive qualities such as loyalty and wonderful devotion (18). Against the evidence of the Bible, it is certainly possible to point to a change in attitude for the better.
Over time, during the Hellenistic period and during the Roman control of the region, Hellenization deepened in Jewish society. This is reflected among the aristocratic and capable strata (kind of upper-middle class) mainly in the external, cosmetic dimensions of language, clothing, style of behavior and manners, use of Greco-Roman tools, architecture, including the adoption of customs that were acceptable among parallel strata, Greek- Hellenistic-Roman. There is no doubt that the sympathetic, warm and loving attitude of the Greeks to dogs (19), also left a mark on the improvement of the ancient Jewish society's attitude towards dogs. Moreover, the duration of the prolonged Roman control over Judea, likewise, left a positive mark, much more effective and solid than the Greek one, on Jewish society regarding the treatment of dogs. The Romans, it should be noted, showed a special, emotional and warm attitude towards the dogs (20). These influences are noticeable both in the external literature, in the writings of Joseph ben Mattathias (21) and even in the archaeological findings (22). The possibility cannot be ruled out that the fatness of the Jewish aristocracy also bred dogs for hunting and entertainment purposes (23).

The generation after the destruction of the house
Chazal sources reveal an attitude of empathy towards dogs, beyond noting the usefulness of keeping them. The origins of this turn are, first and foremost, a consequence of the influence of Hellenistic and Roman culture on Jewish society. However, there is no talk of a dramatic change in attitude, and still, here and there, a cautious and sometimes disapproving attitude towards the dogs (24) still emerges.

a) Types of dogs and their breeds
In the period after the destruction of the house, Sages were good at distinguishing between different types of dogs and even closely following their various characteristics, just as Greek and Roman literature knew this very well (25) This conclusion emerges immediately from the study of the Kalaim Mishnah (the Mishnah was signed in the first quarter of the third century CE, but which quantifies in it an ancient historical fan, mainly from the destruction and onwards) and it testifies as follows: "The wolf and the dog, the dog of the infidel and the fox... however they resemble each other, hybrids with each other" (26). This issue discussing the crossbreeding issue raises important evidence for the very recognition of the racial-sexual division between a common dog, a wolf, a stray dog ​​and a fox. Dealing with the description of the box "Kafir dog" has logically attracted the attention of several researchers: some claim that a local breed called simply "dog" (27) is widespread, from which several types have emerged: which have high legs and a curled tail similar to a wolf, and which are small, with ears pointed, hairy and hanging tail, resembling a jackal. In his opinion, the "dog of infidelity" is characterized by these last qualities, i.e. resembles a jackal (he is the "fox" in the Mishnah) (28). Some believe that his name comes from the Hebrew - "kfar" - that is, a dog found in villages (29), and perhaps even from the Greek "kopros", which means a farm. Another scholar interprets "Kufri" from the Cypriot language and claims that it is an aggressive dog originating from Cyprus. This assumption may be supported by the Roman Varro, who according to him also called dogs after their place of origin and breeding (30). In my opinion the name is derived from the Latin. capra in Roman means goat, and from here "Kafir dog" may be interpreted as a herding dog, and perhaps its name comes from "Kafir" because of its great size and strength.
In other texts, other concepts appear under "disbelieving dogs" such as "shugarin dogs" (31), perhaps fast and agile, or "tsupidin dogs" (32), meaning thin-shaped, and perhaps as derived from the Greek - "spadon", which means castrated.
The clear distinction between a "mere dog" and a "pagan dog", as Rabbi Meir (mid-second century AD), cited in two sources (33), allows us to assume, and this before we hypothesize about the gradual-chronological domestication of "dog Kufrin", according to the mishna, the apparent "dog" was close in appearance to a "wolf", while the "infidel dog" was closest to the fox, the jackal (canis aureus).
A comparison between the Mishnah and the Tosefta (whose main concern is from the middle of the second century CE to the beginning of the third century CE) and then to the Jerusalem Talmud (signed at the end of the third century CE) shows data worthy of attention: the Mishnah Kalaim does not count the "dog" with "a pagan dog" Regarding hybrids, while another secondary text that appears later clearly states that "a dog is a species of animal. Rabbi Meir says: Kind of animal" (34). The Tos repeats the words of the Mishnah, while in the Yerush the claim is made: "A dog and an infidel dog are not hybrids." The key to unraveling the mystery is thus embodied in a similar chronological layer. In other words, before us is a set of changes in the attitude towards the dog against the background of a certain development over the years. It therefore emerges that while in the days of Rabbi Meir Nietzsche there is still a debate as to whether the "dog" belongs to the category of "animal", that is, a wild, animal, untamed creature, far from the company of humans, or whether it is included in the fence of "beast", that is, a domesticated creature that resides in the The human beings, in the livestock as well and the management of a donkey or a cow that brings benefit to man. The Jerusalem Talmud (signed at the end of the third century CE) expressly rules that the pairing of a "dog" for nothing with the "dog of the infidel" is not invalid (a ruling based on an existing reality that indeed they used to mate and pair them). It therefore appears that both the "dog" and the "infidel dog" (or the incarcerated son between them) were included in the fence of "beast", as domestic animals and pets that bring benefit to man.

b) The roles of the dogs and their function
A - at home and on the farm
There is a claim that the dogs were not domesticated, but mostly abandoned and at the mercy of nature (35). Was it really so? We will first clarify Rabbi Meir's recommendation not to enter a house where a "bad dog" roams around (36) and Rabbi Natan's (Rabbi Meir's generation) suggestion to not raise a "bad dog" in a house (37). What is a "bad dog"? What is his nature? Aggressive, big and dangerous? Cruel, or perhaps ill? First, the sages do not forbid people to raise dogs in their homes at all, but rather qualify their recommendation, which is understandable against the background of the existing reality of a society that formulates a set of laws and regulations for the sake of maintaining good neighborly relations. Secondly, it becomes clear, in light of all the discussed sources, that the damage caused by a "bad dog" (a dog that bites, which may not be restrained by its owner) mainly concerns those who enter and come to the house owner without permission. In other words, the classification of the breeding of the "bad dog" is primarily intended to prevent incidents of bodily injury to those who enter the property of the owner without permission on his behalf. Elsewhere, the sages rule that a bad dog has no chance of producing good, fine puppies (38). To teach us that they were aware of the importance of fine puppies and the customs common among dog owners in this regard. In any case, there was no blanket prohibition of the sages against keeping dogs in the house, with the exception of those exceptions - aggressive dogs and aggression arrestees, and perhaps even the sages direct their reservation to exceptional cases in which dogs were involved (39).

B. Watchdogs
Our ancestors noticed the special features of the domesticated dogs, such as a developed sense of smell, instinct for defense and fighting, instinct for hunting, herding and tracking, a relatively high level of intelligence and used them to their advantage mainly for guarding tasks. Columella, a well-known Roman agricultural writer, like other authors, explains, one by one, the excellent qualities of the guard dog and recommends every farmer to purchase or adopt a dog (40). And it turns out that it is this type of guard dog (canis cusudiae) that the Sages directed their words in the law of the owner's dog that bit a person who entered his yard without permission, and the Sages absolved the owner of the house from all taint of guilt (41) and the Tosefta expands the veil and exempts the owner from criminal liability Even if the bitten enters the owner's property with permission and authority (42). This "strange" instruction may be understood against the background of dog exploding in ancient Jewish society (43). The Sages' protection of the owners, who trust that their dogs will carry out their mission - guarding the owner, the house and its contents - anchored in their legal ruling the existing phenomenon (the reality of guard dogs), and perhaps even expanded it.
However, Sages charged the owners who did not take reasonable measures to prevent a worker from being bitten by the owner's dog (44).
The position of the sages regarding "the law of a friend's dog touching his friend" is interesting, that there is no way for a dog to mess with someone who is not its owner and it does not need special protection against this(45). This position reflects a positive regard for the character of the dog, and originates, it seems, in a deep and sharp observation of the presence of the dogs in the Jewish owners.
Sometimes the guard dog is called a "biting dog" (46), perhaps tamed and in the possession of wealthy owners.
The box "Kadrin's dog" (47), may testify to a dog that was employed in the potter's house for guarding purposes. And this is to know that the branch of pottery was very common in the ancient Israeli society (48). And lest it be a dog that originated in Kidar, that is, the West, from the Arab deserts, an area from which (such as from the land of the Nebatim) several types of dogs were brought (49).
Among the sources attesting to the existence of guard dogs (50), there is a Midrash in Berashit Rabba (the Midrashes are attributed to the third-fifth centuries CE, although they sometimes contain authentic evidence from earlier Copts), which interprets the wanderings forced on Cain, and states that "a dog To him" (51) God, and he who was commanded to protect him and even guide him on his way. The effect of unconditional devotion and loyalty emphasized here, despite Cain's depravity, is certainly interesting(52).

C - The distribution of the "infidel" dogs
The distribution of "infidel" dogs is summarized in the following interesting source: "Just as there is no Magdalin for a small animal, so there is no Magdalin for a small animal... Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: The Magdalin for unbelieving dogs and the rat of a squirrel and a cat and the kofus, Devarim Shemankin" ) the House. According to what they said: there is no dog kennel in the settlement, but they are kenneled in the towns near the book. During the day they are bound in iron chains and released at night. Rabbi Eliezer says: The breeder of dogs is like a breeder of pigs" (53).
From this section we can draw several conclusions: first - before us is a definitive statement that dogs are indeed bred in Israel; Second - the infidel dogs are intended for some positive role: cleanliness, when it is meant to keep pests away from the house such as snakes and snakes; Thirdly - dogs were members of the household, in terms of pets; Fourthly - it became a rule that dogs are not kept in an urban, community settlement (which indicates the opposite practice); Fifth - the Sages permitted the breeding of dogs in Safar areas, remote from settlement centers and exposed to safety and security problems (theft of property, injury to the soul, theft of cattle, etc.); Six - Sages who were opposed to raising dogs may have expressed their reservations in fear of adopting foreign customs (raising a dog as raising a pig - Aliba Darbi Eliezer) and perhaps including ritualistic, magical customs; Seventh - it may be that we have before us a hint of a historical chain of events, which began in the days of Rabbi Eliezer (the era of the Holocaust) who disapproved of the breeding of dogs (and by the way, according to the clear conditional procedure, the mention of his name against the position of the majority teaches that he was in the position of a minority) and continued in the days of Rabbi Shimon ben Elezer (half second of the second century CE), when it was agreed to breed dogs, probably infidels, in special breeding areas in the country; Eighth - the instruction forbidding the breeding of small animals, a few sheep and goats, was intended to protect the agricultural areas that would be "spoiled" by the herds, and since the dogs were an integral part of the grazing landscape in each and every society, they developed a similar reservation towards them. In the end, a compromise was reached that was based on a geographical and demographic aspect, namely the areas of the book. From here, it seems that sages identified the "infidel dog" with a grazing dog, a herding dog.
The instruction to allow the breeding of the dog while chained is conditional (55) and also appears in the Talmud: "A dog goes out in its enclosure" (56), lest it be linked to the indication of the dog's strength by one of the sages (57), and certainly to the protection of passers-by. We, as those who want to protect animals, even if they are working animals, are quite horrified to learn about the phenomenon of abuse of guard dogs by tying them up like iron chains, but what can we do, this was the way of farmers and house owners (which unfortunately still exists) to captivate my dogs The guard they have with metal cables.
Mishnat Shabbat (58) testifies to a kind of pastime that is connected between humans and dogs: "The thrower (a stone) and remembered after it caught fire from his hand, caught another, caught a dog..." And in Berita we read: "Let him not bring dough or dough and put it on top of his ear so that a dog will come and devour us" (59). Before us is testimony that establishes the connection between dogs and pets, and perhaps her words are directed at the way in which dogs were tamed. In any case, the Sages were careful not to practice customs that could cause physical harm.

C) the herd dogs
The Roman writers often exclaim about the importance of the dogs' purpose in guarding the herd
that it may not be scattered and that it may not be attacked by beasts of prey or robbers (60). These enumerate the special features of the herd dogs, including their size, shape and body structure and highlight the dog's instinct for defense and attack.
The development of the grazing economy in Jewish society, along with Hellenization and the extent of the influence of Roman culture led to a general increase in the use of grazing dogs and the upgrading of the attitude towards them. Sage literature is full of testimonies about herding dogs, and even though some of them are full of legends and allegorization(61), they are enough to indicate the popularity of herding dogs among the Jews.
The dogs, and especially the herd dogs, were naturally tied to their shepherd owners, and the Talmud (third-fourth centuries) spares no words when it comes to raising the dog's loyalty to its shepherd owner as a miracle. The midrash (later to the Talmud) tells with excitement about a dog that sacrificed its life for the shepherds while chasing a ravenous wolf. As a gesture and gratitude, the shepherds buried him and built a tombstone over his grave (62). Elsewhere, the Midrashic source (63) speaks about Abel's dog that he did not eat after his murder and guarded his body from scavengers. The Jerusalem Talmud gives several touching stories about the devotion of the dog to its owner (64) such as the one about a group of shepherds who milked their herds and a snake came out and tasted of the milk. The dog noticed this and when the shepherds were about to quench their thirst from the infected milk the dog barked at them in order to draw their attention and when they ignored his barking the dog drank the infected liquid and died.
It can of course be argued that the sages drew these stories from all kinds of oriental, local stories that were prevalent in the ancient world (65). However, it is difficult to ignore the conclusion of two obvious conclusions: one - these stories would not have arisen in the mythological and alligorical context if the phenomenon, i.e. - the loyalty of dogs to their owners - had not been embedded in the ancient Israelite reality, and for example the expression "tied to him as a dog" (66); The second - similar stories appear in different cultures and even to this day we and no one would have imagined that they actually originate from a single mythological essence.
The intelligence of the dogs did not disappear from the Sage's eyes either (67). And in one verse (68) sages note the differences in sounds between a threatening bark and a bark of happiness and joy, in an interesting symbolic context (69).

d) hybridization and sale
The Mishna, to which we were required above, and according to which "the wolf and the dog, the infidel dog and the fox... even though they resemble each other, are hybrids with each other" (70), its words are aimed at the prohibition of hybridization between the species, such as between a wolf and a dog (71) which both belong Systematic for one genus called canis but for different species (72). And it seems that this is not far from assuming, because precisely this prohibition, which joins many other prohibitions, does not come except against the background of its circumvention. On the other hand, it is possible that the silence of the Mishna regarding the hybridization between "dog" and "kafirin dog" probably indicates that they were indeed hybridized between the species, and indeed the Yerushalmi (73) clearly informs that "a dog and a kafirin dog are not hybrids." In other words, here the sages allow cross-breeding between the species, probably in a controlled and supervised manner, as was accepted by the Romans (74) in order to create a finer breed, and perhaps it is no wonder that the treatment of the infidel dog has changed over time for the better.
The Mishna's liberal ruling on the law of "giving a dog" - that is, he took a lamb to his friend in order to give him his dog for breeding - "and their dogs are permitted" (75), does not come, it seems, but on the background of an accepted phenomenon among humans, among dog owners. It should be noted that the price of a lamb varies between a laborer's daily wage and four days' work (76).
From the totality of the testimonies given by the Sages regarding the sale and purchase of dogs, the Mishnah asks: "What is the price of a dog?" And the answer: as the price of a lamb (77). The high price undoubtedly shows the importance they attached to the dog.
The prohibition of selling infidel dogs to foreigners (78) appears to be due to the following reasons: a) economic and halachic reason - prohibition of selling rough cattle to foreigners, and with it the prohibition of selling dogs, when the herd is sold together with the dogs (79); b) Ritual taste - Gentiles sometimes used to use dogs in pagan ceremonies, and a Jew should not be a tolerable partner in performing pagan worship; c) A principled reason - these dogs guarded the soul and property mainly in book places, hence the celebration of the special qualities of the infidel dogs as property that should not be transferred to a foreign party. Plutarch, for example, tells about the ban on exporting dogs from Sparta, and in particular he directs his words to a special breed (80). In any case, at least we learn about them - about selling dogs to strangers.

e) feeding dogs
Similar to the instructions of Greek and Roman authors that the duty of feeding the dogs rests on the owner(81) echoes the ruling of Rabbi Akiva (died after the second rebellion) that feeding the dog is the responsibility of the person(82). This instruction not only allows us to assume that the popular and widespread image of the abandoned dogs (in the biblical literature) has passed and passed from the world of Jewish society. And not only does it not, in his ruling, have any human attitude of animal cruelty, but it also shows a positive consciousness towards the animal in question, and the fact that emerges is that she is one of the greatest sages of her generation, Darshani says.
To this assumption we will associate a debate between two eminent sages regarding the type of healthy diet for a dog (83), and we will highlight the ruling that "we put food in front of the dog in the yard (on Shabbat) - (84). sheds an interesting light on the subject (85).
The sources report on foods specially prepared for dogs (86) and butchered meat that was allowed to be eaten by dogs (87). There were owners, as it turns out, who naturally used to pamper their dogs with cookies and crackers (88), and in Sage sources there is also a box named "dog pulp" (89) "which the shepherds eat from (and it) must be sick". Of course, we cannot rule out the possibility that this is a lola paste that is somewhat similar to animal feed.

f) The health of the dogs
The empathetic attitude towards dogs and the certain treatment towards them as pets meant that the ancients took care of the health of the dogs and made sure that they would not get diseases (90).
A sick dog was defined by the Sages as a "foolish dog" (91), and sometimes the danger of this was highlighted in the casual saying: "From his days a man will not say to you ... a foolish dog and an animal were bitten" (92). Some were accurate and noted the signs of the mad dog's illness: "His mouth is open, his saliva is running down, his ears are pricked, his tail is tucked between his two legs, he walks sideways and the dogs bark at him. And some say: he also barks and his voice is not heard" (93) and these, it turns out, are signs of rabies.
The Mishna is flamboyant (94) regarding the popular way of healing from this disease and reports that: "Those who have been bitten by a stray dog ​​do not feed it from the yard of its liver (redundancy of the liver - the finger of the liver) and Rabbi Matia ben Harash (around the second half of the second century AD) permits" (95). The above mishna argues, among itself, whether it is permissible to fornicate the sick dog from the yard of his liver on Yom Kippur, to teach us about the humane attitude they showed towards the dogs.
A later Midrashic source testifies to another way to heal from the bite of a "foolish dog" - sticking hairs from its tail in the infected, bitten area (96), as was customary among the Romans (97).

g) Dogs and pagan beliefs
In the pagan popular belief, the dog is linked to the demonic system, to the kingdom of demons and death, as Anubis - the dog/jackal guarding the tombs and the mummified in the pyramids or the Greek Kerberos - the three-headed guardian of the underworld (98). This macabre motif probably involves the special qualities of the dog: loyalty, guarding, and perhaps even portraying it as a kind of "transitional animal" between the wild animal and the domesticated and even tamed production. In any case, the above-mentioned motifs are also embedded in sage literature, as in one of the sources that indicates the barking of a dog as a means of use by magicians and diviners (99).
The Mechelta (half of the second century AD onwards) tells of a pagan custom to call a dog by the name of the owner's father and even make a vow for the dog's life (100). Lieberman believes that Rabbi Gamaliel was mocking here the Greek sophist who tried to teach a right about the ancient philosophers, in whose oaths the dog was only used as a nickname for the gods, and when they said dog they meant Zeus in their hearts (101). In any case, these stories are more than a hint that the dog is considered a pet among some of the Jewish owners.

Research conclusions
Compared to the biblical and external literature of the Second Temple period, it should be noted that the Sage literature: 1. is rich in information about dogs and their characteristics; 2. Tells about the functions of dogs in the home and in the herd in guarding life and property; 3. Refers to hybridization between dog breeds; 4. reports on the dog's health and nutrition; 5. Tells about the structure of relationships between the dogs and their owners and even about "canine practicalities"; 6. More than implies a positive attitude of the leaders of the generation towards "man's best friend"; 7. Evokes an initial attitude of "animal cruelty".
It should not be assumed that the negative trend turned positive in one sharp transition. This is a lengthy process of several decades, from the end of the biblical period to the depths of the Second Temple. It seems that in the course of time Greek-Hellenistic attitudes toward dogs were assimilated into Jewish society, as a result of imitation and adoption of customs in general during the Hellenization-Greekization process that took place in Judea. This internalization and assimilation stood out against the background of the growth of the Jewish economy in economic and demographic terms, and for example settlements that arose in the area of ​​the book needed guard dogs
In the period after the destruction of the Second Temple, which is defined as the Sage's Ball, a popular and pragmatic leadership arose, which maintained a diverse relationship with the Roman government, and which issued a wide spectrum of permits in various fields, partly for the benefit of the people and society. In general the permits were known, in our case the improvement of the attitude towards the dogs at home, on the farm, in the farm and in the herd.
It is true that the literature of the Sages lists quite a few cases of a negative attitude towards dogs (102), but in the face of Goliath's allegory to David: "The dog is selfish because you come to me with sticks" (103) as an expression of the misery of dogs and their worthlessness, the position of the Sages from Rish Lakish should be noted (end of the third century AD): "J. Ezin are: Israel among the nations, a dog among the animals, a rooster among the fowls" (104) - a position which is considered to be the few who hold the many.

Comments

1. Lewisohn (1858), 82ff
2. Steinsalz (319), 321-XNUMX
3. Shushan (1971), 190-194
4. Felix (1967), 117-125
5. Lieberman (1962), 95-96; 290-291
6. Schwartz (2000), 101-116
7. Psalms 47:7. Compare there NT:15 and XNUMX
8. Psalms 7:11. Compare Malachi 19:24; 17, 21, 17; Psalms XNUMX, XNUMX, XNUMX; Proverbs XNUMX:XNUMX.
Kohlat 4, XNUMX
9. MLB 9:47; MLA 11, 30; Proverbs 11:11; Genesis 49:50; MLA XNUMX, XNUMX; Proverbs XNUMX:XNUMX and also refer to Porti (XNUMX), XNUMX-XNUMX
10. Isaiah 10:11-2000; and Schwartz (25), 35-XNUMX
11. Job L, 1. See also Brewer (2001), 23
12. See Stager (1991), 26ff; Wapnish (1993), 55ff; Collins (1990), 211-226; Halpern (2000), 133-144; Brewer (2001), 53-54
13. See in Dothan (2002), 22
14. Enoch 42:30, 26 ff; Proverbs of Shimon ben Sira 28:XNUMX; Name XNUMX; Ibid. XNUMX:XNUMX and more.
15. Shem 28, XNUMX
16. Name
17. The Book of Jubilees 15:XNUMX
18. Tobiah V. XNUMX; XNUMXth XNUMXth
19. Goodenough (1953), 102
20. Toynbee (1973), 102-124; Balsdon (1969), 91; Jennison (1937), 127
21. Wars 180 185 213 (XNUMX-XNUMX); Kdm. XNUMX, XNUMX
22. Gosling (1934-1935), 109-110; Brewer (2001), 83-103; Hull (1964), 9-38
23. Luke 19:21-27; Matthew 6:25; Matthew 2:15; Shem XNUMX:XNUMX onwards; Epistle to the Philippians XNUMX:XNUMX; Revelation XNUMX:XNUMX.
24. Tractate (and below no.) Gitin XNUMX AB; Yerushalayim No. Ta'aniyot P.D. Sah A.A.; No. Kiddoshin from EB
25. Aelianus, Varro, Columella, Toynbee (1973), 102-124
26. No. Hybrids A. F.
27. Yerushalayim No. Kalaim PA XNUMX AA
28. Felix (22), 1911 and preceded by Krauss: Krauss (121), XNUMX
29. Kohut (1929), IV 299
30. Varro, II, 9, 5
31. Thos.
32. Thos.
33. Thos. Seventh XNUMXth XNUMXth; Yerushalayim No. Khlaiim XNUMX A.A
34. No. Shabbat XNUMX XNUMX
35. Steinsaltz (1971), 320
36. No. vows XNUMX XNUMX Compare to No. Baba Kama A. D.; Yerushalayim No. Baba Kama PA B. Eg
37. No. Baba Kama XNUMX AA; No. Shabbat sg XNUMX-XNUMX
38. Midrash Seder Olam Rabba Ka
39. No. Yabmot NT EB. Compare No. Sanhedrin KH AB and also Visotzky (1987), 72-80
40. Columella VII, XII, 1-8; Varro II, IX, 2-6; Coppinger & Schneider (1995), 27
41. No. Baba Kama XNUMX, XNUMX; Compare Thos, Shem XNUMX, XNUMX
42. Thos. Baba Kama XNUMX. XNUMX
43. No. Pesachim KJG A.A
44. Thos. Baba Kama XNUMX. XNUMX
45. No. Baba Metzia XNUMX AB
46. ​​Midrash Pasikta Darev Kahana Zakor, XNUMX XNUMX; Midrash Tanhuma Titsa, XNUMX
47. Yalkot Midrash of Proverbs XNUMX
48. Thos. Baba Metzia V. XNUMX; Thos. Teramot XNUMX:XNUMX; Yerosh from tens of PB Mat ED; Yerushalayim Pa XNUMX XNUMX XNUMX and more.
49. Cartesian Atlas for the Second Temple Period, p. 59, map 87
50. Midrash Kohelat Rabba XNUMXth XNUMXth
51. Midrash Beresheet Rabbah XNUMX, XNUMX
52. A story in the spirit of the dogs appears in the Jerusalem Talmud (No.
53. Thos.
54. Thos. Baba Kama XNUMX XNUMX
55. No. Baba Kama XNUMX:XNUMX and compare it to Yerusha Baba Kama XNUMX XNUMX
56. Yerushalayim No. Shabbat PO XNUMX EG
57. No. Pesachim XNUMX EB; Midrash Kohalat Rabbi XNUMX Mo; No. Baba Batra XNUMX
58. No. Shabbat XNUMX XNUMX; And for comparison see Tos. Shabbat XNUMX (XNUMX) XNUMX
59. No. Yavmot NT EB
60. Varro II, IX, 3-5; Columella VII. XII, 1ff; Id., 8
61. No. Sanhedrin KA HA; Midrash Yalkot Shimoni, Genesis, and Yitzcha, no; Thos. Baba Kama 16th XNUMXth; Yerushalayim No. Teramot PAH Mo AA; Thos. Tamura XNUMX. Compare with Varro II. IX, XNUMX
62. Midrash Pasikta Darev Kahana, Beshelach, pen, XNUMX; Compare to Midrash Yalkot Proverbs XNUMX
63. Midrash Yalkot Shimoni, Genesis, Vaisa, no
64. Yerushalayim No. Teramot P.H. Mo. A.A
65. As Lieberman's position, p. 96. Compare Aelianus X, 41; VI, 17; 25; XIX, 29
66. No. Avodah Zera H. A.
67. No. Taharot XNUMX XNUMX
68. No. Baba Kama S. EB. Compare Aelianus, VI, 16 who claims that dogs have a wonderful discernment, even sensing a slight earthquake
69. Compare to No. Parenting XNUMX AA: Preferring the dog over the cat
70. No. Hybrids A. F.
71. Compare Varro, I, VIII, 5
72. Felix, 117 note 1
73. No. Khlaiim PA XNUMX AA
74. Columella VII, XII, 11
75. No. Tamura V. C; Thos. Nazir D. T.
76. Thos. Barchot A. 11; No. Berchot 20a. Compare Varro: Varro II, IX, XNUMX; Aristotle VI, XNUMX
77. No. Taharot XNUMX XNUMX
78. Thos. Sheviyat XNUMX:XNUMX; Thos. Avoda Zerah B. C
79. Varro II, IX, 6
80. Compare Virgil: Georgicus III, 342
81. Also reflected in the New Testament: Matthew 26:27-27; Mark 28:213-XNUMX; And even in Yosef ben Matthieu, Kdm XNUMX XNUMX
82. Egg No. XNUMX AB. Compare No. Ta'anit XNUMX EB; No. Shabbat Kanha AB and Midrash Pasikta Raba XNUMX-XNUMX, MA
83. No. Pesachim MG XNUMX A.A
84. No. Shabbat XNUMX A.A
85. Compare Varro II, IX, 8; Shabbat 8 10; Compare Varro II, IX, XNUMX; Columella VII, XII, XNUMX
86. No. Shabbat XNUMX
87. Thos. Khulin B. XNUMX
88. Egg No. XNUMX EB; Baba Kama S. EB; Thos. Chulin XNUMXth XNUMXth; Thos. Baba Kama XNUMXth A.
89. Thos. Chala A. XNUMX; Number applied A. H.
90. Varro II, IX, 7
91. No. Yoma XNUMX and XNUMX
92. Yerushalayim No. Baruchot XNUMX XNUMX
93. Yerushalayim no
94. No. Yoma XNUMX and XNUMX
95. Compare to Yerosh no
96. Midrash of the Song of Songs Zota 36:XNUMX (from Bover's commentary, p. XNUMX)
97. Pliny, XXIX, XXXII, 98
98. Aelianus VII, 13; IX, 20
99. See also Midrash Beresheet Rabbah XNUMX:XNUMX; Midrash Shemot Rabba XNUMX, XNUMX
100. Contains Jethro V. (Horovitz-Rabin, 226)
101. Lieberman, 96-97
102. No. Sanhedrin KH AB; Thos. Chulin B. XNUMX; No. Sota XNUMX
103. 43 Samuel XNUMX:XNUMX
104. Egg No. XNUMX AB

bibliography

Sources
Hebrew (Bible, New Testament, external literature edited by Avraham Kahane, writings of Yosef ben Matatiyo edited by Shalit and Simhoni, Sage literature and midrashim).

foreign (MT Varro, Rerum Rusticarum, LCL, London, 1965; LIM Columella, Rei Rusticae, LCL, London, 1968; Plinius, Historia Naturalis, LCL, London, 1961; Aelianus, De Natura Animalium, LCL, London, 1958

Studies
Hebrew
1. Lieberman S. (XNUMX). Greek and Greekness in the Land of Israel. Jerusalem, Mossad Bialik
2. Sela Y. (1971). "Seluki in Sinai". Teva and Eretz, 3, XNUMX
3. Porti XNUMX (XNUMX). Animals in the book of Proverbs. In: Ramon E. and Shouri R. (curations), animal figures from the collection of Leo Mildenberg. Haifa
4. Felix Y. (1967). Seed hybrids and assembly. Tel Aviv, Dvir
5. Kohut A. (1929). complete edit. Jerusalem, Mekur Publishing House
6. Shoshan A. (1971). Animals in Jewish literature. Rehovot, Shushan Publishing
7. Steinzalz E. (1971). "The treatment of dogs in the Israeli tradition". Teva Varetz, Oct-Nov, 6 XNUMX
foreign
1. Baldson JPVD (1969). Life and leisure in ancient Rome. London
1. Borowski O. (1998). Every living thing. Daily use of animals in ancient Israel. London-New-Delhi
2. Brewer et al. (2001). Dogs in antiquity: Anubis to Cerberus. The origins of domestic dogs. Warminster
3. Burriss EE (1935). "The place of the dog in superstition as revealed in Latin literature". Classical Philosophy, XXX,
4. Collins BJ (1990). "The puppy in Hittite ritual". Journal of Cuneiform Studies, XLII (2)
5. Coppinger R. & Schneider R. (1995). Evolution of working dogs, in: Serpell J. (ed.). The domestic dog: Its evolution, behavior and interactions with people. Cambridge
6. Cumont F. (1926). Recherches sur le symbolisme funeraire des Romains. Paris
7. Davis SJM & Valla FR (1978). "Evidence for domestication of the dog 12000 years ago in the Natufian of Israel
". Nature, 276
8. Dothan T. (2002). "Bronze and iron objects with cultic connotations from Philistine temple building 350 at Ekron". Israel Exploration Journal, LII
9. Goodenough ER (1953). Jewish symbols in the Greco-Roman period. New York
10. Goodfriend EA (1995). Could Keleb in Deuteronomy 23:19 actually refer to a canine, in Wright DP et alia (eds.). Pomegranates and golden bells. Studies in Biblical. Jewish and Near-Eastern ritual, law and literature in honor of Jacob Milgrom. Indiana
11. Gosling WF (1934-1935). Pets in classical times, Greece and Rome, IV
12. Halpern B. (2000). The canine conundrum of Ashkelon. In Coogan MD et al (eds.). The archeology of Jordan and beyond. Essays in honor of James Sauer. Indiana: Winona Lake
13. Hull DB (1964). Hounds and hunting in ancient Greece. Chicago-London
14. Jennison G. (1937). Animals for show and pleasure in ancient Rome. London
15. Krauss S. (1910). Talmudische Archaeologie. Leipzig (Hildesheim 1966)
16. Lewisohn L. (1858). Die Zoologie des Talmuds. Frankfurt am Main
17. Schwartz J. (2000). "Dogs, water and well". Scandinavian Journal of the Old-Testament, XIV
18. Serpell J. (1986). In the company of animals: A study of human-animal relationships. Oxford
19. Stager L. (1991). "Why were hundreds of dogs buried at Ashkelon?" BAR, XVII (3)
20. Toynbee JMC (1973). Animals in Roman life and art. Baltimore-London
21. Visotzky BL (1987). "Overturning the lamp". JJS, XXXVIII
22. Wapnish P. & Hesse B. (1993). "Pampered pooches or plain Pariah's? The Ashkelon dog burials”, BA, LVI (2)