1. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.19-5.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 57| 5.19. "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אִם־לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָךְ וְאִם־לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ הִנָּקִי מִמֵּי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃", | 5.19. "And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: ‘If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;", 5.20. "but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband—", |
|
| 2. Tosefta, Bava Metzia, 2.30 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 58 |
3. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 3.3, 10.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 58| 3.3. "ר' יוסי אומר ג' דברים משם שלשה זקנים רבי עקיבה אומר יכול יהא אדם מעלה בכורות מחו\"ל לארץ ת\"ל (דברים י״ד:כ״ג) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות ממקום שאתה מביא מעשר דגן אתה מביא בכורות מחוצה לארץ שאי אתה מביא מעשר דגנך אי אתה מביא בכורות שמעון בן זומא אומר יכול כשם שנתנה תורה מחיצה בין קדשי קדשים לקדשים קלים כך נתנה תורה מחיצה בין הבכור למעשר שני ודין הוא הבכור טעון הבאת מקום ומעשר שני טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אין נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה אף מעשר שני לא יהא נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה מה לבכור שמיעטו מקום אכילתו שכן מיעט זמן אכילתו תאמר במעשר שני שריבה זמן אכילתו הואיל וריבה זמן אכילתו נרבה מקום אכילתו ת\"ל ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות מה בכורות אין נאכלין אלא לפנים מן החומה אף מעשר שני לא יהא נאכל אלא לפנים מן החומה ר' ישמעאל אומר יכול יהא אדם מעלה מעשר שני לירושלים בזמן הזה ואוכלו ודין הוא הבכור טעון הבאת מקום אף מעשר שני טעון הבאת מקום מה בכור אין נאכל אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר שני לא יהא נאכל אלא בפני הבית ולא אם אמרת בבכור שיש הימנו דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח תאמר במעשר שני שאין הימנו דמים ואימורין לגבי מזבח ביכורים יוכיחו שאין מהן דמים ואימורים לגבי מזבח ואין נאכלין אלא בפני הבית ולא אם אמרת בביכורים שהן טעונין הנחה לפני המזבח תאמר במעשר שני שאין טעונין הנחה לפני המזבח ת\"ל ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות מה בכור אין נאכל אלא בפני הבית אף מעשר שני לא יהא נאכל אלא בפני הבית אחרים אומרים יכול בכור שעבר זמנה משנה לחברתה יהא פסול כפסולי מוקדשים ת\"ל (דברים ט״ו:כ׳) ואכלת לפני ה' אלהיך [וגו'] מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות בקרך אם ללמד על הבכור שיהא נאכל לפנים מן החומה א\"צ והלא כבר נאמר (שם) לפני ה' אלהיך תאכלנו שנה בשנה ואם ללמד על מעשר שני שיהא נאכל לפנים מן החומה א\"צ והלא כבר נאמר (דברים י״ב:י״ז) לא תוכל לאכול בשעריך מעשר א\"כ למה נאמר מעשר דגנך תירושך ויצהרך ובכורות מקיש בכור למעשר שני מה מעשר נאכל משנה לחברתה אף הבכור נאכל משנה לחברתה.", | |
|
4. Tosefta, Sotah, 2.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 59| 2.1. "היה נוטל את מגילתה ונכנס לו לאולם טבלא של זהב היתה קבועה בכותלו של היכל והיא נראית [מבאולם] ממנה רואה [וכתב] לא חסיר ולא יתיר [יוצא] ועומד בצד סוטה קורא ודורש ומדקדק בכל דקדוקי פרשה ומשמיעה בכל לשון ששומעת כדי שתהא יודעת על מה היתה שותה [וכמה] היתה שותה על מה היתה טמאה ובמה היתה טמאה ואומר לה משביע אני עליך ויבא עליך ויבואו עליך זה אלה משביע עליך זו שבועה ר\"מ אומר אמן שלא נטמאתי אמן [שאיני עתידה ליטמא] לא שהמים בודקין אותה מיד אלא אפילו תקלקל לאחר עשרים שנה המים מתעררין עליה שנא' (במדבר ה׳:ט״ו) מנחת זכרון מזכרת עון נכנס וכותב יוצא ומוחק.", | |
|
5. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.6, 4.1, 4.5, 5.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 59| 3.6. "כֵּיצַד בּוֹדְקִים אֶת הָעֵדִים, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן וּמוֹצִיאִין אֶת כָּל הָאָדָם לַחוּץ, וּמְשַׁיְּרִין אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר הֵיאַךְ אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ שֶׁזֶּה חַיָּב לָזֶה. אִם אָמַר, הוּא אָמַר לִי שֶׁאֲנִי חַיָּב לוֹ, אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי אָמַר לִי שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ, לֹא אָמַר כְּלוּם, עַד שֶׁיֹּאמַר, בְּפָנֵינוּ הוֹדָה לוֹ שֶׁהוּא חַיָּב לוֹ מָאתַיִם זוּז. וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִים אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִים, נוֹשְׂאִין וְנוֹתְנִין בַּדָּבָר. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, זַכַּאי. שְׁנַיִם אוֹמְרִים חַיָּב, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, חַיָּב. אֶחָד אוֹמֵר זַכַּאי, וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר חַיָּב, וַאֲפִלּוּ שְׁנַיִם מְזַכִּין אוֹ שְׁנַיִם מְחַיְּבִין וְאֶחָד אוֹמֵר אֵינִי יוֹדֵעַ, יוֹסִיפוּ הַדַּיָּנִין: \n", 4.1. "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n", 4.5. "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n", 5.4. "וְאַחַר כָּךְ מַכְנִיסִין אֶת הַשֵּׁנִי וּבוֹדְקִין אוֹתוֹ. אִם נִמְצְאוּ דִבְרֵיהֶם מְכֻוָּנִין, פּוֹתְחִין בִּזְכוּת. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, אוֹ אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו חוֹבָה, מְשַׁתְּקִין אוֹתוֹ. אָמַר אֶחָד מִן הַתַּלְמִידִים יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עָלָיו זְכוּת, מַעֲלִין אוֹתוֹ וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בֵינֵיהֶן, וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹרֵד מִשָּׁם כָּל הַיּוֹם כֻּלּוֹ. אִם יֵשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ. וַאֲפִלּוּ הוּא אוֹמֵר יֶשׁ לִי לְלַמֵּד עַל עַצְמִי זְכוּת, שׁוֹמְעִין לוֹ, וּבִלְבַד שֶׁיֵּשׁ מַמָּשׁ בִּדְבָרָיו: \n", | 3.6. "How do they check the witnesses? They bring them in and warn them, and then they take them out and leave behind the most important of [the witnesses]. And they would say to him: “State [for us], how do you know that this one is in debt to this one?” If he said, “He said to me, ‘I am in debt to him’, or ‘So-and-so said to me that he was in debt to him’”, he has said nothing. He must be able to say, “In our presence he acknowledged to the other one that he owed him 200 zuz.” Afterward they bring in the second witness and check him. If their words were found to agree, the judges discuss the matter. If two say, “He is not guilty” and one says, “He is guilty”, he is not guilty. If two say, “He is guilty” and one says, “He is not guilty”, he is guilty. If one says, “He is not guilty”, and one says, “He is guilty”, and even if two declared him not guilty or declared him guilty while one said, “I do not know”, they must add more judges.", 4.1. "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.", 4.5. "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]", 5.4. "They afterward bring in the second witness and examine him. If their words were found to agree together they begin [to examine the evidence] in favor of acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, or if one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his conviction”, they silence him. If one of the disciples said, “I have something to argue in favor of his acquittal”, they bring him up and set him among them and he does not come down from there all day. If there is anything of substance in his words they listen to him. Even if the accused said, “I have something to argue in favor of my acquittal”, they listen to him, provided that there is substance to his words.", |
|
| 6. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 12 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 59 |
| 7. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, 1.5 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 51 |
8. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 57| 32b. טעו לא ישלמו כל שכן שתנעול דלת בפני לווין,רבא אמר מתניתין דהכא בדיני קנסות ואידך בהודאות והלואות,רב פפא אמר אידי ואידי בהודאה והלואה כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאינו מרומה,כדריש לקיש דריש לקיש רמי כתיב (ויקרא יט, טו) בצדק תשפוט עמיתך וכתיב (דברים טז, כ) צדק צדק תרדף הא כיצד כאן בדין מרומה כאן בדין שאין מרומה,רב אשי אמר מתני׳ כדשנין קראי אחד לדין וא' לפשרה,כדתניא צדק צדק תרדף אחד לדין ואחד לפשרה כיצד שתי ספינות עוברות בנהר ופגעו זה בזה אם עוברות שתיהן שתיהן טובעות בזה אחר זה שתיהן עוברות וכן שני גמלים שהיו עולים במעלות בית חורון ופגעו זה בזה אם עלו שניהן שניהן נופלין בזה אחר זה שניהן עולין,הא כיצד טעונה ושאינה טעונה תידחה שאינה טעונה מפני טעונה קרובה ושאינה קרובה תידחה קרובה מפני שאינה קרובה היו שתיהן קרובות שתיהן רחוקות הטל פשרה ביניהן ומעלות שכר זו לזו,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר ב"ד יפה אחר רבי אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל,תנא קול ריחים בבורני שבוע הבן שבוע הבן אור הנר בברור חיל משתה שם משתה שם,ת"ר צדק צדק תרדף הלך אחר חכמים לישיבה אחר ר' אליעזר ללוד אחר רבן יוחנן בן זכאי לברור חיל אחר רבי יהושע לפקיעין אחר רבן גמליאל ליבנא אחר רבי עקיבא לבני ברק אחר רבי מתיא לרומי אחר רבי חנניא בן תרדיון לסיכני אחר ר' יוסי לציפורי אחר רבי יהודה בן בתירה לנציבין אחר רבי יהושע לגולה אחר רבי לבית שערים אחר חכמים ללשכת הגזית:,דיני ממונות פותחין כו': היכי אמרינן אמר רב יהודה הכי אמרינן להו מי יימר כדקאמריתו,א"ל עולא והא חסמינן להו וליחסמו מי לא תניא רבי שמעון בן אליעזר אומר מסיעין את העדים ממקום למקום כדי שתיטרף דעתן ויחזרו בהן,מי דמי התם ממילא קא מידחו הכא קא דחינן להו בידים,אלא אמר עולא הכי אמרינן יש לך עדים להזימם א"ל רבה וכי פותחין בזכותו של זה שהיא חובתו של זה,ומי הויא חובתו והתנן אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין,הכי אמינא אילו שתיק האי עד דמיגמר דיניה ומייתי עדים ומזים להו הויא ליה חובתו של זה אלא אמר רבה אמרינן ליה יש לך עדים להכחישן,רב כהנא אמר מדבריכם נזדכה פלוני אביי ורבא דאמרי תרוייהו אמרי' ליה אי לא קטלת לא תדחל רב אשי אמר כל מי שיודע לו זכות יבא וילמד עליו,תניא כוותיה דאביי ורבא רבי אומר (במדבר ה, יט) אם לא שכב איש אותך ואם לא שטית וגו' | 32b. then if the judges b erred they should not /b need to b pay /b the party they wronged, as they can claim that they were prevented from examining the witnesses effectively. The Gemara answers: If that were to be the i halakha /i , b all the more so that /b this b would lock the door in the face of /b potential b borrowers. /b If people know that the courts are not responsible for an error in judgment, they will not be willing to lend money., b Rava says: /b The ruling of b the mishna here, /b that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated b with regard to laws of fines, /b not standard cases of monetary law. b And the other /b sources, i.e., the mishna in tractate i Shevi’it /i and the i baraita /i , which do not require inquiry and interrogation, are stated b with regard to /b cases of b admissions and loans, /b in which there is cause to relax the procedures of deliberation, as explained., b Rav Pappa says: This and that, /b i.e., both the mishna here and the other sources, are stated b with regard to /b cases of b an admission and a loan. /b The distinction between them is that the mishna b here, /b which rules that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is stated b with regard to /b a possibly b fraudulent trial, /b where the court suspects that one party is attempting to defraud the other party and have witnesses offer false testimony on his own behalf. b There, /b in the i baraita /i and in the mishna in tractate i Shevi’it /i , which do not require inquiry and interrogation, the ruling is stated b with regard to a trial that /b does b not /b appear b fraudulent. /b ,This distinction is b in accordance with /b the statement b of Reish Lakish, as Reish Lakish raises a contradiction /b between two verses: It b is written /b in one verse: b “In justice shall you judge your neighbor” /b (Leviticus 19:15), b and /b it b is written /b in another verse: b “Justice, justice, shall you follow” /b (Deuteronomy 16:21), with the repetition indicating that it is not enough to merely judge with justice. He continues: b How /b can b these /b texts be reconciled? b Here, /b this latter verse is stated b with regard to /b a possibly b fraudulent trial, /b where the court must take extra care to judge with justice; and b there, /b that former verse is stated b with regard to a trial that /b does b not /b appear b fraudulent. /b , b Rav Ashi says: /b The ruling of b the mishna here, /b that cases of monetary law require inquiry and interrogation, is b as we answered, /b i.e., in accordance with any one of the answers offered by the other i amora’im /i . And those b verses /b were not stated with regard to fraudulent trials; rather, b one /b is stated b with regard to judgment, /b in which the court must pursue justice extensively, b and one /b is stated b with regard to compromise. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : When the verse states: b “Justice, justice, shall you follow,” one /b mention of “justice” is stated b with regard to judgment and one /b is stated b with regard to compromise. How so? /b Where there are b two boats traveling on the river and they encounter each other, if both of them /b attempt to b pass, both of them sink, /b as the river is not wide enough for both to pass. If they pass b one after the other, both of them pass. And similarly, /b where there are b two camels who were ascending the ascent of Beit Ḥoron, /b where there is a narrow steep path, b and they encounter each other, if both of them /b attempt to b ascend, both of them fall. /b If they ascend b one after the other, both of them ascend. /b , b How /b does one decide which of them should go first? If there is one boat that is b laden and /b one boat b that is not laden, /b the needs of the one b that is not laden should be overridden due to /b the needs of the one b that is laden. /b If there is one boat that is b close /b to its destination b and /b one boat b that is not close /b to its destination, the needs of the one that is b close should be overridden due to /b the needs of the one b that is not close. /b If b both of them were close /b to their destinations, or b both of them were far /b from their destinations, b impose a compromise between them /b to decide which goes first, b and /b the owners of the boats b pay a fee to one other, /b i.e., the owners of the first boat compensate the owner of the boat that waits, for any loss incurred.,§ b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” /b This teaches that one should b follow the best, /b most prestigious, b court /b of the generation. For example, follow b after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil. /b ,The Sages b taught: /b When the gentile authorities issued decrees outlawing observance of the mitzvot, members of Jewish communities devised clandestine ways of indicating observance of mitzvot to each other. For example: If one produces b the sound of a millstone in /b the city called b Burni, /b this is tantamount to announcing: b Week of the son, week of the son, /b i.e., there will be a circumcision. If one displays the b light of a lamp in /b the city called b Beror Ḥayil, /b this is tantamount to announcing: There is a wedding b feast there, /b there is a wedding b feast there. /b , b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “Justice, justice, shall you follow.” /b This teaches that one should b follow the Sages to the academy /b where they are found. For example, follow b after Rabbi Eliezer to Lod, after Rabban Yoḥa ben Zakkai to Beror Ḥayil, after Rabbi Yehoshua to Peki’in, after Rabban Gamliel to Yavne, after Rabbi Akiva to Bnei Brak, after Rabbi Matya to Rome [ i Romi /i ], after Rabbi Ḥaya ben Teradyon to Sikhnei, after Rabbi Yosei to Tzippori, after Rabbi Yehuda ben Beteira to Netzivin, after Rabbi Yehoshua to the exile [ i gola /i ], /b i.e., Babylonia, b after Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b to Beit She’arim, /b and b after the Sages /b in the time of the Temple b to the Chamber of Hewn Stone. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that in cases of b monetary law, /b the court b opens /b the deliberations either with a claim to exempt the accused, or with a claim to find him liable. In cases of capital law, the court opens the deliberations with a claim to acquit the accused, but does not open the deliberations with a claim to find him liable. The Gemara asks: b How do we say /b this opening stage of the deliberations? In other words, with what claim does the court begin deliberating? b Rav Yehuda said: We say this to /b the witnesses: b Who says /b that the event occurred b as you said? /b Perhaps you erred?, b Ulla said to him: But /b by confronting the witnesses in this manner, b we silence them. /b The witnesses will think that the court suspects them of lying, and they will not testify. Rav Yehuda said to him: b And let them be silenced. Isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 9:1): b Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says: /b In cases of capital law, the court b brings the witnesses from /b one b place to /b another b place in order to confuse them so that they will retract /b their testimony if they are lying.,The Gemara rejects this argument: b Are /b the i halakhot /i b comparable? There, /b where Rabbi Shimon ben Eliezer says to bring the witnesses from place to place, the witnesses b are repressed by themselves, /b whereas b here, we repress them by /b direct b action, /b and that the court should not do., b Rather, Ulla says: We say this /b to the accused: b Do you have witnesses to determine /b that the witnesses who testified against you are b conspiring witnesses? Rabba said to him: But do we open /b the deliberations b with /b a claim to b acquit /b the accused b that is /b to b the liability of this /b one, i.e., the witnesses? This claim can lead to the witnesses incurring liability for their testimony.,The Gemara questions Rabba’s assumption: b But is /b this to b the liability of /b the witnesses? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Makkot /i 5b): b Conspiring witnesses are not killed /b for their testimony b until the verdict /b of the one concerning whom they testified b is issued? /b Therefore, if they will be shown to be conspiring witnesses at this early stage of the proceedings, they will not be liable.,The Gemara restates Rabba’s objection: b This /b is what b I say: If /b the accused b would be silent until his verdict is issued and /b then b brings witnesses and /b the court b determines them /b to be b conspiring /b witnesses, it will be found that the statement of the court b is /b to b the liability of this /b one, i.e., the witnesses. b Rather, Rabba says: We say to /b the accused: b Do you have witnesses to contradict them? /b If the first witnesses are contradicted as to the facts of the case, no one is liable., b Rav Kahana said: /b We say to the witnesses: b Based on your statements, so-and-so is acquitted. /b The court issues a i pro forma /i declaration that it is possible to find a reason to acquit based on the testimony of the witnesses, and then they begin the deliberations. b Abaye and Rava both say: We say to /b the accused: For example, b if you did not kill /b anyone, b do not fear /b the consequences of these proceedings, as you will be acquitted. b Rav Ashi says: /b The court announces: b Whoever knows /b of a reason b to acquit /b the accused b should come and teach /b this reason b concerning him. /b ,The Gemara comments: b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the explanation b of Abaye and Rava. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b The priest administering the i sota /i rite to the i sota /i says to her: b “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray /b to impurity while under your husband, you shall be free from this water of bitterness that causes the curse. But if you have gone astray while under your husband…” (Numbers 5:19–20). The priest first states the scenario in which the woman is innocent of adultery. |
|
9. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •arguments to acquit Found in books: Rosen-Zvi (2012) 51| 7b. וקטליאות נזמים וטבעות מעבירין ממנה כדי לנוולה ואחר כך מביא חבל מצרי וקושרו למעלה מדדיה,וכל הרוצה לראות בא לראות חוץ מעבדיה ושפחותיה מפני שלבה גס בהן וכל הנשים מותרות לראותה שנאמר (יחזקאל כג, מח) ונוסרו כל הנשים ולא תעשינה כזמתכנה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מנהני מילי א"ר חייא בר גמדא א"ר יוסי בר' חנינא אתיא תורה תורה כתיב הכא (במדבר ה, ל) ועשה לה הכהן את כל התורה וכתיב התם (דברים יז, יא) על פי התורה אשר יורוך מה להלן בשבעים ואחד אף כאן בשבעים ואחד,ומאיימין עליה וכו' ורמינהו כדרך שמאיימין עליה שלא תשתה כך מאיימין עליה שתשתה אומרים לה בתי אם ברור לך הדבר שטהורה את עמדי על בורייך ושתי לפי שאין מים המרים דומין אלא לסם יבש שמונח על בשר חי אם יש שם מכה מחלחל ויורד אין שם מכה אינו מועיל כלום,לא קשיא כאן קודם שנמחקה מגילה כאן לאחר שנמחקה מגילה,ואומר לפניה וכו' ת"ר אומר לפניה דברים של הגדה ומעשים שאירעו בכתובים הראשונים כגון (איוב טו, יח) אשר חכמים יגידו ולא כחדו מאבותם,יהודה הודה ולא בוש מה היה סופו נחל חיי העולם הבא ראובן הודה ולא בוש מה היה סופו נחל חיי העולם הבא ומה שכרן מה שכרן כדקא אמרינן אלא מה שכרן בעולם הזה (איוב טו, יט) להם לבדם נתנה הארץ ולא עבר זר בתוכם,בשלמא ביהודה אשכחן דאודי דכתיב (בראשית לח, כו) ויכר יהודה ויאמר צדקה ממני אלא ראובן מנלן דאודי,דא"ר שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יוחנן מאי דכתיב (דברים לג, ו) יחי ראובן ואל ימות (דברים לג, ז) וזאת ליהודה,כל אותן שנים שהיו ישראל במדבר היו עצמותיו. של יהודה מגולגלין בארון עד שעמד משה ובקש עליו רחמים אמר לפניו רבש"ע מי גרם לראובן שהודה יהודה וזאת ליהודה,מיד (דברים לג, ז) שמע ה' קול יהודה על איבריה לשפא ולא הוה קא מעיילין ליה למתיבתא דרקיעא (דברים לג, ז) ואל עמו תביאנו ולא הוה קא ידע משקל ומטרח בשמעתא בהדי רבנן (דברים לג, ז) ידיו רב לו לא הוה קא סלקא ליה שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא (דברים לג, ז) ועזר מצריו תהיה,בשלמא יהודה דאודי כי היכי דלא תישרף תמר אלא ראובן למה ליה דאודי והאמר רב ששת חציף עלי (בר ישראל) דמפריט חטאיה כי היכי דלא ליחשדו אחוהי,אם אמרה טמאה אני וכו' שמעת מינה כותבין שובר,אמר אביי תני מקרעת א"ל רבא והא שוברת קתני אלא אמר רבא במקום שאין כותבין כתובה עסקינן,ואם אמרה טהורה אני מעלין אותה לשערי מזרח מעלין אותה | 7b. b or chokers [ i katliyot /i ], /b or b nose rings, or /b finger b rings, they removed them from her in order to render her unattractive. And afterward /b the priest b would bring an Egyptian rope /b fashioned from palm fibers, b and he would tie it above her breasts. /b , b And anyone who desires to watch her may come to watch, except for her slaves and maidservants, /b who are not permitted to watch b because her heart is emboldened by them, /b as seeing one’s slaves reinforces one’s feeling of pride, and their presence may cause her to maintain her innocence. b And all of the women are permitted to watch her, as it is stated: /b “Thus will I cause lewdness to cease out of the land, b that all women may be taught not to do after your lewdness” /b (Ezekiel 23:48)., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks concerning the i halakha /i that the i sota /i is brought before the Sanhedrin: b From where are these matters /b derived? b Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda says /b that b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: /b This b is derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the words b “ i tora /i ” /b and b “ i tora /i .” /b It b is written here, /b with regard to a i sota /i : b “And the priest shall execute upon her all this law [ i tora /i ]” /b (Numbers 5:30), b and /b it b is written there, /b with regard to a rebellious Elder, who must go to the place chosen by God and follow the ruling of the Sanhedrin: b “According to the law [ i tora /i ] that they shall teach you” /b (Deuteronomy 17:11). b Just as there /b the verse is referring to what occurs b in /b the presence of the Sanhedrin of b seventy-one /b judges, b so too here, /b with regard to a i sota /i , the verse is referring to what occurs b in /b the presence of the Sanhedrin of b seventy-one /b judges.,§ The mishna teaches: b And they threaten her /b in order that she admit her sin, to obviate the need to erase God’s name. b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from that which was taught in a i baraita /i in the i Tosefta /i (1:6): b In the same manner that they threaten her so that she will not drink, so too, they threaten her so that she will drink, /b as b they say to her: My daughter, if the matter is clear to you that you are pure, arise for /b the sake of b your clear /b position b and drink. /b If you are innocent you have nothing to fear, b because the bitter water is similar only to a dry poison placed on the flesh. If there is a wound /b there, the poison will b penetrate and enter /b the blood stream, but if b there is no wound there, it does not have any effect. /b This teaches that the woman is warned not to drink if she is guilty, but if she is not guilty she is encouraged to drink. There is no mention of the latter in the mishna.,The Gemara answers: This is b not difficult. Here /b the mishna is referring to b before the scroll was erased, /b and at that point the woman is warned only not to drink if she is guilty, so that the name of God will not be erased. b There /b the i baraita /i is referring to b after the scroll was erased. /b Then she is warned that if she is innocent she should drink because if she now refuses to drink, it will turn out that the scroll was erased for no purpose.,§ The mishna teaches: b And /b the judge b says in her presence /b matters that are not worthy of being heard by her and all her father’s family in order to encourage her to admit her sin. The Gemara cites a i baraita /i that details what was said. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : The judge b says in her presence words of homiletical /b interpretation b and /b mentions b incidents that happened /b to previous generations that are recorded b in the early /b prophetic b writings. For example, /b they expound the following verse: b “That wise men told and did not hide from their fathers” /b (Job 15:18); this teaches that even during the time of the forefathers, there were people who admitted their sins despite the shame they incurred.,For example, b Judah admitted /b that he sinned with Tamar b and was not embarrassed /b to do so, and b what was his end? He inherited the life of the World-to-Come. Reuben admitted /b that he lay with his father’s concubine Bilhah b and was not embarrassed, /b and b what was his end? He /b too b inherited the life of the World-to-Come. /b The Gemara asks: b And what is their reward? /b The Gemara interjects: b What is their reward? /b Their reward was clearly b as we say, /b that they inherited the life of the World-to-Come. The Gemara clarifies: b Rather, /b the second question was: b What is their reward in this world? /b The Gemara answers by citing the next verse in the book of Job: b “To them alone the land was given, and no stranger passed among them” /b (Job 15:19). Judah was given the kingship, and Reuben inherited a portion of land in the Transjordan before the other tribes.,The Gemara questions the source for Reuben’s admission. b Granted, with regard to Judah we have found /b a source b that he admitted /b his sin with Tamar, b as it is written: “And Judah acknowledged them and said: She is more righteous than I” /b (Genesis 38:26). Judah admitted that he was the one who had impregnated Tamar. b But from where do we /b derive b that Reuben admitted /b his sin?,The Gemara answers: It is b as Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: What is /b the meaning of that b which is written /b concerning Reuben and Judah in Moses’ blessing of the tribes at the end of his life: b “Let Reuben live and not die in that his men become few” /b (Deuteronomy 33:6), and immediately afterward, in the following verse, it is stated: b “And this for Judah, /b and he said: Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah, and bring him in unto his people; his hands shall contend for him, and You shall be a help against his adversaries” (Deuteronomy 33:7). What is the connection between the blessing of Reuben and that of Judah, juxtaposed with the conjunction “and”?,Rabbi Yoḥa says: b All those years that the Jewish people were in the desert, the bones of Judah, /b which the Jewish people took with them from Egypt along with the bones of his brothers, b were rolling /b around b in the coffin, until Moses arose and asked for compassion on /b Judah’s behalf. Moses b said before /b God: b Master of the Universe, who served as the impetus for Reuben that he admit /b his sin, through which he merited a blessing and was not excluded from the count of the twelve sons of Jacob (see Genesis 35:22)? It was b Judah, /b as Reuben saw him confess his sin, and thereby did the same. Moses continues in the next verse: b “And this for Judah,” /b as if to say: Is this Judah’s reward for serving as an example of confessing to one’s sins, that his bones roll around?, b Immediately /b after Moses prayed, the verse states: b “Hear, Lord, the voice of Judah” /b (Deuteronomy 33:7). b His bones /b then b entered /b their b sockets [ i shafa /i ], /b and his skeleton was reassembled. b But /b the angels still b did not elevate /b him b into the heavenly study hall. /b Moses then prayed: b “And bring him in unto his people” /b (Deuteronomy 33:7), i.e., those in the heavenly study hall. This prayer was accepted, b but he /b still b did not know /b how b to deliberate /b in Torah matters b with the /b heavenly b sages. /b Moses then prayed: b “His hands shall contend for him” /b (Deuteronomy 33:7), meaning that he should have the ability to contend with them in study. But still b he was unable to draw /b conclusions from b his discussion in accordance with the i halakha /i . /b Moses then prayed: b “And You shall be a help against his adversaries” /b (Deuteronomy 33:7).,The Gemara discusses the propriety of admitting one’s sins in public. b Granted, /b with regard to b Judah, /b it was proper b that he admitted /b his sin in public, as he did so b in order that Tamar not be burned /b innocently. b But why did Reuben admit /b his sin in public? b But didn’t Rav Sheshet say: I /b consider one b who specifies his sins /b in public to be b brazen, /b as one who does so indicates that he is not embarrassed by his actions? The Gemara answers: The reason he admitted his sin in public was b in order that his brothers should not be suspected /b of having committed the deed.,§ The mishna teaches: b If /b after the judge’s warning b she says: I am defiled, /b she writes a receipt for her marriage contract. The Gemara comments: b You /b can b learn from this /b mishna b that one writes a receipt /b to serve as proof that a debt has been paid rather than tearing the promissory note. This matter is the subject of a dispute between the i tanna’im /i in tractate i Bava Batra /i (170b)., b Abaye said: Teach /b in the mishna differently. Rather than understanding that she writes a receipt, explain it to mean: b She tears /b her marriage contract. b Rava said to him: But /b the mishna b teaches /b explicitly that b she writes a receipt. Rather, /b to explain the mishna, b Rava said: We are dealing with a place in /b which b they do not write a marriage contract, /b as they rely on the rabbinical ordice that all wives are entitled to the sum of a standard marriage contract upon divorce or being widowed, even if no marriage contract has been written. Because there is no marriage contract to tear, a receipt is written so that the man can prove that he no longer has a monetary obligation. However, generally, it is possible that the document would be torn, and no proof can be adduced from this mishna.,§ The mishna teaches: b But if /b after the warning b she /b maintains her innocence and b says: I am pure, they /b would b bring her up to the Eastern Gate. /b The Gemara asks: Would b they bring her up? /b |
|
