| 1. Septuagint, Genesis, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.15, 19.15, 21.18-21.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28, 84| 17.15. "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃", 19.15. "לֹא־יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכָל־עָוֺן וּלְכָל־חַטָּאת בְּכָל־חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר׃", 21.18. "כִּי־יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 21.19. "וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ׃", 21.21. "וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל־אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ׃", | 17.15. "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.", 19.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment", 21.18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;", 21.19. "then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;", 21.20. "and they shall say unto the elders of his city: ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’", 21.21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.24, 29.28, 30.11-30.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 58, 68| 12.24. "וּשְׁמַרְתֶּם אֶת־הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לְחָק־לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 29.28. "וְהָיָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו לְחָק־עוֹלָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל כִּי תְרוּמָה הוּא וּתְרוּמָה יִהְיֶה מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִזִּבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיהֶם תְּרוּמָתָם לַיהוָה׃", 30.11. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 30.12. "כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם׃", 30.13. "זֶה יִתְּנוּ כָּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה׃", 30.14. "כֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה׃", 30.15. "הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא־יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל לָתֵת אֶת־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", 30.16. "וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", | 12.24. "And ye shall observe this thing for an ordice to thee and to thy sons for ever.", 29.28. "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel; for it is a heave-offering; and it shall be a heave-offering from the children of Israel of their sacrifices of peace-offerings, even their heave-offering unto the LORD.", 30.11. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 30.12. "’When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.", 30.13. "This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary—the shekel is twenty gerahs—half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.", 30.14. "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD.", 30.15. "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.", 30.16. "And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.’", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 38.25 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 38.25. "הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל־חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר־נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה׃", | 38.25. "When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: ‘By the man, whose these are, am I with child’; and she said: ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 6.11, 6.15, 7.34, 10.15, 22.10-22.14, 24.9, 27.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40, 57, 68| 6.11. "כָּל־זָכָר בִּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן יֹאכֲלֶנָּה חָק־עוֹלָם לְדֹרֹתֵיכֶם מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה כֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִגַּע בָּהֶם יִקְדָּשׁ׃", 6.15. "וְהַכֹּהֵן הַמָּשִׁיחַ תַּחְתָּיו מִבָּנָיו יַעֲשֶׂה אֹתָהּ חָק־עוֹלָם לַיהוָה כָּלִיל תָּקְטָר׃", 7.34. "כִּי אֶת־חֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה וְאֵת שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה לָקַחְתִּי מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל מִזִּבְחֵי שַׁלְמֵיהֶם וָאֶתֵּן אֹתָם לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן וּלְבָנָיו לְחָק־עוֹלָם מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 10.15. "שׁוֹק הַתְּרוּמָה וַחֲזֵה הַתְּנוּפָה עַל אִשֵּׁי הַחֲלָבִים יָבִיאוּ לְהָנִיף תְּנוּפָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהָיָה לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה׃", 22.11. "וְכֹהֵן כִּי־יִקְנֶה נֶפֶשׁ קִנְיַן כַּסְפּוֹ הוּא יֹאכַל בּוֹ וִילִיד בֵּיתוֹ הֵם יֹאכְלוּ בְלַחְמוֹ׃", 22.12. "וּבַת־כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ זָר הִוא בִּתְרוּמַת הַקֳּדָשִׁים לֹא תֹאכֵל׃", 22.13. "וּבַת־כֹּהֵן כִּי תִהְיֶה אַלְמָנָה וּגְרוּשָׁה וְזֶרַע אֵין לָהּ וְשָׁבָה אֶל־בֵּית אָבִיהָ כִּנְעוּרֶיהָ מִלֶּחֶם אָבִיהָ תֹּאכֵל וְכָל־זָר לֹא־יֹאכַל בּוֹ׃", 22.14. "וְאִישׁ כִּי־יֹאכַל קֹדֶשׁ בִּשְׁגָגָה וְיָסַף חֲמִשִׁיתוֹ עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃", 24.9. "וְהָיְתָה לְאַהֲרֹן וּלְבָנָיו וַאֲכָלֻהוּ בְּמָקוֹם קָדֹשׁ כִּי קֹדֶשׁ קָדָשִׁים הוּא לוֹ מֵאִשֵּׁי יְהוָה חָק־עוֹלָם׃", 27.3. "וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ הַזָּכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וְעַד בֶּן־שִׁשִּׁים שָׁנָה וְהָיָה עֶרְכְּךָ חֲמִשִּׁים שֶׁקֶל כֶּסֶף בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ׃", 27.3. "וְכָל־מַעְשַׂר הָאָרֶץ מִזֶּרַע הָאָרֶץ מִפְּרִי הָעֵץ לַיהוָה הוּא קֹדֶשׁ לַיהוָה׃", | 6.11. "Every male among the children of Aaron may eat of it, as a due for ever throughout your generations, from the offerings of the LORD made by fire; whatsoever toucheth them shall be holy.", 6.15. "And the anointed priest that shall be in his stead from among his sons shall offer it, it is a due for ever; it shall be wholly made to smoke unto the LORD.", 7.34. "For the breast of waving and the thigh of heaving have I taken of the children of Israel out of their sacrifices of peace-offerings, and have given them unto Aaron the priest and unto his sons as a due for ever from the children of Israel.", 10.15. "The thigh of heaving and the breast of waving shall they bring with the offerings of the fat made by fire, to wave it for a wave-offering before the LORD; and it shall be thine, and thy sons’with thee, as a due for ever; as the LORD hath commanded.’", 22.10. "There shall no acommon man eat of the holy thing; a tet of a priest, or a hired servant, shall not eat of the holy thing.", 22.11. "But if a priest buy any soul, the purchase of his money, he may eat of it; and such as are born in his house, they may eat of his bread.", 22.12. "And if a priest’s daughter be married unto a common man, she shall not eat of that which is set apart from the holy things.", 22.13. "But if a priest’s daughter be a widow, or divorced, and have no child, and is returned unto her father’s house, as in her youth, she may eat of her father’s bread; but there shall no common man", 22.14. "And if a man eat of the holy thing through error, then he shall put the fifth part thereof unto it, and shall give unto the priest the holy thing.", 24.9. "And it shall be for Aaron and his sons; and they shall eat it in a holy place; for it is most holy unto him of the offerings of the LORD made by fire, a perpetual due.’", 27.3. "then thy valuation shall be for the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy valuation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 1.2, 18.8, 18.19, 18.25-18.32, 18.1157 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 57, 68| 1.2. "וַיִּהְיוּ בְנֵי־רְאוּבֵן בְּכֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם כָּל־זָכָר מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא׃", 1.2. "שְׂאוּ אֶת־רֹאשׁ כָּל־עֲדַת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמוֹת כָּל־זָכָר לְגֻלְגְּלֹתָם׃", 18.8. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־אַהֲרֹן וַאֲנִי הִנֵּה נָתַתִּי לְךָ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶרֶת תְּרוּמֹתָי לְכָל־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לְךָ נְתַתִּים לְמָשְׁחָה וּלְבָנֶיךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם׃", 18.19. "כֹּל תְּרוּמֹת הַקֳּדָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר יָרִימוּ בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לַיהוָה נָתַתִּי לְךָ וּלְבָנֶיךָ וְלִבְנֹתֶיךָ אִתְּךָ לְחָק־עוֹלָם בְּרִית מֶלַח עוֹלָם הִוא לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְךָ וּלְזַרְעֲךָ אִתָּךְ׃", 18.25. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 18.26. "וְאֶל־הַלְוִיִּם תְּדַבֵּר וְאָמַרְתָּ אֲלֵהֶם כִּי־תִקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֵׂר אֲשֶׁר נָתַתִּי לָכֶם מֵאִתָּם בְּנַחֲלַתְכֶם וַהֲרֵמֹתֶם מִמֶּנּוּ תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מַעֲשֵׂר מִן־הַמַּעֲשֵׂר׃", 18.27. "וְנֶחְשַׁב לָכֶם תְּרוּמַתְכֶם כַּדָּגָן מִן־הַגֹּרֶן וְכַמְלֵאָה מִן־הַיָּקֶב׃", 18.28. "כֵּן תָּרִימוּ גַם־אַתֶּם תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מִכֹּל מַעְשְׂרֹתֵיכֶם אֲשֶׁר תִּקְחוּ מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּנְתַתֶּם מִמֶּנּוּ אֶת־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה לְאַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֵן׃", 18.29. "מִכֹּל מַתְּנֹתֵיכֶם תָּרִימוּ אֵת כָּל־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה מִכָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ אֶת־מִקְדְּשׁוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ׃", 18.31. "וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֹתוֹ בְּכָל־מָקוֹם אַתֶּם וּבֵיתְכֶם כִּי־שָׂכָר הוּא לָכֶם חֵלֶף עֲבֹדַתְכֶם בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 18.32. "וְלֹא־תִשְׂאוּ עָלָיו חֵטְא בַּהֲרִימְכֶם אֶת־חֶלְבּוֹ מִמֶּנּוּ וְאֶת־קָדְשֵׁי בְנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא תְחַלְּלוּ וְלֹא תָמוּתוּ׃", | 1.2. "’Take ye the sum of all the congregation of the children of Israel, by their families, by their fathers’houses, according to the number of names, every male, by their polls;", 18.8. "And the LORD spoke unto Aaron: ‘And I, behold, I have given thee the charge of My heave-offerings; even of all the hallowed things of the children of Israel unto thee have I given them for a consecrated portion, and to thy sons, as a due for ever.", 18.19. "All the heave-offerings of the holy things, which the children of Israel offer unto the LORD, have I given thee, and thy sons and thy daughters with thee, as a due for ever; it is an everlasting covet of salt before the LORD unto thee and to thy seed with thee.’", 18.25. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 18.26. "’Moreover thou shalt speak unto the Levites, and say unto them: When ye take of the children of Israel the tithe which I have given you from them for your inheritance, then ye shall set apart of it a gift for the LORD, even a tithe of the tithe.", 18.27. "And the gift which ye set apart shall be reckoned unto you, as though it were the corn of the threshing-floor, and as the fulness of the wine-press.", 18.28. "Thus ye also shall set apart a gift unto the LORD of all your tithes, which ye receive of the children of Israel; and thereof ye shall give the gift which is set apart unto the LORD to Aaron the priest.", 18.29. "Out of all that is given you ye shall set apart all of that which is due unto the LORD, of all the best thereof, even the hallowed part thereof out of it.", 18.30. "Therefore thou shalt say unto them: When ye set apart the best thereof from it, then it shall be counted unto the Levites as the increase of the threshing-floor, and as the increase of the wine-press.", 18.31. "And ye may eat it in every place, ye and your households; for it is your reward in return for your service in the tent of meeting.", 18.32. "And ye shall bear no sin by reason of it, seeing that ye have set apart from it the best thereof; and ye shall not profane the holy things of the children of Israel, that ye die not.’", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24, 25| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 5.22 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 5.22. "הַאוֹתִי לֹא־תִירָאוּ נְאֻם־יְהֹוָה אִם מִפָּנַי לֹא תָחִילוּ אֲשֶׁר־שַׂמְתִּי חוֹל גְּבוּל לַיָּם חָק־עוֹלָם וְלֹא יַעַבְרֶנְהוּ וַיִּתְגָּעֲשׁוּ וְלֹא יוּכָלוּ וְהָמוּ גַלָּיו וְלֹא יַעַבְרֻנְהוּ׃", | 5.22. "Fear ye not Me? saith the LORD; Will ye not tremble at My presence? Who have placed the sand for the bound of the sea, An everlasting ordice, which it cannot pass; And though the waves thereof toss themselves, yet can they not prevail; Though they roar, yet can they not pass over it.", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.19 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 24| 7.19. "הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר׃", | 7.19. "Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.", |
|
| 10. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.17-9.22, 13.18, 15.6-15.11, 20.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 57, 68, 79 |
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.17-9.22, 13.18, 15.6-15.11, 20.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 57, 68, 79 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 58, 68 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 5.8, 5.20, 8.2-8.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25, 68 |
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 58, 68 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9, 1.20, 2.16 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 58, 68 |
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 57.8, 64.2-64.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40, 76, 84 |
| 17. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 6.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28 |
| 18. Anon., Testament of Solomon, 111-115, 110 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84 |
19. Mishnah, Avot, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 5.21. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 5.21. "He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.", |
|
20. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 10.2. גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו בִּשְׁנָיִם. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד, וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. כָּתַב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִין. זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן תְּלָתִין סִלְעִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. כְסַף זוּזִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנָיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם, מִלְמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן. | 10.2. "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.", |
|
21. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 79| 1.9. "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן: \n", | 1.9. "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.", |
|
22. Mishnah, Niddah, 5.9, 6.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 5.9. "בַּת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, תָּבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהִיא בַת עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהִיא אַיְלוֹנִית, לֹא חוֹלֶצֶת וְלֹא מִתְיַבֶּמֶת. בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, יָבִיא רְאָיָה שֶׁהוּא בֶן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה, וְהוּא סָרִיס, לֹא חוֹלֵץ וְלֹא מְיַבֵּם, אֵלּוּ דִּבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל. בֵּית שַׁמַּאי אוֹמְרִים, זֶה וָזֶה בְּנֵי שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַזָּכָר כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית הִלֵּל, וְהַנְּקֵבָה כְּדִבְרֵי בֵית שַׁמַּאי, שֶׁהָאִשָּׁה מְמַהֶרֶת לָבֹא לִפְנֵי הָאִישׁ:", 6.11. "תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אוֹ חוֹלֶצֶת אוֹ מִתְיַבֶּמֶת, וְחַיֶּבֶת בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְכֵן תִּינוֹק שֶׁהֵבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, חַיָּב בְּכָל מִצְוֹת הָאֲמוּרוֹת בַּתּוֹרָה. וְרָאוּי לִהְיוֹת בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, מִשֶּׁיָּבִיא שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת עַד שֶׁיַּקִּיף זָקָן, הַתַּחְתּוֹן וְלֹא הָעֶלְיוֹן, אֶלָּא שֶׁדִּבְּרוּ חֲכָמִים בְּלָשׁוֹן נְקִיָּה. תִּינוֹקֶת שֶׁהֵבִיאָה שְׁתֵּי שְׂעָרוֹת, אֵינָהּ יְכוֹלָה לְמָאֵן. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, עַד שֶׁיִּרְבֶּה הַשָּׁחֹר: \n", | 5.9. "If a woman at the age of twenty did not bring forth two hairs, she must bring evidence that she is twenty years of age and she is an aylonit, she doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum. If a man at the age of twenty years did not produce two hairs, he must bring evidence that he is twenty years old and he becomes confirmed as a saris and he doesn't perform halitzah or yibbum, the words of Bet Hillel. Bet Shammai says: with both of them at the age of eighteen. Rabbi Eliezer says: In the case of the male, according to the words of Bet Hillel, while in that of the female, in accordance with the words of Bet Shammai, since a woman matures earlier than a man.", 6.11. "If a girl has grown two pubic hairs she may perform either halitzah or contract levirate marriage, and she is obligated in all the commandments in the Torah. So too if a boy has grown two pubic hairs, he is obligated in all of the commandments in the Torah. He is fit to become a wayward and rebellious son from the time he has grown two hairs until the time when his beard forms a circle. This refers to the lower, and not to the upper one, but the sages spoke using a euphemism. A girl who has grown two hairs may no longer refuse the marriage. Rabbi Judah says: [she may refuse] until the black [hairs] predominate.", |
|
23. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.1, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40, 84| 3.1. "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n", 8.4. "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n", | 3.1. "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.", 8.4. "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.", |
|
24. Tosefta, Demai, 2.14, 2.16 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 2.14. "עם הארץ שאמר לחבר תן לי ככר זה ואוכלנו יין זה ואשתנו לא יתן לו שאין מאכילין טהרות לעם הארץ היה נדור מן הככר ואמר לו תן לי ואוכלנו אבטיח שניקר ואמר [לו] תן לי ואוכלנו יין ונתגלה ואמר לו תן לי ואשתנו לא יתן שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו כיוצא בו לא יושיט ישראל אבר מן החי לבני נח ולא כוס יין לנזיר שאין מאכילין את האדם דבר האסור לו ועל כולן אין מברכין עליהן ואין מזמנין עליהן ואין עונין אחריהן אמן.", | |
|
25. Tosefta, Hagigah, 1.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 1.3. "קטן שאין צריך לאמו חייב בסוכה קטן שצריך לאמו יוצא בעירוב אמו ושאינו צריך לאמו מערבין עליו מזון שתי סעודות בעירובי תחומין [יודע] לנענע חייב בלולב יודע להתעטף חייב בציצית יודע לדבר אביו מלמדו שמע ותורה ולשון קודש ואם לאו ראוי לו שלא בא לעולם יודע לשמור תפיליו אביו לוקח לו תפילין [כיצד בודקין אותו מטבילין אותו ונותנין לו חולין לשם תרומה] יודע לשמור גופו אוכלין על גופו טהרות יודע לפרוש [חוקו] חולקין לו על הגורן יש בו דעת לישאל ספיקו ברשות היחיד טמא ברשות הרבים טהור יודע לשחוט שחיטתו כשירה יכול לאכול כזית דגן פורשין מצואתו וממימי רגליו ארבע אמות כזית צלי שוחטין עליו [את] הפסח רבי יהודה אומר לעולם אין שוחטין [את] הפסח [עליו] [אא\"כ יודע] הפרש אכילה [אמר לו] איזו הפרש אכילה כל שנותנין לו ביצה ונוטלה אבן וזורקה.", | |
|
26. Tosefta, Niddah, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 6.2. "בן תשע ויום אחד שהביא שתי שערות שומא מבן תשע שנים ויום אחד עד בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד שהביא שתי שערות שומא ר' יוסי בר\"י אומר סימן. בן שתים עשרה שנה ויום אחד עד בן שלש עשרה ויום א' שהביא שתי שערות הרי הוא כאיש לכל דבר בן ארבע עשרה שנה ובן חמש עשרה שהביא שתי שערות הרי הוא כבן תשע ויום אחד לכל דבר בן כ' שנה שלא הביא שתי שערות אע\"פ שהביא אחר מכאן הרי הוא כסריס לכל דבר בת כ' שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות אע\"פ שהביאה לאחר מכאן הרי היא כאילונית רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר שנת עשרים שנכנסו ממנו שלשים יום מונין אותה שנה שלמה הורה רבי בלוד על תינוקת בת שמונה עשרה שנכנסו הימנה ל' יום שתהא כתינוקת בת שמונה עשרה ויום אחד לכל דבר.", | |
|
| 27. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 11.6-11.7, 12.7-12.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 79, 84 |
| 28. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 92 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40 |
| 29. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40 |
| 30. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40 |
| 31. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68 |
| 32. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 219 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84 |
33. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 160b. זה פשוט וחתום זה מקושר והעד שנים עדים שלשה הא כיצד שנים לפשוט שלשה למקושר,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,רפרם אמר מהכא (ירמיהו לב, יא) ואקח את ספר המקנה את החתום המצוה והחקים ואת הגלוי ואקח את ספר המקנה זה פשוט את החתום זה מקושר ואת הגלוי זה פשוט שבמקושר,המצוה והחקים אלו דברים שבין פשוט למקושר הא כיצד זה עדיו שנים וזה עדיו שלשה זה עדיו מתוכו וזה עדיו מאחוריו,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,רמי בר יחזקאל אמר מהכא (דברים יט, טו) על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים יקום דבר אם תתקיים עדותן בשנים למה פרט לך בשלשה לומר לך שנים לפשוט שלשה למקושר,ואיפוך אנא מתוך שנתרבה בקשריו נתרבה בעדיו,והני להכי הוא דאתו כל חד וחד למילתיה הוא דאתא לכדתניא (ירמיהו לב, מד) שדות בכסף יקנו וכתוב בספר וחתום עצה טובה קא משמע לן ואקח את ספר המקנה הכי הוה מעשה על פי שנים עדים או על פי שלשה עדים להקיש שלשה לשנים בפלוגתא דרבי עקיבא ורבנן,אלא מקושר מדרבנן וקראי אסמכתא בעלמא,וטעמא מאי תקינו רבנן מקושר אתרא דכהני הוו והוו קפדי טובא ומגרשי נשייהו ועבדי רבנן תקנתא אדהכי והכי מיתבא דעתייהו,התינח גיטין שטרות מאי איכא למימר כדי שלא תחלק בין גיטין לשטרות,היכן עדים חותמין רב הונא אמר בין קשר לקשר ורב ירמיה בר אבא אמר אחורי הכתב וכנגד הכתב מבחוץ,אמר ליה רמי בר חמא לרב חסדא לרב הונא דאמר בין קשר לקשר קא סלקא דעתין בין קשר לקשר מגואי והא ההוא מקושר דקאתא לקמיה דרבי ואמר רבי אין זמן בזה אמר ליה רבי שמעון ברבי לרבי שמא בין קשריו מובלע פלייה וחזייה ואם איתא אין זמן בזה ואין עדים בזה מיבעי ליה,אמר ליה מי סברת בין קשר לקשר מגואי לא בין קשר לקשר מאבראי,וניחוש דלמא זייף וכתב מאי דבעי וחתימי סהדי,דכתיב ביה שריר וקיים,וניחוש דלמא כתב מאי דבעי והדר כתב שריר וקיים אחרינא חד שריר וקיים כתבינן תרי שריר וקיים לא כתבינן,וליחוש דלמא מחיק ליה לשריר וקיים וכתב מאי דבעי והדר כתב שריר וקיים הא אמר ר' יוחנן תלויה מקויימת כשרה | 160b. b this /b is referring to b an ordinary /b document. When the verse states: b “And seal them,” this /b is referring to b a tied /b document. The next phrase, “and call witnesses [ i veha’ed edim /i ],” which more literally would be translated: And have witnesses bear witness, is interpreted as follows: b “And have bear witness [ i veha’ed /i ],” /b this indicates the need for b two /b witnesses, as the term “witness [ i ed /i ]” in the Torah generally refers to two witnesses. As to the word b “witnesses [ i edim /i ],” /b this additional term indicates the need for b three /b witnesses. b How so? /b How can the verse call for both two witnesses and three witnesses? Rabbi Ḥanina explains: b Two /b witnesses are required b for an ordinary /b document, and b three /b are required b for a tied /b document.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two., b Rafram says /b that there is a different source for two kinds of documents, b from here: “So I took the deed of the purchase, that which was sealed, the terms and conditions, and that which was open” /b (Jeremiah 32:11). When the verse states: b “So I took the deed of the purchase,” this /b is referring to b an ordinary /b document. When it states: b “That which was sealed,” this /b is referring to b a tied /b document. When it states: b “And that which was open,” this /b is referring to the b ordinary, /b unfolded part b of a tied /b document.,Rafram continues: With regard to the phrase: b “The terms and conditions,” these are the matters that /b distinguish b an ordinary /b document b from a tied /b one. b How so? /b What are the details that differentiate the two types of documents? b This /b one, the ordinary document, has b two witnesses, and that /b one, the tied document, has b three witnesses. /b And in b this /b one, the ordinary document, b its witnesses /b are signed b inside it, /b on the front side, while in b that /b one, the tied document, b its witnesses /b are signed b on the back of it. /b ,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two., b Rami bar Yeḥezkel said /b that there is a different source for two sets of i halakhot /i for two types of documents b from here: “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses shall a matter be established” /b (Deuteronomy 19:15). b If /b witnesses’ b testimony is established with two /b witnesses, b why /b did the verse b specify for you /b that it is also established b with three, /b which is self-evident? Rather, this verse serves b to tell you /b that there is a requirement for b two /b witnesses b for an ordinary /b document, and a requirement for b three /b witnesses b for a tied /b document.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But I /b can just as well b reverse /b it, requiring two witnesses for a tied document and three for an ordinary one. The Gemara answers: b Since /b the tied document requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its ties, /b it stands to reason that it requires b more /b to be done b with regard to its witnesses, /b requiring three rather than two.,The Gemara asks: b And /b is it so that b these /b verses b are coming for this /b purpose, to teach that there are two types of documents? But b each and every one /b of them b comes for its /b own b purpose. /b The first verse comes b for that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : When the verse states: b “They shall buy fields for money, and subscribe the deeds, and seal them, /b and call witnesses” (Jeremiah 32:44), it is merely to b teach us good advice, /b that people should carefully document their purchases in order to provide permanent proof of purchase. When the verse states: b “So I took the deed of the purchase” /b (Jeremiah 32:11), b this was /b merely how that b incident /b occurred, and the phrase is not intended to teach any i halakhot /i . When the verse states: b “At the mouth of two witnesses or at the mouth of three witnesses /b shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), this is stated in order b to juxtapose three /b witnesses b with two /b witnesses for several reasons, as delineated b in the dispute between Rabbi Akiva and the Rabbis /b ( i Makkot /i 5b).,The Gemara explains: b Rather, /b the entire institution of the b tied /b document is b rabbinic /b in origin, b and /b all these b verses /b that were cited above by various i amora’im /i were intended as b mere support /b for the concept of a tied document, as opposed to actual sources.,The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that b the Sages instituted /b the b tied /b document? The Gemara explains: There was b a place where there were /b many b priests, and they were very quick tempered, and they would /b seek to b divorce their wives /b impetuously. The i halakha /i is that a priest may not marry a divorcée, even his own ex-wife. These priests, who acted impetuously, often regretted having divorced their wives. b And /b therefore, b the Sages instituted an ordice /b that the bill of divorce for these people should be of the tied format, which is a long, drawn-out process, hoping that b meanwhile, their composure would be regained /b and they would reconsider their decision to divorce.,The Gemara asks: This b works out well /b for b bills of divorce, /b but b what can be said /b with regard to other b documents? /b Why is this procedure used for other documents as well? The Gemara answers: This was instituted b so that you should not differentiate between bills of divorce and /b other b documents. /b ,§ b Where do the witnesses sign /b on a tied document? b Rav Huna says: /b They sign b between each tied /b fold. b And Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says: /b They sign b on the back of the written /b side, taking care that the signatures are exactly b opposite the writing, on the outside. /b , b Rami bar Ḥama said to Rav Ḥisda: According to Rav Huna, who says /b that the witnesses sign b between each tied /b fold, it b enters our mind /b that he meant b between each tied /b fold b on the inside /b of the document. b But /b this is difficult, as there was b a certain tied /b document b that came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, not realizing it was tied, b said: There is no date on this /b document, so it is not valid. Then, b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b said to Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b Perhaps /b the date is b hidden between the tied /b folds. Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b opened it and saw /b that the date was in fact between the tied folds. b And if it is so /b that the witnesses sign between each tied fold on the inside of the document, Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi b should have /b had two objections, and said: b There is no date on this /b document, b and there are /b also b no witnesses /b signed b on this /b document.,Rav Ḥisda b said to him: Do you maintain /b that Rav Huna meant that the witnesses sign b between the tied /b folds b on the inside? No, /b he meant b between the tied /b folds b on the outside /b of the document.,The Gemara questions Rav Huna’s opinion: b But let us be concerned /b that b perhaps /b the party holding the document b falsified /b some information b and wrote whatever he wanted. And /b this is a concern, as there are already b witnesses signed /b on the document. In an ordinary document the witnesses sign immediately following the text, so there is no possibility of adding to the text. A tied document has part of its text written in the folds, but also has a part written on the face of the document on the unfolded paper, before or after the text in the folded part. If the witnesses sign between the folds there is the possibility of writing additional text in the unfolded section.,The Gemara explains: The case is one b where it is written in /b the document: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b That is, every folded document must contain this formula at the end of the text, to prevent forgery, as any writing after this formula would be disregarded.,The Gemara questions this explanation: b But let us be concerned /b that b perhaps /b the holder of the document b wrote whatever he wanted and afterward wrote another /b time: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b The Gemara explains: b We write /b only b one /b declaration of: Everything is b confirmed and established; we do not write two /b declarations of: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b Therefore, anything written after the first declaration would be rejected, even if followed by a repetition of the declaration.,The Gemara questions further: b But let /b there be b a concern /b that b perhaps /b the holder of the document b erased /b the declaration: Everything is b confirmed and established, and /b then b wrote whatever he wanted /b over the erasure, b and afterward wrote /b the declaration: Everything is b confirmed and established. /b The Gemara responds: How could this happen? b Doesn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say: /b A document that includes b a suspended /b correction of text inserted between lines of the document, which is b verified /b at the end of the document, b is valid; /b |
|
34. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 80a. שלא ראה שעה אחת בכשרותו מנא ידעינן אמר אביי כל המטיל מים ואינו עושה כיפה,ממאי הואי דאפיה אימיה בטיהרא ושתיא שיכרא מרקא אמר רב יוסף היינו דשמענא לאמי דאמר כל שממעי אמו לקוי ולא ידענא מאי ניהו,וליחוש שמא הבריא בינתים כיון דתחלתו וסופו לקוי לא חיישינן,מתיב רב מרי רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אומר בודקין אותו שלש פעמים בתוך שמונים יום,לחד אבר חיישינן לכוליה גופא לא חיישינן:,רבי אליעזר אומר לא כי וכו': ורמינהו בן עשרים שנה ולא הביא שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהוא בן עשרים והוא הסריס לא חולץ ולא מייבם בת עשרים ולא הביאה שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהיא בת עשרים והיא האילונית לא חולצת ולא מתייבמת דברי בית הלל ובית שמאי אומרים זה וזה בני שמנה עשרה,רבי אליעזר אומר הזכר כדברי ב"ה ונקבה כדברי ב"ש מפני שהאשה ממהרת לבא לפני האיש,אמר רמי בר דיקולי אמר שמואל חזר בו ר' אליעזר איבעיא להו מהי הדר ביה תא שמע דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר סריס חמה חולץ וחולצין לאשתו שכן במינן מתרפאין באלכסנדריא של מצרים,רבי אלעזר אומר לעולם לא הדר ביה וכי תנן ההיא לעונשין,איתמר אכל חלב מבן שתים עשרה [ויום אחד] עד בן שמנה עשרה ונולדו בו סימני סריס ולאחר מכאן הביא שתי שערות רב אמר נעשה סריס למפרע ושמואל אמר קטן היה באותה שעה,מתקיף לה רב יוסף לרב אילונית לרבי מאיר יהא לה קנס,אמר ליה אביי מקטנותה יצתה לבגר,א"ל כל כי הני מילי מעלייתא יתאמרו משמאי דתניא אין הסריס נידון כבן סורר ומורה לפי שאין בן סורר ומורה נידון אלא בחתימת זקן התחתון ואין אילונית נידונית כנערה המאורסה שמקטנותה יצתה לבגר,אמר רבי אבהו סימני סריס ואילונית ובן שמנה אין עושין בהן מעשה עד שיהו בן עשרים,ובן שמנה מי קחיי והתניא בן שמנה הרי הוא כאבן ואסור לטלטלו אבל אמו שוחה עליו ומניקתו | 80a. b who never saw a single hour /b of life b in /b a state of b fitness, /b as he was born infertile. The Gemara asks: b How do we know /b that one was born this way and was never capable of having children? b Abaye said: Anyone who passes water and does not form an arch /b with his urine, but rather his urine dribbles out downward, never had sexual capacity.,Incidentally, the Gemara inquires: b From what /b does this defect arise? What is its cause? The Gemara answers: It results from b his mother baking /b bread b at noon and drinking strong beer [ i shikhra marka /i ] /b while pregt. The excessive heating of the mother’s body causes her child to be born with defective reproductive organs. b Rav Yosef said: This is /b the meaning of that b which I heard /b Rabbi b Ami say: Anyone who is impaired from his mother’s womb, and /b at the time b I did not know what /b he was referring to. Now I understand that he was speaking about a man who was infertile from birth.,The Gemara asks: b Let us be concerned that perhaps he was cured /b for some period b in the meantime, /b without our having known about it, in which case he would have had an hour of fitness at some point. The Gemara answers: b Since /b both b his beginning and his end are impaired, /b i.e., he was born with a defect and he presently suffers from the same condition, b we are not concerned /b about such a possibility., b Rav Mari raised an objection /b from the following mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 38b): b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus says: One examines /b a firstborn animal that developed a blemish in its eye b three times within eighty days /b to see whether the defect is permanent. This shows that no presumptions are made in such a case; rather, there is concern that the animal may have been cured in the meantime, even if it had the defect at the beginning and at the end of the period.,The Gemara answers: b With respect to /b a blemish affecting b a single organ, /b e.g., an eye, b we are concerned /b that the blemish might have passed and then later redeveloped, but b with regard to /b a defect affecting b the entire body, we are not concerned /b about such a possibility. A eunuch is not impaired in a single organ; rather, he has a defect that affects his entire body. Consequently, there is no concern that, though he was born with the defect and presently suffers from it, he might have regained his potency for some time in the middle.,§ It is taught in the mishna that b Rabbi Eliezer says: No; rather, /b a eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i , whereas a eunuch caused by man does not perform i ḥalitza /i . The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from the following mishna ( i Nidda /i 47b): If b a twenty-year-old /b man b has not grown two /b pubic b hairs, /b a sign of sexual maturity, the relatives of the widow who wish to exempt her from i ḥalitza /i and levirate marriage b must bring proof that he is twenty years old, and he, /b having been established as b a sexually underdeveloped man, does not perform i ḥalitza /i or levirate marriage /b with his i yevama /i . If b a twenty-year-old /b woman b has not grown two /b pubic b hairs, /b the relatives of her deceased husband’s brother b must bring proof that she is twenty years old, and she, /b having been established as b a sexually underdeveloped woman, does not perform i ḥalitza /i or enter into levirate marriage /b with her i yavam /i . This is b the statement of Beit Hillel. And Beit Shammai say: /b With regard to both b this and that, /b males and females, the relevant age is b eighteen years old, /b not twenty.,The mishna continues: b Rabbi Eliezer says /b that for a b male /b the i halakha /i is b in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, and /b for b a female /b the i halakha /i is b in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, because a woman reaches /b maturity b more quickly than /b does b a man, /b and therefore, if she fails to develop the signs of maturity by the age of eighteen it is assumed that she is a sexually underdeveloped woman. In any case, it is clear from this mishna that even Rabbi Eliezer agrees that one who lacks sexual capacity from birth may neither perform i ḥalitza /i nor enter into levirate marriage., b Rami bar Dikulei said /b that b Shmuel said: Rabbi Eliezer retracted his /b opinion. b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: b Which /b statement b did he retract? /b Did he retract what he said here in the mishna, that a eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i with his i yevama /i and his brothers perform i ḥalitza /i with his wife? Alternatively, perhaps the mishna here reflects his final view, after he retracted what he said in the other mishna. The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a resolution to this question, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: A eunuch by natural causes performs i ḥalitza /i /b with his i yevama /i b and /b his brothers b perform i ḥalitza /i with his wife, as such type /b of men b are cured in Alexandria of Egypt. /b This additional source and its reasoning suggest that Rabbi Eliezer did not retract what he said in the mishna here. Rather, he retracted his statement with regard to the dispute between Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai in the other mishna., b Rabbi Elazar says: Actually, he did not retract /b anything at all. b And when we learned /b Rabbi Eliezer’s ruling in b that /b mishna with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped individual, that ruling was stated b with regard to punishments, /b i.e., the age at which such an individual is considered an adult so that he is liable to receive punishment, and not with regard to i ḥalitza /i or levirate marriage.,And b it was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disagreed on this issue: With regard to one who b ate /b forbidden b fats /b or performed any other transgression for which one is liable to receive lashes or i karet /i , when he was b between the age of twelve years and one day and the age of eighteen years, and he developed the signs of one who was a eunuch /b by natural causes, as explained below, b and afterward he grew two /b pubic b hairs, Rav said: /b He is b retroactively considered a eunuch /b by natural causes. In other words, these hairs are not viewed as a sign of maturity. Rather, he lacked sexual capacity from the outset, which means he became an adult at the standard age of thirteen and is held liable for his actions from that point in time. b And Shmuel said: /b No, b he was a minor at the time /b he committed his offense, as the two hairs are a sign of his maturity, albeit delayed., b Rav Yosef strongly objects to this: /b If so, b according to Rav, a sexually underdeveloped woman according to Rabbi Meir should be entitled to the fine /b paid by a rapist. Rabbi Meir maintains that a rapist is liable to be fined only if he raped a young woman between the ages of twelve and twelve and a half, but not if he raped a minor. And furthermore, a sexually underdeveloped woman is not entitled to the fine because she is considered a minor, as she never showed the signs of maturity. But according to Rav she should retroactively be viewed as an adult and would therefore be entitled to the fine., b Abaye said to him: /b A sexually underdeveloped woman b passes /b directly b from minority to /b full b adulthood. /b In other words, she is first considered a minor and then immediately an adult, without passing through the intermediate stage of young womanhood, and an adult woman is not entitled to the rapist’s fine.,Greatly impressed with this answer, Rav Yosef b said to /b Abaye: Would that b all such excellent matters be stated in my name. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b A sexually underdeveloped man is not judged as a stubborn and rebellious son, as /b a boy is b judged as a stubborn and rebellious son only when /b he has b the mark of /b his b lower beard, /b i.e., when his pubic hair begins to grow in. At that point he has reached the age of maturity but is not yet a fully developed man, a stage that parallels young womanhood for women. A sexually underdeveloped man never passes through this intermediate stage between minority and full adulthood. b And /b similarly, b a sexually underdeveloped woman /b who was betrothed and raped b is not judged /b in accordance with the laws governing b a betrothed young woman /b (see Deuteronomy 22:23–27), b as she passes /b directly b from minority to /b full b adulthood /b without the intermediate stage of young womanhood. Therefore, the i baraita /i fully corroborates Abaye’s view., b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b If one has b the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man; or /b the signs of b a sexually underdeveloped woman; or /b the signs of a child b born during the eighth /b month of pregcy, whose survival is uncertain; b no action is taken in their regard, /b i.e., the sexually underdeveloped male or female is not treated as an adult and the child born during the eighth month is not deemed viable, b until they are twenty /b years old.,The Gemara asks: b Can /b a child b born during the eighth /b month of pregcy b survive? But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : A child b born during the eighth /b month b is like a stone /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of set-aside [ i muktze /i ] on Shabbat, and therefore b it is prohibited to move him /b on Shabbat, as it may be presumed that he is not viable at all. b However, his mother may bend over him and nurse him, /b |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 30b. חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר' יהודה ור' יוסי אמר להו ר' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו: | 30b. is b suspect with regard to tithe. And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Yehuda, /b as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. b And /b the other b one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to /b produce of the b Sabbatical /b Year. b And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b an i am ha’aretz /i , /b i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, b who accepts upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, /b i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by i ḥaverim /i , including i teruma /i , tithes, and i ḥalla /i , and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy b but /b subsequently he b was suspected with regard to one matter /b in which others saw him act improperly, b he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. /b This is the b statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter. /b ,It is also taught in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b a convert who accepted upon himself /b upon his conversion b matters of Torah, /b i.e., all of the mitzvot, b even if he is suspect with regard to one matter /b alone, b he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is /b considered b like a Jewish transgressor [ i meshummad /i ], /b who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical b difference /b resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is b that if he betroths /b a woman, b his betrothal is /b a valid b betrothal, /b and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status except for one matter, /b which he does not wish to observe, b he is not accepted, /b and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of b a gentile who comes to /b convert and takes upon himself to b accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted /b as a convert. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even /b if he refuses to accept b one detail of rabbinic law, /b he is not accepted.,The i baraita /i continues: b And similarly, /b in the case of b a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: /b “He among the sons of Aaron, b that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, /b and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to b the /b Temple b service, which is handed /b over b to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it /b in its entirety b has no share in the priesthood. /b ,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, if we have seen that he practices /b such matters b in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught /b the precise details of being a i ḥaver /i . b But if /b we have b not /b seen him act as a i ḥaver /i in his home, b he is taught /b first b and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether /b in b this /b case b or that /b case, b he is /b first b accepted, and he /b then b continues to learn in /b the b usual manner, /b i.e., as a i ḥaver /i he learns from others how to behave., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : An i am ha’aretz /i who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b is accepted /b first b with regard to hands, /b i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, b and afterward he is accepted /b as trustworthy b for purity /b in general. b And if he says: I /b wish to b accept /b purity b only with regard to hands, he is accepted /b for this. If he wishes to b accept /b upon himself the stringencies of a i ḥaver /i b with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept /b upon himself the stringencies b with regard to hands, /b i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, b he is not accepted even for purity /b in general., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Until when is he accepted, /b i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a i ḥaver /i ? b Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to /b impurity of b clothing, /b about which i ḥaverim /i would be careful as well, b twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids, b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for twelve months /b before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, this is /b one b of /b the rare cases of b the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, /b and yet it is not included in tractate i Eduyyot /i , which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. b Rather, /b the text of the i baraita /i must be emended so that it reads: b Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for thirty /b days before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,§ The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: b i Ḥaver /i ; student; sky-blue dye [ i tekhelet /i ]; tax; return; /b tax b collector; by himself. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . But his children and /b the b members of his household are not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i separately b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and /b the b members of his household must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , because a i ḥaver /i , who accepted it /b himself in the presence of three others, b is not comparable to the son of a i ḥaver /i , /b who b accepted /b that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , and even a Torah scholar /b who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . /b But b an elder who sits /b and studies Torah b in a yeshiva is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat /b and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. b Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i ; and not only /b does he have the status of i ḥaver /i without an explicit declaration in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b but others /b can b accept /b that they wish to become a i ḥaver /i b in his presence. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, /b i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a i ḥaver /i in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. /b At that time, b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about /b a certain b matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent /b a delegation of their students b to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus /b and told them to b go /b and b tell him to examine /b this matter. The students b found him while he was carrying /b items that were ritually b pure. /b The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus b seated Sages from his own /b yeshiva b next to /b the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. b And he stood and examined /b the matter.,The students returned and b came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei /b that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of i amei ha’aretz /i . b Rabbi Yehuda said to them /b in anger: b This one’s father, /b i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degraded Torah scholars /b by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And b he too, /b the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degrades Torah scholars. /b , b Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, /b i.e., both the father and son, b be left in its place. /b He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. b Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, /b and they decided b that they will not pass ritually pure /b items b to any /b other b person. /b Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a i ḥaver /i that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive /b status b until they are suspected /b of engaging in inappropriate deeds. b And similarly, /b in the case of b a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive /b status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold b until it is disqualified /b due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The /b former b wife an i am ha’aretz /i who /b later b marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the daughter of an i am ha’aretz /i who marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the slave of an i am ha’aretz /i who is sold to a i ḥaver /i , must all accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status. But /b with regard to b the /b former b wife of a i ḥaver /i who /b later b marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the daughter of a i ḥaver /i who marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the slave of a i ḥaver /i who was sold to an i am ha’aretz /i , /b these people b need not accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i , /b as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a i ḥaver /i .,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would /b illustrate this point and b say in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b There was b an incident involving a certain woman who married a i ḥaver /i and would tie [ i koma’at /i ] for him phylacteries on his hand, /b and she later b married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, /b which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety. |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 2b. לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה,רבא אמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתיוהו בי תרי אי נמי ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל,אי נמי באותה מדינה במדינת הים,ולרבה דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ליבעי תרי מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה עד אחד נאמן באיסורין,אימור דאמרינן עד אחד נאמן באיסורין כגון חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלא איתחזק איסורא,אבל הכא דאיתחזק איסורא דאשת איש הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,רוב בקיאין הן ואפילו לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי ורבנן הוא דאצרוך והכא | 2b. It is b because /b the people who live overseas b are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake. /b It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question., b Rava says /b a different reason: It is b because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. /b Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the difference b between /b these two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to a case b where two /b people b brought /b the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. b Alternatively, /b the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b from /b one b region to /b another b region within Eretz Yisrael. /b Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document., b Alternatively, /b there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b within that /b same b region in a country overseas. /b According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.,The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, who said /b that the reason is b because they are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake, let us require two /b witnesses to testify about this, b just as is /b the case b with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. /b The Gemara answers: b One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. /b In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.,The Gemara asks: One can b say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions /b in a case b such as /b where there is b a piece /b of fat, and it is b uncertain /b if it is forbidden b fat /b [ b i ḥelev /i /b ] and b uncertain /b if it is permitted b fat. /b In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, b as there is no presumption /b that it is b forbidden. /b Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible., b However, here, where there is a presumption /b that this woman is b forbidden, as /b she is b a married woman, /b a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this b is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and /b the general principle is that b there is no matter /b of testimony b for forbidden sexual relations /b that can be attested to by b fewer than two /b witnesses.,The Gemara answers: Rabba’s concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as b most /b Jewish people b are experts /b in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And /b this is so b even according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who is /b generally b concerned about a minority /b in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as b ordinary judicial scribes, /b who write bills of divorce, b are learned /b in this i halakha /i , and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And it is the Sages who required /b testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. b And here, /b with regard to this testimony, |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 10b. ומאי שנא התם איתילידא בה ריעותא בבהמה הכא סכין איתרעאי בהמה לא איתרעאי,והילכתא כוותיה דרב הונא כשלא שיבר בה עצם והילכתא כוותיה דרב חסדא כששיבר בה עצם מכלל דרב חסדא אע"ג דלא שיבר בה עצם אלא במאי איפגים אימא בעצם דמפרקת איפגים,הוה עובדא וטרף רב יוסף עד תליסר חיותא כמאן כרב הונא ואפילו בקמייתא לא כרב חסדא ולבר מקמייתא,ואיבעית אימא לעולם כרב הונא דאי כרב חסדא מכדי מתלא תלינן ממאי דבעצם דמפרקת דקמייתא איפגים דלמא בעצם דמפרקת דבתרייתא איפגים,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי רב כהנא מצריך בדיקותא בין כל חדא וחדא כמאן כרב הונא ולמיפסל קמייתא לא כרב חסדא ולאכשורי בתרייתא,אי הכי תיבעי נמי בדיקת חכם עד אחד נאמן באיסורין אי הכי מעיקרא נמי לא האמר רבי יוחנן לא אמרו להראות סכין לחכם אלא מפני כבודו של חכם,מנא הא מלתא דאמור רבנן אוקי מילתא אחזקיה,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר ר' יונתן אמר קרא (ויקרא יד, לח) ויצא הכהן מן הבית אל פתח הבית והסגיר את הבית שבעת ימים דלמא אדנפיק ואתא בצר ליה שיעורא אלא לאו משום דאמרינן אוקי אחזקיה,מתקיף לה רב אחא בר יעקב ודילמא כגון שיצא דרך אחוריו דקא חזי ליה כי נפק,אמר ליה אביי שתי תשובות בדבר חדא דיציאה דרך אחוריו לא שמה יציאה ועוד אחורי הדלת מאי איכא למימר וכי תימא דפתח ביה כוותא והתנן בית אפל אין פותחין בו חלונות לראות את נגעו,א"ל רבא דקאמרת יציאה דרך אחוריו לא שמה יציאה כהן גדול ביום הכפורים יוכיח דכתיב ביה יציאה ותנן יצא ובא לו דרך כניסתו ודקאמרת בית אפל אין פותחין בו חלונות לראות את נגעו הני מילי היכא דלא איתחזק אבל היכא דאיתחזק איתחזק,תניא דלא כרב אחא בר יעקב ויצא הכהן מן הבית יכול ילך לתוך ביתו ויסגיר תלמוד לומר אל פתח הבית,אי פתח הבית יכול יעמוד תחת המשקוף ויסגיר תלמוד לומר מן הבית עד שיצא מן הבית כולו הא כיצד עומד בצד המשקוף ומסגיר,ומנין שאם הלך לתוך ביתו והסגיר או שעמד בתוך הבית והסגיר שהסגרו מוסגר תלמוד לומר והסגיר את הבית מכל מקום,ורב אחא בר יעקב | 10b. The Gemara asks: b And /b in b what /b way is uncertainty whether he interrupted the slaughter or pressed the knife b different /b from uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter? The Gemara answers: b There, /b in the case of uncertainty with regard to interruption or pressing, b the flaw developed in the animal, /b and the slaughter is not valid. b Here, /b in the case of uncertainty whether the knife became notched before or after the slaughter, b a flaw developed in the knife /b but b a flaw did not develop in the animal, /b and the slaughter is valid., b And the i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Huna /b that the slaughter is not valid in a case b where he did not break a bone with /b the knife. b And the i halakha /i is in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Ḥisda /b that the slaughter is valid in a case b where he broke a bone with /b the knife. Learn b by inference that Rav Ḥisda /b rules that the slaughter is valid b even if he did not break a bone with /b the knife. The Gemara asks: b But /b if he did not break bones, b on what was /b the knife b notched? /b It must have been on the hide. Why, then, is the slaughter valid? The Gemara answers: b Say /b that b it was notched on the neck bone /b after he competed slaughtering the animal.,The Gemara relates: b There was an incident, and Rav Yosef deemed as many as thirteen animals i tereifot /i /b when he discovered the knife was notched after slaughtering the final animal. The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav Yosef issue his ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, /b who holds that the concern is that the knife was notched by the animal’s hide, b and /b he ruled that b even the first /b animal is forbidden? The Gemara answers: b No, /b perhaps it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, /b who holds that the notch is attributed to the neck bone, b and /b they are all forbidden b except for the first /b animal., b And if you wish, say /b instead: b Actually, /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, as, if /b it were b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, since we attribute /b the notch to the neck bone as a leniency, b from where /b is it ascertained b that /b it is b on the neck bone of the first /b animal that b it was notched? Perhaps /b it is b on the neck bone of the last /b animal that b it was notched, /b and all of the animals are permitted., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: Rav Kahana requires an examination /b of the knife b between each and every /b act of slaughter. The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion did Rav Kahana issue his ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Huna, and /b he stated the i halakha /i b to invalidate /b the slaughter of b the first /b animal that he slaughtered if he discovers a notch in the knife? The Gemara answers: b No, /b perhaps it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥisda, /b according to the first of the two explanations of the ruling of Rav Yosef, who holds that if a notch is found it is attributed to the neck bone, b and /b examination of the knife is required b to validate /b the slaughter of b the next /b animal.,The Gemara raises an objection: b If so, /b and the reference is to the examination before slaughter, the knife b should require the examination of a /b Torah b scholar /b that was required by the Sages. The Gemara explains: There is no need for a Sage to examine the knife, based on the principle: The testimony of b one witness, /b in this case the slaughterer, b is deemed credible with regard to ritual matters. /b The Gemara challenges: b If so, even from the outset, /b examination of the knife by a Torah scholar should b also not /b be required. The Gemara explains: b Didn’t Rabbi Yoḥa say /b that the Sages b said to show /b the b knife to a /b Torah b scholar only due to /b the requirement to show b deference to the Sage? /b Once deference was shown before the initial slaughter, it is no longer necessary to do so.,§ Apropos the statement of Rav Huna that an animal during its lifetime exists with the presumptive status of prohibition, and therefore in cases of uncertainty whether the animal was properly slaughtered, one rules stringently and it is prohibited to eat its flesh, the Gemara asks: b From where is this matter that the Sages said: Establish /b the status of b the matter on /b the basis of b its presumptive status, /b derived?, b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yonatan said /b that b the verse states /b with regard to leprosy of houses that after a priest views a leprous mark: b “And the priest shall emerge from the house to the entrance of the house, and quarantine the house seven days” /b (Leviticus 14:38). The Gemara asks: How can the priest quarantine the house based on his viewing the leprous mark? b Perhaps as he was emerging and coming /b out of the house, the size of the leprous mark diminished and b it lacks /b the requisite b measure /b for leprosy. b Rather, is it not due to /b the fact b that we say: Establish /b the status of b the matter on /b the basis of b its presumptive status? /b , b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov objects to /b that proof: b And perhaps /b the verse is referring to a case b where /b the priest b emerged backward, as /b in that case, the priest b sees /b the leprous mark b as he emerges. /b , b Abaye said to him /b that there are b two refutations of /b that b statement. One /b is b that emerging backward is not called emerging, /b and the priest would not fulfill the verse “And the priest shall emerge from the house” by doing so. b And furthermore, /b in a case where the leprous mark is b behind the door, what is there to say? /b Even walking backward would not enable the priest to see it. b And if you would say that /b the priest can b open a window in /b the wall to enable him to see the leprous mark, b but didn’t we learn /b in a mishna ( i Nega’im /i 2:3): b In a dark house one may not open windows /b to enable him b to see his leprous mark? /b , b Rava said to /b Abaye: With regard to b that which you say: Emerging backward is not called emerging, /b the case of the b High Priest on Yom Kippur will prove /b that this is not so, b as emerging is written in his /b regard (see Leviticus 16:18), b and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Yoma /i 52b): The High Priest b emerged and came /b out backward in the b manner of his entry, /b facing the Ark in the Holy of Holies. b And /b with regard to b that which you say: In a dark house, one may not open windows /b to enable him b to see his leprous mark, this statement /b applies only in a case b where /b the existence of a leprous mark in the house b was not /b yet b established; /b but in a case b where /b the existence of a leprous mark in the house b was /b already b established, it was established, /b and the priest may open a window to view it., b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov, /b who suggested that the verse is referring to a case where the priest emerged from the house backward and therefore there is no proof that one lets the matter remain in its presumptive status. It is written: b “And the priest shall emerge from the house /b to the entrance of the house and quarantine the house.” One b might /b have thought that b he may go into his /b own b house and quarantine /b the house from there; therefore, b the verse states: “To the entrance of the house,” /b referring to the house that is being quarantined., b If /b he must emerge to b the entrance of the house, /b one b might /b have thought that b he may stand beneath the lintel and quarantine /b the house; therefore, b the verse states: “From the house,” /b indicating that he does not quarantine the house b until he emerges from the house in its entirety. How so? He stands alongside the lintel and quarantines /b the house.,The i baraita /i concludes: b And from where /b is it derived b that if he went inside his /b own b house and quarantined /b the leprous house, b or that /b if b he stood inside the /b leprous b house and quarantined /b it, b that his quarantine is /b a valid b quarantine? /b It is derived from that which b the verse states: “And quarantine the house,” /b meaning b in any case. /b Apparently, the quarantine is valid even if he is unable to see the leprous mark, as the mark remains in its previous presumptive status., b And Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov /b interprets the i baraita /i in accordance with his opinion |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 79| 6b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ואחד מתרה בו באמצע בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו עדות אחת ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה,רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים דבר אחר על פי שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביא אמר רב מנין לעדות מיוחדת שהיא פסולה שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) לא יומת על פי עד אחד מאי אחד אילימא עד אחד ממש מרישא שמעינן לה על פי שנים עדים אלא מאי אחד אחד אחד,תניא נמי הכי לא יומת על פי עד אחד להביא שנים שרואים אותו אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה ואין רואין זה את זה שאין מצטרפין ולא עוד אלא אפילו בזה אחר זה בחלון אחד אין מצטרפין,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי השתא ומה אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה דהאי קא חזי כולו מעשה והאי קא חזי כולו מעשה אמרת לא מצטרפי בזה אחר זה דהאי חזי פלגא דמעשה והאי חזי פלגא דמעשה מיבעיא א"ל לא נצרכא אלא לבועל את הערוה,אמר רבא אם היו רואין את המתרה או המתרה רואה אותן מצטרפין אמר רבא מתרה שאמרו אפילו מפי עצמו ואפילו מפי השד,אמר רב נחמן עדות מיוחדת כשירה בדיני ממונות דכתיב לא יומת על פי עד אחד בדיני נפשות הוא דאין כשירה אבל בדיני ממונות כשירה,מתקיף לה רב זוטרא אלא מעתה בדיני נפשות תציל אלמה תנן הוא והן נהרגין קשיא:,רבי יוסי אומר וכו': א"ל רב פפא לאביי ומי אית ליה לרבי יוסי האי סברא והתנן רבי יוסי אומר השונא נהרג מפני שהוא כמועד ומותרה,א"ל ההוא רבי יוסי בר יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד:,דבר אחר ע"פ שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן: הנהו לעוזי דאתו לקמיה דרבא אוקי רבא תורגמן בינייהו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן רבא מידע הוה ידע מה דהוו אמרי ואהדורי הוא דלא הוה ידע | 6b. strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where there b were two /b witnesses b observing /b an individual violating a capital transgression b from this window /b in a house, b and two observing him from that window /b in a house, b and one /b person was b forewarning /b the transgressor b in the middle /b between the two sets of witnesses, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. In a situation b where some of /b the witnesses observing from the two windows b see each other, /b the testimony of all b these /b witnesses constitutes b one testimony, but if /b they do b not /b see each other, the testimony of b these /b witnesses constitutes b two /b independent b testimonies. Therefore, /b as two independent sets of witnesses, b if one of /b the sets b was found /b to be a set of b conspiring /b witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both b he, /b the one accused of violating the capital transgression, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed, and the second /b set, whose testimony remained valid, b is exempt. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Transgressors b are never executed unless his two witnesses are /b the ones b forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses… /b he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. b Alternatively, /b from the phrase b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says /b that b Rav says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to disjointed testimony, /b in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, b that it is not valid? /b It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: b What /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? b If we say /b that it means b one witness literally, we learn it from the first /b portion of the verse: b “At the mouth of two witnesses,” /b indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. b Rather, what /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with b one /b witness here and b one /b witness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,” /b from which it is derived b to include /b the i halakha /i that in the case of b two /b witnesses b who observe /b an individual violating a capital transgression, b one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Moreover, even /b if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but b one after the other in one window, they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: /b Why is it necessary to mention both cases? b Now if /b in the case where b one /b witness views the incident b from this window and one /b witness views the incident b from that window, where this /b witness b sees the entire incident and that /b witness b sees the entire incident, you say /b that b they do not join /b to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident b one after the other, where this /b witness b sees half /b the b incident and that /b witness b sees half /b the b incident, /b is it b necessary /b to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye b said to him: /b It b is necessary /b to state this i halakha /i b only /b with regard b to /b a case where they witnessed one who b engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, /b which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The i tanna /i of the i baraita /i teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, b Rava says: /b Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, b if /b the witness in each window b sees the one who is forewarning /b the accused, b or /b if b the one who is forewarning /b the accused b could see /b the two disjointed witnesses, b they join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Rava says: /b The one b forewarning /b the accused of b whom /b the Sages b spoke /b need not be a third witness, but b even /b if the victim forewarns the murderer b from his own mouth, and even /b if the forewarning emerged b from the mouth of a demon, /b meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate., b Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony /b of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, b is valid in /b cases of b monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that b it is /b only b with regard to /b cases of b capital law that /b disjointed testimony b is not valid, but with regard to /b cases of b monetary law /b that testimony b is valid. /b , b Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so, /b and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, b in /b cases of b capital law /b disjointed testimony b should spare /b the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. b Why, /b then, b did we learn /b in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, b he, /b the accused, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed? /b The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is b difficult /b according to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of /b the opinion that b this /b line of b reasoning /b is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (9b): b Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy /b who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, b he is executed /b even if there was no forewarning, b due to /b the fact b that his /b halakhic status is b like /b that of one who is b cautioned and forewarned. /b Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye b said to him: That /b statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei b is /b actually the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A i ḥaver /i does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between /b one who commits a transgression b unwittingly and /b one who does so b intentionally. /b A i ḥaver /i , who is a Torah scholar, does not require forewarning to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, whose opinion is cited in the mishna here, is of the opinion that forewarning is a necessary prerequisite to executing someone who is judged liable, and that forewarning must be issued by the witnesses.,§ The mishna teaches: b Alternatively, /b from the phrase in the verse b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b The Gemara relates: There were b certain /b people who spoke b a foreign /b language b who came before Rava /b for judgment. b Rava installed an interpreter between them /b and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: b And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter? /b The Gemara answers: b Rava knew what they were saying, /b as he understood their language, b but he did not know /b how to b respond /b to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna. |
|
39. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 68| 47b. הכף,וכן היה רבי שמעון (בן יוחי) אומר שלשה סימנין נתנו חכמים באשה מלמטה וכנגדן מלמעלה פגה מלמעלה בידוע שלא הביאה שתי שערות בוחל מלמעלה בידוע שהביאה שתי שערות צמל מלמעלה בידוע שנתמעך הכף,מאי כף אמר רב הונא מקום תפוח יש למעלה מאותו מקום כיון שמגדלת מתמעך והולך שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי שלח להו כדברי כולן להחמיר,רב פפא ורב חיננא בריה דרב איקא חד מתני אהא וחד מתני אחצר צורית דתנן איזוהי חצר צורית שחייבת במעשר ר"ש אומר חצר הצורית שהכלים נשמרים בתוכה,מאי חצר הצורית אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן שכן בצור מושיבין שומר על פתח החצר ר"ע אומר כל שאחד פותח ואחד נועל פטורה,ר' נחמיה אומר כל שאין אדם בוש לאכול בתוכה חייבת רבי יוסי אומר כל שנכנסים לה ואין אומרים לו מה אתה מבקש פטורה,ר' יהודה אומר שתי חצרות זו לפנים מזו הפנימית חייבת והחיצונה פטורה,שאלו את רבי הלכה כדברי מי אמר להו הלכה כדברי כולן להחמיר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת עשרים שנה שלא הביאה שתי שערות תביא ראיה שהיא בת עשרים שנה והיא איילונית לא חולצת ולא מתיבמת,בן עשרים שנה שלא הביא שתי שערות יביאו ראיה שהוא בן עשרים שנה והוא סריס לא חולץ ולא מיבם אלו דברי בית הלל בית שמאי אומרים זה וזה בן שמונה עשרה,ר' אליעזר אומר הזכר כדברי בית הלל והנקבה כדברי בית שמאי שהאשה ממהרת לבא לפני האיש, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ורמינהי אחד לי בן תשע שנים ויום אחד ואחד לי בן עשרים שלא הביא שתי שערות,אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב והוא שנולדו בו סימני סריס אמר רבא דיקא נמי דקתני והוא סריס ש"מ,וכי לא נולדו לו סימני סריס עד כמה תני ר' חייא עד רוב שנותיו,כי אתו לקמיה דרבי חייא אי כחיש אמר להו אבריוה אי בריא אמר להו אכחשוה דהני סימנים זימנין דאתו מחמת כחישותא זימנין דאתו מחמת בריאותא,אמר רב הלכתא בכולי פרקא מעת לעת ועולא אמר דתנן תנן ודלא תנן לא תנן,בשלמא לעולא היינו דקתני הכא יום אחד והכא לא קתני אלא לרב ליתני,ועוד תני רבי יוסי בן כיפר אומר משום רבי אליעזר שנת עשרים שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת עשרים לכל דבריה וכן הורה רבי בלוד שנת שמנה עשרה שיצאו ממנה שלשים יום הרי היא כשנת שמנה עשרה לכל דבריה,בשלמא דרבי ודרבי יוסי בן כיפר לא קשיא הא כבית שמאי הא כבית הילל אלא לרב קשיא,תנאי היא דתניא שנה האמורה בקדשים שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה,שש שנים שבעבד עברי וכן שבבן ושבבת כולן מעת לעת,שנה האמורה בקדשים מנא לן אמר רב אחא בר יעקב אמר קרא (ויקרא יב, ו) כבש בן שנתו שנתו שלו ולא שנה של מנין עולם,שנה האמורה בבתי ערי חומה מנלן אמר קרא (ויקרא כה, כט) עד תום שנת ממכרו ממכרו שלו ולא שנת של מנין עולם שתי שנים שבשדה אחוזה מנלן אמר קרא {ויקרא כה } במספר | 47b. of b the protuberance above the womb, /b the mons pubis., b And Rabbi Shimon /b ben Yoḥai b would likewise say: The Sages provided three signs /b indicating puberty b in a woman below, /b i.e., near her vagina, b and /b they stated three b corresponding /b signs b above. /b If a woman has the signs of b an unripe fig above, it is known that she has not grown two /b pubic b hairs; /b if she has the signs of b a ripening fig above, it is known that she has grown two hairs; /b and if she has the signs of b a ripe fig above, it is known that the protuberance has softened. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What /b is this b protuberance? Rav Huna says: There is a swollen place /b in a woman’s body, b above that place, /b a euphemism for the vagina. It is initially hard, but b when /b a girl b grows it increasingly softens. /b The Sages b asked Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: With regard to the signs of maturity in woman, b in accordance with whose statement is the i halakha /i ? He sent them /b in response: The i halakha /i b is stringent in accordance with all of their statements, /b i.e., if any one of these signs mentioned by the Sages cited above appears in a girl, she must be treated as an adult with regard to all stringent aspects of this classification., b Rav Pappa and Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Ika, /b disagree about the context of this statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi that the i halakha /i is stringent in accordance with all of the Sages’ statements. b One /b of them b teaches /b it b with regard to this /b matter, of a woman’s signs of puberty, b and /b the other b one teaches /b it b with regard to /b the case of b a Tyrian courtyard, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Ma’asrot /i 3:5): b What is a Tyrian courtyard, which /b renders food brought inside it to be b required to be tithed? Rabbi Shimon says: A Tyrian courtyard /b is one b inside of which vessels are safe. /b ,The Sages discuss this mishna: b What /b is the meaning of b a Tyrian courtyard? Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The courtyard is called by this name b as /b the custom b in /b the city of b Tyre /b is to b place a watchman at the entrance of the courtyard /b to guard the articles inside. Consequently, any courtyard in which vessels are safe is called a Tyrian courtyard. b Rabbi Akiva says: /b In b any /b courtyard b where /b there is no permanent watchman who locks and unlocks it, but rather b one /b of its residents b opens /b the courtyard b and /b another b one locks /b it, e.g., a courtyard shared by several partners, each of whom can do as he chooses without asking the other, the produce inside it is b exempt /b from the obligation of separating tithe, as such a courtyard is not considered one in which vessels are safe., b Rabbi Neḥemya says: Any /b courtyard b which /b is hidden from the gaze of outsiders, and therefore b a person is not ashamed to eat inside it, /b that courtyard renders produce inside it b obligated /b to have tithe separated from it. b Rabbi Yosei says: Any /b courtyard b that /b one who does not live there b can enter it, and /b the residents b do not say to him: What do you want /b here, produce inside such a courtyard is b exempt /b from tithe., b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b If there are b two courtyards, one within the other, /b positioned in such a manner that the residents of the inner courtyard cannot enter their houses without passing through the outer courtyard, whereas the residents of the outer courtyard do not traverse the inner one, b the inner /b courtyard renders any produce located inside it b obligated /b to have tithe separated from it, b but /b produce located in b the outer /b courtyard is b exempt /b from tithe. It is not safe, as residents of a different courtyard pass freely through it.,According to the opinion of one of the i amora’im /i mentioned above, i.e., either Rav Pappa or Rav Ḥina, son of Rav Ika, it was with regard to this issue that the Sages b asked Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi: b In accordance with whose statement is the i halakha /i ? He said to them: The i halakha /i is stringent in accordance with all of /b the Sages’ b statements. /b In other words, with regard to any courtyard in which produce must be tithed according to any of these opinions, the i halakha /i is that tithe must be separated from this produce., strong MISHNA: /strong A girl twelve years and one day old who grew two pubic hairs is classified as a young woman. Six months later, she becomes a grown woman. But a woman who is b twenty years old who did not grow two /b pubic b hairs /b and was never classified as a young woman b shall bring proof that she is twenty years old, and /b from that point forward b she /b assumes the status of b a sexually underdeveloped woman [ i ailonit /i ], /b who is incapable of bearing children. If she married and her husband died childless, b she neither performs i ḥalitza /i nor does she enter into levirate marriage, /b as the mitzva of levirate marriage applies only to a woman capable of conceiving a child. An i ailonit /i is excluded from that mitzva.,In the case of a man who is b twenty years old who did not grow two /b pubic b hairs, they shall bring proof that he is twenty years old and he /b assumes the status of b a sexually underdeveloped man [ i saris /i ], /b who is excluded from the mitzva of levirate marriage. Therefore, if his married brother dies childless, b he neither performs i ḥalitza /i nor enters into levirate marriage /b with his i yevama /i . b This is the statement of Beit Hillel. Beit Shammai say: /b For both b this /b case of a woman b and that /b case of a man, they shall bring proof that they are b eighteen years old, /b and they assume the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman and man respectively., b Rabbi Eliezer says: /b The status of b the male /b is determined b in accordance with the statement of Beit Hillel, /b i.e., he assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped man at the age of twenty; b and /b the status of b the female /b is determined b in accordance with the statement of Beit Shammai, /b i.e., she assumes the status of a sexually underdeveloped woman at the age of eighteen. The reason is b that the woman is quick to reach /b physical maturity, and reaches that stage b before the man /b reaches physical maturity., strong GEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that a sexually underdeveloped man does not enter into levirate marriage with the widow of his childless brother. b And /b the Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from another mishna ( i Yevamot /i 96b): A boy who is b nine years and one day old, /b who has not developed two hairs, b and /b a man who is b twenty years old who has not grown two hairs, are one and the same to me /b with regard to levirate marriage, in that if they engaged in intercourse with the widow of their childless brother, this levirate marriage is partially effective, to the extent that this woman requires both a bill of divorce and i ḥalitza /i ., b Rav Shmuel bar Yitzḥak says /b that b Rav says /b in explanation of the ruling of the mishna here: b And this /b i halakha /i applies only in a case b where he developed /b physical b signs of a sexually underdeveloped man /b (see i Yevamot /i 80b) by the age of twenty. By contrast, the mishna in i Yevamot /i is referring to one who did not develop signs of a sexually underdeveloped man. b Rava said: /b The language of the mishna b is also precise, as it teaches: And he is a sexually underdeveloped man, /b which indicates that he had already developed physical signs of such a condition. The Gemara concludes: b Conclude from it /b that this is the correct interpretation of the mishna.,The Gemara asks a question with regard to the i halakha /i itself: b And /b in a case b where he does not develop the signs of a sexually underdeveloped man, until what /b age is he considered a minor? b Rabbi Ḥiyya teaches: Until most of his years /b have passed, i.e., until he reaches the age of thirty-five, halfway to seventy, which is the standard length of a person’s life.,The Gemara relates: b When /b people b would come before Rabbi Ḥiyya /b to inquire about someone who had reached the age of puberty but had not yet developed the physical signs of maturity, b if /b the person in question was b thin, he /b would b say to them: Go /b and b fatten him /b up before we decide on his status. b If /b he was b fat, /b Rabbi Ḥiyya would b say to them: Go /b and b make him thin. As these signs /b indicating puberty b sometimes come due to thinness /b and b sometimes they come due to fatness. /b It is therefore possible that after his bodily shape is properly adjusted this individual will develop the signs indicating puberty and will not have the status of a sexually underdeveloped man.,§ b Rav said: The i halakha /i in /b this b entire chapter /b with regard to all of the places where an age is mentioned in years is that even when the phrase: And one day, is not explicitly noted, they are all calculated b from /b the b time /b of year of birth b until /b that same b time /b of year in the age specified. b And Ulla said: /b With regard to cases b where we learned /b in the mishna a quantity of years including the phrase: And one day, b we learned /b that the reference is to full years; b and /b with regard to cases b where we did not learn /b this phrase, i.e., where a quantity of years is mentioned in the mishna without the phrase: And one day, b we did not learn /b it, and part of the final year is equivalent to a whole year.,The Gemara discusses these two opinions. b Granted, according to Ulla, this /b is the reason b that /b the i tanna /i b teaches there, /b in previous i mishnayot /i (44b, 45a, 45b): And b one day; and here, /b in this mishna, the i tanna /i b does not teach /b this phrase. b But according to Rav, let /b the i tanna /i be consistent and b teach /b this phrase in all cases, including the mishna here., b And furthermore, it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer /b with regard to the i halakhot /i of a sexually underdeveloped man and a sexually underdeveloped woman: b The twentieth year, of which thirty days have passed, /b i.e., from the age of nineteen and thirty days, b is /b considered b like the twentieth year in all regards; and Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b similarly issued /b a practical b ruling /b of i halakha /i b in /b the city of b Lod, /b that b the eighteenth year of which thirty days have passed is /b considered b like the eighteenth year in all regards. /b , b Granted, /b according to the opinion of Ulla, it is b not difficult that Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi is referring to the eighteenth year whereas b Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar /b discusses the twentieth year, as b this /b statement of Rabbi Yehuda HaNasi is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Shammai /b with regard to the age of a sexually underdeveloped woman, and b that /b statement of Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Beit Hillel. But according to /b the opinion of b Rav, /b who maintains that full years are required for a sexually underdeveloped man or woman, this i baraita /i poses b a difficulty. /b ,The Gemara answers that this matter b is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i , /b and Rav maintains in accordance with the opinion that full years are required. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : Full years are required with regard to the period of one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals, e.g., “a lamb in its first year” (Leviticus 12:6); the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities, /b during which one can redeem a house he has sold in a walled city (see Leviticus 25:29); and the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field, /b during which one cannot yet redeem an ancestral field he has sold (see Leviticus 25:15).,The b six years /b stated b with regard to a Hebrew slave /b (see Exodus 21:2) b and similarly /b the years b of a son and of a daughter, /b as will be explained, b all of /b these are years b from /b the b time /b of the first year b until /b that same b time /b of year in the year specified, i.e., these periods are units of whole years instead of expiring on predetermined dates, as at the end of the calendar year. This supports the opinion of Rav that the years mentioned with regard to a sexually underdeveloped man or woman are full years.,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive that the one b year stated with regard to sacrificial /b animals is calculated by whole years and not by calendar years? b Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said /b that b the verse states: “A lamb in its first year” /b (Leviticus 12:6). Since the verse does not state: A one-year-old lamb, it means b a year /b based on calculation of b its /b life, b and not a year of the universal count, /b i.e., the calendar year.,The Gemara further asks: b From where do we /b derive the i halakha /i that the one b year stated with regard to houses of walled cities /b is calculated by a whole year and not by calendar year? b The verse states: /b “Then he may redeem it b within a whole year after it is sold, /b for a full year he shall have the right of redemption” (Leviticus 25:29). The verse is referring to a year counted from the day b of its /b own b sale, and not the year of the universal count. From where do we /b derive that the b two years /b stated b with regard to an ancestral field /b are whole years? b The verse states: /b “According the number of years after the Jubilee you shall buy from your neighbor, and b according to the number /b |
|
40. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 84| 71a. חייב:,אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיאכל בשר וישתה יין: תנו רבנן אכל כל מאכל ולא אכל בשר שתה כל משקה ולא שתה יין אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיאכל בשר וישתה יין שנאמר זולל וסובא,ואע"פ שאין ראייה לדבר זכר לדבר שנאמר (משלי כג, כ) אל תהי בסובאי יין בזוללי בשר למו ואומר (משלי כג, כא) כי סובא וזולל יורש וקרעים תלביש נומה אמר ר' זירא כל הישן בבית המדרש תורתו נעשית לו קרעים קרעים שנאמר וקרעים תלביש נומה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big גנב משל אביו ואכל ברשות אביו משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אחרים משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אביו אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיגנוב משל אביו ויאכל ברשות אחרים רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר עד שיגנוב משל אביו ומשל אמו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big גנב משל אביו ואכל ברשות אביו אע"ג דשכיח ליה בעית,משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אחרים אע"ג דלא בעית לא שכיח ליה וכל שכן משל אחרים ואכל ברשות אביו דלא שכיח ליה ובעית,עד שיגנוב משל אביו ויאכל ברשות אחרים דשכיח ליה ולא בעית:,רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר עד שיגנוב משל אביו ומשל אמו: אמו מנא לה מה שקנתה אשה קנה בעלה אמר רבי יוסי בר' חנינא מסעודה המוכנת לאביו ולאמו,והאמר רבי חנן בר מולדה אמר רב הונא אינו חייב עד שיקנה בשר בזול ויאכל יין בזול וישתה אלא אימא מדמי סעודה המוכנת לאביו ולאמו,איבעית אימא דאקני לה אחר ואמר לה על מנת שאין לבעליך רשות בהן:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היה אביו רוצה ואמו אינה רוצה אביו אינו רוצה ואמו רוצה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה עד שיהו שניהם רוצין רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו ראויה לאביו אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי אינה ראויה אילימא חייבי כריתות וחייבי מיתות ב"ד סוף סוף אבוה אבוה נינהו ואמיה אמיה נינהו,אלא בשוה לאביו קאמר תניא נמי הכי רבי יהודה אומר אם לא היתה אמו שוה לאביו בקול ובמראה ובקומה אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה מאי טעמא דאמר קרא איננו שומע בקלנו מדקול בעינן שוין מראה וקומה נמי בעינן שוין,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא בן סורר ומורה לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כרבי יהודה,איבעית אימא ר' שמעון היא דתניא אמר רבי שמעון וכי מפני שאכל זה תרטימר בשר ושתה חצי לוג יין האיטלקי אביו ואמו מוציאין אותו לסקלו אלא לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר אמר ר' יונתן אני ראיתיו וישבתי על קברו,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא עיר הנדחת לא היתה ולא עתידה להיות ולמה נכתבה דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר' אליעזר דתניא רבי אליעזר אומר כל עיר שיש בה אפילו מזוזה אחת אינה נעשית עיר הנדחת,מאי טעמא אמר קרא (דברים יג, יז) ואת כל שללה תקבוץ אל תוך רחבה ושרפת באש וכיון דאי איכא מזוזה לא אפשר דכתיב (דברים יב, ד) לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם אמר רבי יונתן אני ראיתיה וישבתי על תילה,כמאן אזלא הא דתניא בית המנוגע לא היה ולא עתיד להיות ולמה נכתב דרוש וקבל שכר כמאן כר' אלעזר בר' שמעון דתנן ר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון אומר לעולם אין הבית טמא עד שיראה כשתי גריסין על שתי אבנים בשתי כתלים בקרן זוית ארכו כשני גריסין ורחבו כגריס,מאי טעמא דר' אלעזר ברבי שמעון כתיב קיר וכתיב קירות איזהו קיר שהוא כקירות הוי אומר זה קרן זוית,תניא אמר רבי אליעזר בר' צדוק מקום היה בתחום עזה והיו קורין אותו חורבתא סגירתא אמר רבי שמעון איש כפר עכו פעם אחת הלכתי לגליל וראיתי מקום שמציינין אותו ואמרו אבנים מנוגעות פינו לשם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היה אחד מהם גידם או חיגר או אלם או סומא או חרש אינו נעשה בן סורר ומורה שנאמר (דברים כא, יט) ותפשו בו אביו ואמו ולא גדמין והוציאו אותו ולא חגרין ואמרו ולא אלמין בננו זה ולא סומין איננו שומע בקולנו ולא חרשין,מתרין בו בפני שלשה ומלקין אותו חזר וקלקל נדון בעשרים ושלשה ואינו נסקל עד שיהו שם שלשה הראשונים שנאמר בננו זה זהו שלקה בפניכם:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big שמעת מינה בעינן קרא כדכתיב שאני הכא | 71a. he is b liable /b for entering the Temple while intoxicated.,§ The mishna teaches that the boy b does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he /b actually b eats meat and drinks wine. The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : If b he ate any /b other b food but did not eat meat, /b or if b he drank any /b other b beverage but did not drink wine, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son unless he /b actually b eats meat and drinks wine, as it is stated: /b “This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is b a glutton and a drunkard.” /b , b And although there is no /b explicit b proof to the matter, /b there is b an allusion to the matter /b in another verse, b as it is stated: “Be not among wine drinkers, among gluttonous eaters of meat” /b (Proverbs 23:20). b And /b the verse b states: “For the drunkard and the glutton shall come to poverty, and drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags” /b (Proverbs 23:21). That is to say, a person who is a glutton and a drunkard, and sleeps a lot due to his excessive eating and drinking, will end up poor and dressed in rags. b Rabbi Zeira /b expounds the same verse and b says: /b With regard to b anyone who sleeps in the study hall, his Torah shall become tattered, as it is stated: “And drowsiness shall clothe a man with rags.” /b , strong MISHNA: /strong If b he stole that /b which belonged b to his father and ate on his father’s property, /b or he stole that which belonged b to others and ate on the property of others, /b or he stole that which belonged b to others and ate on his father’s property, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless he steals /b that which belonged b to his father and eats on the property of others. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: /b He does not become a stubborn and rebellious son b unless he steals /b that which belonged b to his father and /b that which belonged b to his mother. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara explains the reasons for the various i halakhot /i taught in the mishna: If b he stole /b that which belonged b to his father and ate on his father’s property, even though this is accessible to him /b and it is easy for him to steal, b he is afraid /b that his father will see him eating what he had stolen, and therefore he will not be drawn after his action to further evil.,If he stole that which belonged b to others and ate on the property of others, even though he is not afraid /b of them, as they neither know him nor watch over him, this theft b is not /b easily b accessible to him, /b as it is performed on someone else’s property, and therefore he will not be drawn to additional sin. b And all the more so /b if he stole that which belonged b to others and ate on his father’s property, /b in b which /b case b it is not accessible to him, and he is /b also b afraid /b of his father.,Therefore, he is not liable b unless he steals /b that which belonged b to his father and eats on the property of others, /b in b which /b case b it is /b easily b accessible to him, and he is not afraid, /b and there is concern that he will be drawn after his action to additional sin.,The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says /b that he is not liable as a stubborn and rebellious son b unless he steals /b that which belonged b to his father and /b that which belonged b to his mother. /b The Gemara asks: With regard to b his mother, from where does she have /b independently owned property that her son can steal? The basis for this question is the i halakha /i that b anything that a woman acquires is acquired by her husband. Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says /b in answer to this question: The mishna is referring to a case where the boy stole food b from a meal that had been prepared for his father and for his mother. /b In such a case the husband grants his wife ownership of the food that she will eat over the course of her meal.,The Gemara raises a difficulty. b But doesn’t Rabbi Ḥa bar Molada say /b that b Rav Huna says: /b A stubborn and rebellious son b is not liable unless he purchases inexpensive meat and eats /b it, and he purchases b inexpensive wine and drinks /b it, which indicates that he becomes liable only if he steals money, not if he steals the actual meat and wine? b Rather, say /b that the boy stole b from money /b set aside b for a meal that was to be prepared for his father and for his mother. /b ,The Gemara presents another answer to the question posed concerning the opinion of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda: b If you wish, say /b instead b that another /b person b gave /b property b to /b the mother b and said to her: /b This shall be yours b on the condition that your husband shall have no right to it. /b In such a case, the woman acquires the property for herself and her husband does not acquire it. Therefore, it is possible for the son to steal from his mother’s property., strong MISHNA: /strong If b his father wishes /b to have him punished b but his mother does not wish /b that, or if b his father does not wish /b to have him punished b but his mother wishes /b that, b he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, unless they both wish /b that he be punished. b Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not suited for his father, /b the two being an inappropriate match, as the Gemara will explain, b he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: b What /b does Rabbi Yehuda mean when he speaks of the mother as being b not suited /b for the father? b If we say /b that due to their union they are among b those who are liable to /b receive b i karet /i , /b in which case the marriage does not take effect, b and /b certainly if the union puts them in the category of b those who are liable to /b receive one of the types of b court- /b imposed b death /b penalty, in which case the marriage also does not take effect, there is a difficulty: Why should it matter if they are not married? b Ultimately, his father is /b still b his father and his mother is /b still b his mother, /b and the verses concerning the stubborn and rebellious son can be fulfilled., b Rather, /b Rabbi Yehuda b is saying /b that the boy’s mother must be b identical to his father /b in several aspects. The Gemara comments: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda says: If his mother was not identical to his father in voice, appearance, and height, he does not become a stubborn and rebellious son. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for this? b As the verse states: “He will not obey our voices /b [ b i kolenu /i /b ]” (Deuteronomy 21:20), which indicates that they both have the same voice. And b since we require /b that they be b identical /b in b voice, we also require /b that they be b identical /b in b appearance and height. /b ,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There has never been a stubborn and rebellious son and there will never be /b one b in the future, /b as it is impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this i halakha /i . b And why, /b then, b was /b the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son b written /b in the Torah? So that b you may expound /b upon new understandings of the Torah b and receive reward /b for your learning, this being an aspect of the Torah that has only theoretical value. b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who requires that the parents have certain identical characteristics, making it virtually impossible to apply the i halakha /i ., b If you wish, say /b instead that this i baraita /i b is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Shimon. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon says: And is it /b simply b due to /b the fact b that /b the boy b ate a i tarteimar /i of meat and drank a half- i log /i of Italian wine /b that b his father and his mother shall take him out to stone him? Rather, there has never been /b a stubborn and rebellious son b and there will never be /b one b in the future. And why, /b then, b was /b the passage relating to a stubborn and rebellious son b written /b in the Torah? So that b you may expound /b upon new understandings of the Torah b and receive reward /b for your learning. b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b This is not so, as b I saw /b one. I was once in a place where a stubborn and rebellious son was condemned to death, b and I /b even b sat on his grave /b after he was executed.,The Gemara raises a similar question: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There has never been an idolatrous city and there will never be /b one b in the future, /b as it is virtually impossible to fulfill all the requirements that must be met in order to apply this i halakha /i . b And why, /b then, b was /b the passage relating to an idolatrous city b written /b in the Torah? So that b you may expound /b upon new understandings of the Torah b and receive reward /b for your learning. b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: Any city that has even one i mezuza /i /b or any other sacred scroll b cannot become an idolatrous city. /b It is difficult to imagine an entire city without even one i mezuza /i .,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that a city that has even one i mezuza /i cannot become an idolatrous city? The Gemara answers: b The verse states: “And you shall gather all the spoil of it into the midst of the open space of the city, and shall burn with fire /b both the city and the entire plunder taken in it” (Deuteronomy 13:17). b And since if there is a i mezuza /i /b there b it is impossible /b to burn all the contents of the city, b as it is written: /b “And you shall overthrow their altars, and break their pillars, and burn their i asherim /i with fire… b This you shall not do so to the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 12:3–4). It is derived from this verse that it is prohibited to destroy a sacred item such as a i mezuza /i . Therefore, in a city that has even one i mezuza /i , it is impossible to fulfill the i halakhot /i of an idolatrous city, as not all of its contents may be burned. b Rabbi Yonatan says: /b This is not so, as b I /b once b saw /b an idolatrous city that was condemned to destruction, b and I /b even b sat on its ruins. /b ,The Gemara asks another similar question: b In accordance with whose /b opinion b is that which is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b There has never been a house afflicted /b with leprosy of the house b and there will never be /b one b in the future. And why, /b then, b was /b the passage relating to leprosy of the house b written /b in the Torah? So that b you may expound /b upon new understandings of the Torah b and receive reward /b for your learning. b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Nega’im /i 12:3) that b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, says: A house never becomes impure /b with leprosy b until /b a mark b about the size of two split beans is seen on two stones in two walls /b that form b a corner /b between them, the mark being b about two split beans in length and about one split bean in width. /b It is difficult to imagine that such a precise situation will ever occur.,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b for the statement b of Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, /b that a house does not become impure unless it has a mark precisely in the corner? The verse states: “And he shall look at the leprous mark, and, behold, if the leprous mark be in the walls of the house, in greenish or reddish depressions, which in sight are lower than the wall” (Leviticus 14:37). In one part of the verse b it is written “wall,” and /b in another part of the verse b it is written “walls.” Which wall is like /b two b walls? You must say this is a corner. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Eliezer, son of Rabbi Tzadok, says: There was a place in the area of Gaza, and it was called the leprous ruin; /b that is to say, it was the ruin of a house that had been afflicted with leprosy. Apparently, then, leprosy of the house has existed. b Rabbi Shimon of the village of Akko said: I once went to the Galilee and I saw a place that was being marked off /b as an impure place, b and they said /b that b stones afflicted /b with leprosy b were cast there. /b This too indicates that a house afflicted with leprosy has existed., strong MISHNA: /strong b If one of /b the parents b was without hands, or lame, or mute, or blind, or deaf, /b their son b does not become a stubborn and rebellious son, as it is stated: /b “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him, and bring him out to the elders of his city and to the gate of his place. And they shall say to the elders of his city: This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voices; he is a glutton and a drunkard” (Deuteronomy 21:19–20). The Sages derive: b “Then shall his father and his mother lay hold of him,” but not /b people b without hands, /b who cannot do this. b “And bring him out,” but not lame people, /b who cannot walk. b “And they shall say,” but not mutes. “This son of ours,” but not blind people, /b who cannot point to their son and say “this.” b “He will not obey our voices,” but not deaf people, /b who cannot hear whether or not he declined to obey them.,After he is brought before the elders of the city, b he is admonished before three /b people b and /b then b they flog him /b for having stolen. If b he sins again, he is judged by /b a court of b twenty-three /b judges, b but he is not stoned unless the first three /b judges before whom he had been flogged b are /b present b there, as it is stated: “This son of ours,” this is /b the son b who was /b already b flogged before you. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara draws a conclusion from the mishna: b You /b can b learn from /b the mishna that b we require /b that b a verse /b be fulfilled precisely b as it is written, /b in strict conformity with its literal sense, and not in looser or more expansive fashion. The Gemara rejects this suggestion: There is no proof from here. b Here it is different, /b |
|
41. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three •court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 28| 56a. בכותל רעוע,אמר מר הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה היכי דמי אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה בדיני אדם נמי נחייב אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה,ורב אשי אמר טמון אתמר משום דשויה טמון באש:,אמר מר השוכר עדי שקר ה"ד אילימא לנפשיה ממונא בעי שלומי ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא לחבריה,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבי תרי פשיטא דאורייתא הוא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו,אלא בחד,ותו ליכא והאיכא (סימן העושה בסם ושליח חבירו נשבר) העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא הנותן סם המות בפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא נשברה כדו ברה"ר ולא סלקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה ר"מ מחייב בהזיקן וחכ"א פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,אין מיהא איכא טובא והני אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו מהו דתימא כיון דלמסתריה קאי מה עביד בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הכופף קמתו של חבירו נמי מהו דתימא לימא מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,ולרב אשי דאמר נמי טמון איתמר מהו דתימא אנא כסויי כסיתיה ניהלך ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והשוכר עדי שקר נמי מהו דתימא לימא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו נמי מהו דתימא מי יימר דכי הוה (אתינא) מסהדינא ליה הוה מודה דלמא הוה משתבע לשקרא ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:,נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים כו': אמר רבה והוא שחתרה,אבל לא חתרה מאי חייב היכי דמי אילימא בכותל בריא כי לא חתרה אמאי חייב מאי ה"ל למעבד אלא בכותל רעוע כי חתרה אמאי פטור תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא,הניחא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור אלא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב מאי איכא למימר,אלא מתני' בכותל בריא ואפילו לא חתרה וכי איתמר דרבה אסיפא איתמר הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצתה והזיקה חייב אמר רבה ואפי' חתרה,לא מבעיא היכא דלא חתרה דכולה בפשיעה הוא אלא אפי' חתרה נמי מהו דתימא הויא לה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס קמ"ל דכולה פשיעה היא,מ"ט דאמר ליה מידע ידעת דכיון דשבקתה בחמה כל טצדקא דאית לה למיעבד עבדא ונפקא:,הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין: | 56a. the i baraita /i is speaking b of an unstable wall /b that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who bends another’s standing /b grain b before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the fire would b reach /b the bent grain b in a typical wind, let him /b also b be liable /b for the damage according to b human laws. Rather, /b it must be a case b where /b the fire could b reach /b the bent grain only b in an atypical wind. /b Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And Rav Ashi /b offered an alternative explanation and b said: /b The i baraita /i b was stated /b in the case of b a concealed /b item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item b because he made it into a concealed /b item that was subsequently damaged by b fire, /b and the owner cannot reclaim his loss., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that he hired them b for his own /b benefit, in order to extract payment from another, b he is required to reimburse /b that person with b money, and he is liable according to human laws /b for receiving money under false circumstances. b Rather, /b the case is one where he hired false witnesses b for /b the benefit of b another. /b In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. b With what /b circumstances b are we dealing? If we say /b that the case b involves two /b people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it b is obvious /b that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression b by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the i baraita /i to mention this case., b Rather, /b the case of the i baraita /i b concerns a single /b witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b And is there nothing else, /b i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? b But there is /b such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the i baraita /i the Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device: b One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. /b The Gemara returns to the first case: One b who performs labor with water of purification, /b which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, b or /b who performs labor b with the /b red b heifer of purification, /b invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the damage he caused is not evident, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven, /b as he caused a ficial loss.,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the following i halakha /i : With regard to b one who places poison before another’s animal, /b and the animal eats it and dies, he is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the animal caused its own death, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who sends /b an exposed b flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who frightens another /b without touching him, but causes him injury; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of one b whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove /b the broken pieces, or one b whose camel fell and he did not stand it up /b again. b Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner of jug or of the camel b liable /b for the damage thereby caused to others, b and the Rabbis say that /b he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the i baraita /i that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, there are, in any event, many /b other cases, b but /b Rabbi Yehoshua held that it b was necessary for him /b to state the i halakha /i of b these /b four cases. The reason he stated them is b lest you say /b that in these cases b one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara explains why one might have thought that there is no liability at all for each case in the i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who breaches a fence /b that stood b before another’s animal, /b thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Since /b the fence b is about to collapse /b even without this person’s intervention, b what did /b he really b do? /b Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who bends another’s standing /b grain is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Let /b the one who bent the grain b say /b to the owner: b Did I know that an atypical wind would come /b and cause the fire to spread? Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And according to Rav Ashi, who said /b that Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling b was stated /b with regard to the case of b a concealed /b item, Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned liability according to the laws of Heaven b lest you say /b that the one who concealed the item could say: b I covered it for you /b in order to protect it from the fire. Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And /b Rabbi Yehoshua taught that there is liability b also /b in the case of b one who hires false witnesses, lest you say: Let /b the one who hired them b say: /b If the witnesses hear b the statement of the teacher, /b i.e., God, Who prohibited giving false testimony, b and the statement of the student, /b i.e., the one who hired them, b to whose statement /b should they b listen? /b Although the one who hired them encouraged these witnesses to sin, ultimately it was they who transgressed by not adhering to the instructions of God. b And /b based on this logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who knows testimony /b in support b of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say /b that the witness could claim: b Who says that had I come forward /b and b testified on behalf of /b one litigant, the other litigant b would admit /b liability? b Perhaps he would have /b chosen to b take a false oath /b and absolve himself. Based on that logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pen b was breached at night, or bandits breached it, /b and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage, the owner of the sheep is exempt. b Rabba says: And this /b first instance of a pen that was breached is referring specifically to a case b where /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall of the pen and by doing so caused the wall to collapse. In that case, the owner is completely blameless and therefore exempt from liability for any damage that ensues.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Would the owner be b liable? What are the circumstances? If we say /b that the pen had b a stable wall, /b then even b if /b the animal b did not tunnel, why /b is the owner b liable? What should he have done? /b Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage. b Rather, /b the pen had b an unstable wall. /b The Gemara asks: Even b if /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall and knocked it down, b why /b is he b exempt? /b The damage in this case is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. /b , b This works out well according to the one who said /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b he is b exempt /b from liability, since the ultimate cause of the damage was not his fault. b But according to the one who says /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident /b he is b liable, /b as even without the accident his negligence could have caused damage, b what is there to say? /b , b Rather, /b the case of b the mishna concerns a stable wall, and even /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall the owner is exempt. b And when /b the statement b of Rabba was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna that says: If the owner b left /b the animal b in the sun or conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and /b the animal b went out and caused damage, /b the owner is b liable. /b Concerning this b Rabba stated: And /b the owner is liable b even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out under the wall of the pen.,The Gemara explains: b It is not necessary /b for the mishna to mention the case b where the animal did not tunnel /b its way out. In that case the owner is clearly liable, since b the entire /b incident occurred due to his b negligence /b of leaving the animal in the sun, thereby causing it distress and leading it to attempt escape by any possible means. b But even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out, the owner is liable, and this is the novelty in this ruling: b Lest you say /b that b this is /b a case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b because animals do not typically tunnel their way out of a pen, the mishna b teaches us that /b it is considered as though b the entire /b damage resulted from the owner’s b negligence. /b , b What is the reason /b that the owner is liable? It is b that /b the one who suffered the damage b can say to /b the owner of the sheep: b You should have known that since you left it in the sun, it would utilize any means [ i tatzdeka /i ] available for it to use and /b it would b escape, /b so you are ultimately responsible for the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the b bandits /b themselves b took /b the sheep b out, the bandits are liable. /b |
|
| 42. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 15.20 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 25 |
| 43. Anon., Midrash Tannaim To Deut, 17.15 Tagged with subjects: •court, of three Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 40 |
