1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 25.13-25.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 25.13. לֹא־יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּכִיסְךָ אֶבֶן וָאָבֶן גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה׃ 25.14. לֹא־יִהְיֶה לְךָ בְּבֵיתְךָ אֵיפָה וְאֵיפָה גְּדוֹלָה וּקְטַנָּה׃ 25.15. אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה־לָּךְ אֵיפָה שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה־לָּךְ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכוּ יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃ 25.16. כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה כֹּל עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל׃ | 25.13. Thou shalt not have in thy bag diverse weights, a great and a small." 25.14. Thou shalt not have in thy house diverse measures, a great and a small." 25.15. A perfect and just weight shalt thou have; a perfect and just measure shalt thou have; that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee." 25.16. For all that do such things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God." |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.1-14.32, 19.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 12.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 12.1. וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל־מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת׃ 12.1. וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃ | 12.1. And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman." |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 15.27, 20.19, 28.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 11.13. הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃ 15.27. עֹכֵר בֵּיתוֹ בּוֹצֵעַ בָּצַע וְשׂוֹנֵא מַתָּנֹת יִחְיֶה׃ 20.19. גּוֹלֶה־סּוֹד הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו לֹא תִתְעָרָב׃ 28.16. נָגִיד חֲסַר תְּבוּנוֹת וְרַב מַעֲשַׁקּוֹת שנאי [שֹׂנֵא] בֶצַע יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים׃ | 11.13. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter." 15.27. He that is greedy of gain troubleth his own house; But he that hateth gifts shall live." 20.19. He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips." 28.16. The prince that lacketh understanding is also a great oppressor; But he that hateth covetousness shall prolong his days." |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 92.1-92.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 92.1. כִּי הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יְהוָה כִּי־הִנֵּה אֹיְבֶיךָ יֹאבֵדוּ יִתְפָּרְדוּ כָּל־פֹּעֲלֵי אָוֶן׃ 92.1. מִזְמוֹר שִׁיר לְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת׃ 92.2. טוֹב לְהֹדוֹת לַיהוָה וּלְזַמֵּר לְשִׁמְךָ עֶלְיוֹן׃ | 92.1. A Psalm, a Song. For the sabbath day." 92.2. It is a good thing to give thanks unto the LORD, And to sing praises unto Thy name, O Most High;" |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Habakkuk, 2.9 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)
| 2.9. הוֹי בֹּצֵעַ בֶּצַע רָע לְבֵיתוֹ לָשׂוּם בַּמָּרוֹם קִנּוֹ לְהִנָּצֵל מִכַּף־רָע׃ | 2.9. Woe to him that gaineth evil gains for his house, That he may set his nest on high, That he may be delivered from the power of evil!" |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 6.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 6.13. כִּי מִקְּטַנָּם וְעַד־גְּדוֹלָם כֻּלּוֹ בּוֹצֵעַ בָּצַע וּמִנָּבִיא וְעַד־כֹּהֵן כֻּלּוֹ עֹשֶׂה שָּׁקֶר׃ | 6.13. For from the least of them even unto the greatest of them Every one is greedy for gain; And from the prophet even unto the priest Every one dealeth falsely." |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 42.20 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)
| 42.20. He measured it by the four sides; it had a wall round about, the length five hundred, and the breadth five hundred, to make a separation between that which was holy and that which was common." |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 29.21 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)
| 29.21. וַיָּבִיאוּ פָרִים־שִׁבְעָה וְאֵילִים שִׁבְעָה וּכְבָשִׂים שִׁבְעָה וּצְפִירֵי עִזִּים שִׁבְעָה לְחַטָּאת עַל־הַמַּמְלָכָה וְעַל־הַמִּקְדָּשׁ וְעַל־יְהוּדָה וַיֹּאמֶר לִבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן הַכֹּהֲנִים לְהַעֲלוֹת עַל־מִזְבַּח יְהוָה׃ | 29.21. And they brought seven bullocks, and seven rams, and seven lambs, and seven he-goats, for a sin-offering for the kingdom and for the sanctuary and for Judah. And he commanded the priests the sons of Aaron to offer them on the altar of the LORD." |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 10.30-10.32 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)
| 10.31. וַאֲשֶׁר לֹא־נִתֵּן בְּנֹתֵינוּ לְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ וְאֶת־בְּנֹתֵיהֶם לֹא נִקַּח לְבָנֵינוּ׃ 10.32. וְעַמֵּי הָאָרֶץ הַמְבִיאִים אֶת־הַמַּקָּחוֹת וְכָל־שֶׁבֶר בְּיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת לִמְכּוֹר לֹא־נִקַּח מֵהֶם בַּשַּׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם קֹדֶשׁ וְנִטֹּשׁ אֶת־הַשָּׁנָה הַשְּׁבִיעִית וּמַשָּׁא כָל־יָד׃ | 10.30. they cleaved to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and His ordices and His statutes;" 10.31. and that we would not give our daughters unto the peoples of the land, nor take their daughters for our sons;" 10.32. and if the peoples of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy of them on the sabbath, or on a holy day; and that we would forego the seventh year, and the exaction of every debt." |
|
11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 4.15-4.18, 6.17-6.18, 8.5, 10.14, 10.17-10.19, 11.15, 12.3-12.11, 13.4-13.6, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
12. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 4.15-4.18, 6.17-6.18, 8.5, 10.14, 10.17-10.19, 12.3-12.4, 12.7-12.11, 13.4-13.6, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
13. Dead Sea Scrolls, 11Qt, 40.5-40.7 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)
|
14. Septuagint, 1 Maccabees, 1.43, 1.45, 2.12, 3.51 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 1.43. All the Gentiles accepted the command of the king. Many even from Israel gladly adopted his religion; they sacrificed to idols and profaned the sabbath. 1.45. to forbid burnt offerings and sacrifices and drink offerings in the sanctuary, to profane sabbaths and feasts 2.12. And behold, our holy place, our beauty,and our glory have been laid waste;the Gentiles have profaned it. 3.51. Thy sanctuary is trampled down and profaned,and thy priests mourn in humiliation. |
|
15. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 17.9-17.10, 18.3 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE)
| 18.3. Do not follow your base desires,but restrain your appetites. |
|
16. Josephus Flavius, Jewish War, 2.409 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)
| 2.409. At the same time Eleazar, the son of Aias the high priest, a very bold youth, who was at that time governor of the temple, persuaded those that officiated in the Divine service to receive no gift or sacrifice for any foreigner. And this was the true beginning of our war with the Romans; for they rejected the sacrifice of Caesar on this account; |
|
17. Mishnah, Sukkah, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)
| 5.5. They never have less than twenty-one blasts in the Temple, and never more than forty-eight. Every day there were twenty-one blasts in the Temple, three at the opening of the gates, nine at the morning tamid sacrifice, and nine at the evening tamid sacrifice. At the musafim (additional sacrifices) they would add another nine. And on the eve of Shabbat they would add another six, three as a sign to the people to stop working and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane. On the eve of Shabbat in the intermediate days of the [Sukkoth] festival, there were [therefore] forty-eight blasts: three at the opening of the gates, three at the upper gate, three at the lower gate, three at the water-drawing, three at the altar, nine at the daily morning sacrifice, nine at the daily evening sacrifice, nine at the additional sacrifices, three as a sign to the people to cease from work, and three to mark a distinction between the holy and the profane." |
|
18. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 4.5 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)
|
19. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 113a. אבל איתיה במתא לא דאמרינן אימר לא אמרו ליה דאמרי אשכחינהו שליחא דב"ד ואמר ליה,ולא אמרן אלא דלא חליף אבבא דבי דינא אבל חליף אבבא דבי דינא לא אמרי אשכחוה בי דינא ואמרי ליה,ולא אמרן אלא דאתי ביומיה אבל לא אתי ביומיה לא אימא אישתלויי אשתלי,אמר רבא האי מאן דכתיב עליה פתיחא על דלא אתי לדינא עד דאתי לדינא לא מקרעינן ליה על דלא ציית לדינא עד דציית לא מקרעינן ליה ולא היא כיון דאמר צייתנא קרעינן ליה:,אמר רב חסדא קובעים זמן שני וחמישי ושני זמנא וזמנא בתר זמנא ולמחר כתבינן,רב אסי איקלע בי רב כהנא חזא ההיא איתתא דאזמנה לדינא בפניא ובצפרא כתיב עלה פתיחא א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דאמר רב חסדא קובעין זמן שני וחמישי ושני,א"ל ה"מ גברא דאניס וליתיה במתא אבל איתתא כיון דאיתה במתא ולא אתיא מורדת היא:,אמר רב יהודה לא יהבינא זמנא לא ביומי ניסן ולא ביומי תשרי לא במעלי יומא טבא ולא במעלי שבתא אבל מניסן לבתר יומי ניסן וביומי תשרי לבתר תשרי קבעינן ממעלי שבתא לבתר מעלי שבתא לא קבעינן מאי טעמא בעבידתיה דשבתא טריד,אמר רב נחמן לא יהבינן זמנא לא לבני כלה בכלה ולא לבני ריגלא בריגלא כי הוו אתו לקמיה דרב נחמן אמר להו וכי לדידכו כנופייכו והאידנא דאיכא רמאי חיישינן:,אם היה דבר שיש בו אחריות חייב לשלם: מתני ליה רבי לר"ש בריה לא דבר שיש בו אחריות ממש אלא אפילו פרה וחורש בה חמור ומחמר אחריו חייבין להחזיר מפני כבוד אביהן,בעי מיניה רב כהנא מרב מטה ומיסב עליה שולחן ואוכל עליו מהו אמר לו (משלי ט, ט) תן לחכם ויחכם עוד:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אין פורטין לא מתיבת המוכסין ולא מכיס של גבאין ואין נוטלין מהם צדקה אבל נוטל הוא מתוך ביתו או מן השוק:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא אבל נותן לו דינר ונותן לו את השאר:,ומוכסין והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא,אמר רב חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו,איכא דמתני לה אהא לא ילבש אדם כלאים אפי' על גבי עשרה בגדים להבריח בו את המכס מתני' דלא כר"ע דתניא אסור להבריח את המכס ר"ש אומר משום ר"ע מותר להבריח את המכס,בשלמא לענין כלאים בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר דבר שאין מתכוין מותר ומר סבר דבר שאין מתכוין אסור אלא להבריח בו את המכס מי שרי והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא,א"ר חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו,ואיכא דמתני אהא נודרין להרגין ולחרמין ולמוכסין שהיא של תרומה שהיא של בית מלך אע"פ שאינה של תרומה אע"פ שאינה של מלך ולמוכסין והאמר שמואל דינא דמלכותא דינא,א"ר חנינא בר כהנא אמר שמואל במוכס שאין לו קצבה דבי ר' ינאי אמרי במוכס העומד מאליו,רב אשי אמר במוכס כנעני דתניא ישראל וכנעני אנס שבאו לדין אם אתה יכול לזכהו בדיני ישראל זכהו ואמור לו כך דינינו בדיני כנענים זכהו ואמור לו כך דינכם ואם לאו באין עליו בעקיפין דברי ר' ישמעאל ר"ע אומר אין באין עליו בעקיפין מפני קידוש השם,ור"ע טעמא דאיכא קידוש השם הא ליכא קידוש השם באין,וגזל כנעני מי שרי והתניא אמר ר' שמעון דבר זה דרש ר"ע כשבא מזפירין מנין לגזל כנעני שהוא אסור ת"ל (ויקרא כה, מח) אחרי נמכר גאולה תהיה לו | 113a. bButif the defendant bis in the city,the court does bnotostracize him for failing to respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor, bas we say:Perhaps bthey did not tell himof the court’s summons, bas they saidto themselves: Since the defendant is in the city, ba court agenthas already bfound him and told him.As a result, these unofficial messengers will not deliver the court’s summons to the defendant at all., bAndsimilarly, bwe saidthat the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons conveyed through a woman or a neighbor bonlyin a case bwhere he does not pass by the court’s entranceon his way home, bbutif he does bpass by the court’s entrance,the court does bnotostracize him. This is because it is possible that the unofficial messengers will bsayto themselves: Since he passes by the courthouse, bthe courthas already bfound him and told him. /b, bAndfurthermore, bwe saidthat the court will ostracize one who does not respond to a summons bonlyin a case bwhere he comeshome bon thesame bdaythat the woman or neighbor is sent to deliver the court summons. bButif he does bnot comehome bon thesame bday,he is bnotostracized, because it is possible to bsaythat bthey forgotto notify him., bRava said:With regard to bonewho had ba document of ostracism written about him due tothe fact that bhe did not come to court, we do not tear up the document for him until heactually bcomes to court,and it is not enough for him to simply commit to appearing. Similarly, if the document of ostracism was written bdue tothe fact that bhe did not obeythe ruling of bthe court, we do not tear it up for him until heactually bobeysthe ruling. The Gemara comments: This second statement bis not so.Rather, bonce hehas acquiesced and bsaid: I will obey, weimmediately btear up the document for him. /b, bRav Ḥisda said:The court bsets a datefor an individual to appear in court on the upcoming bMonday. Andif he does not appear, they set a date for that bThursday, andif he does not appear, they set a date for the following bMonday,so that he has a second bdate andthen a third bdate afterthe first bdate. Andif he does not appear in court by the third date, then bon the next day we writea document of ostracism.,The Gemara relates that bRav Asi happenedto come to bthe house of Rav Kahana. He sawthat there was ba certain woman whomRav Kahana had bsummoned toappear in bcourt in the evening,but she did not appear, band in the morningRav Kahana bwrote a document of ostracism concerning her.Rav Asi said bto him:Does bthe Master not holdin accordance with bthat which Rav Ḥisda says,that the court bsets a datefor the coming bMonday, andthen bThursday, andthen the following bMondaybefore it issues a document of ostracism?,Rav Kahana bsaid to him: That matterapplies only with regard to ba man, as he is a victim of circumstance and is notalways bin the citydue to his vocational activities. bButin the case of ba woman, since she isalways bin the city,when bshe does not cometo court the first time bshe isimmediately considered brebellious,and the court may issue a document of ostracism right away.,Continuing the discussion of court dates, bRav Yehuda says:The court bdoes not set a date forlegal proceedings bduring the days of Nisan, nor during the days of Tishrei,and also bnot on the eve of a Festival nor the eve of Shabbatbecause these are busy times. bBut during Nisan we may seta court date to take place bafter Nisan, andlikewise, bduring Tishreiwe may set a court date to take place bafter Tishrei.By contrast, bon the eve of Shabbat we do notset a court date to take place bafter the eve of Shabbat. What is the reasonfor this? It is because bone is preoccupied with his workin preparation bfor Shabbatand it is possible that he will forget about the court summons., bRav Naḥman says: We do not seta court bdate for participants in the ikalla /i,the gatherings for Torah study during Elul and Adar, bduringthe months of the ikalla /i, nor for participants inthe public discourses prior to bthe Festival during theperiod leading up to bthe Festival.The Gemara relates: bWhenpeople bwould come before Rav Naḥmanduring the ikallaperiod in order to make legal claims against others, bhe would say to them: Did I gather youhere bfor yourown needs? No, I gathered you to participate in Torah study. The Gemara adds: bBut now that there are scoundrels,who do not come to study Torah but rather to avoid trial, bwe are concernedthat they will continue to evade prosecution, and therefore we summon them to court even during these time periods.,§ The mishna teaches, with regard to one who left a stolen item to his children, bifthe item bwas something that may serveas a legal bguaranteeof a loan, the heirs bare obligated to paythe owner. The Gemara states that bRabbiYehuda HaNasi would bteachthis mishna to bRabbi Shimon, his son,and explain that it does bnotrefer only to bsomething that can actuallyserve as ba guaranteefor a loan, i.e., land. bRather,it refers bevento ba cowthat bhe plows with,or ba donkeythat bhe drivesby directing it from bbehind,which the heirs bare obligated to return because of the honor of their father,so that people will not continually point out that the inheritance was stolen and thereby disgrace their deceased parent., bRav Kahana raises a dilemma before Rav:If the robber left his heirs a stolen item that is used in relative privacy, such as ba bed that he lies onor ba table upon which he eats,rather than something as conspicuous as a large animal, bwhat isthe ihalakha /i? Are the heirs obligated to return it to its owner? Rav bsaid to him: “Give to a wise man, and he will be yet wiser”(Proverbs 9:9), meaning that from the fact that the heirs must return a cow and a donkey, one can infer that they must also return a bed and a table., strongMISHNA: /strong bOne may not exchangelarger coins for smaller ones bfrom the trunk of customs collectors nor from the purse of tax collectors, and one may not take charity from them,as they are assumed to have obtained their funds illegally. bBut one may takemoney bfromthe collector’s bhouse or frommoney he has with him in bthe marketthat he did not take from his collection trunk or purse., strongGEMARA: /strong It was btaughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the prohibition against exchanging money from the trunk of a customs collector: bBut one may givethe customs collector ba dinaras payment for a debt that amounts to less than a dinar, bandwhen the collector bgives him change,he may accept it.,It was taught in the mishna that one may not exchange money from the trunks of bcustoms collectors,which are assumed to include stolen funds. The Gemara questions this ruling: bBut doesn’t Shmuel saythat bthe law of the kingdom is the law,i.e., ihalakharequires Jews to obey the laws of the state in which they live. Accordingly, the customs are collected legally and it should be permitted to make use of the funds.,The Gemara answers: bRabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana saidthat bShmuel says:The mishna is discussing ba customs collector who does not have a limitationplaced by the governor on the amount he may collect, and he collects as he pleases. Alternatively, the Sages of bthe school of Rabbi Yannai said:The mishna is discussing ba customs collector who stands on his own,i.e., he was not appointed by the government but, on his own, he forces people to give him money.,The Gemara notes: bThere arethose bwho teachthe statements of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai bwith regard to thisfollowing mishna ( iKilayim9:2) and its attendant discussion. The customs collectors would not levy a duty for the garments one was wearing. In light of this, the mishna teaches: bA person may not weara garment made of bdiverse kinds,i.e., a combination of wool and linen, bevenif he wears it bon top of ten garments,in order bto avoidpaying bcustoms.It was noted that this bmishna is not in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Akiva, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIt is prohibited to avoidpaying bcustomsby wearing a garment of diverse kinds. bRabbi Shimon says in the name of Rabbi Akiva: It is permitted to avoidpaying bcustomsin this manner.,The Gemara comments: bGranted, with regard tothe prohibition of bdiverse kinds, they disagree about this:One bSage,i.e., Rabbi Akiva, bholdsthat ban unintentional act is permitted.In this case, the prohibition is to benefit from wearing the garment, and that is not his intent, as his intention is merely to avoid paying the customs duties. Therefore, it is permitted. bAndone bSage,i.e., the first itannain the ibaraita /i, bholdsthat ban unintentional act is prohibited. But isit ever bpermitted to avoid customs? Doesn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law? /b,In answer to this question, bRabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana saidthat bShmuel says:The dispute in the ibaraitais bwith regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitationplaced on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, Sages of bthe school of Rabbi Yannai said:The dispute is bwith regard to a customs collector who stands on his own,i.e., who is self-appointed.,The Gemara notes: bAnd there arethose bwho teachthe statements of Rabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana and the Sages of the school of Rabbi Yannai bwith regard to thismishna ( iNedarim27b): One bmay vow before murderers, plunderers, and customs collectorsin order to reinforce the claim bthata certain item that is being commandeered bis iteruma /i,or that bit belongs to the king’s house,and thereby avoid its seizure, bdespitethe fact bthat it is not iteruma /ior bthat it does not belong to the king’s house.It was asked: Can it be that it is permitted to pronounce such a vow bbefore customs collectors? But doesn’t Shmuel say: The law of the kingdom is the law?It should therefore be prohibited to state such a vow before the customs collectors., bRabbi Ḥanina bar Kahana saidthat bShmuel says:The mishna in iNedarimissues its ruling bwith regard to a customs collector who does not have a limitationplaced on the amount he may collect. Alternatively, the Sages of bthe school of Rabbi Yannai say:The mishna issues its ruling bwith regard to a customs collector who stands on his own. /b, bRav Ashi said:The mishna issues its ruling bwith regard to a gentile customs collector,whom one may deceive, bas it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: In the case of ba Jew and a gentile who approachthe court bfor judgmentin a legal dispute, bif you can vindicatethe Jew bunder Jewish law, vindicate him, and say tothe gentile: bThis is our law.If he can be vindicated bunder gentile law, vindicate him, and say tothe gentile: bThis is your law. And ifit is bnotpossible to vindicate him under either system of law, bone approachesthe case bcircuitously,seeking a justification to vindicate the Jew. This is bthe statement of Rabbi Yishmael. Rabbi Akivadisagrees and bsays: One does not approachthe case bcircuitouslyin order to vindicate the Jew bdue to the sanctification of God’s name,as God’s name will be desecrated if the Jewish judge employs dishonest means.,The Gemara infers from this ibaraita /i: bAndeven according to bRabbi Akiva, the reasonthat the court does not employ trickery in order to vindicate the Jew is only bbecause there isthe consideration of bthe sanctification of God’s name. Consequently,if there bis noconsideration of bthe sanctification of God’s name,the court does bapproachthe case circuitously. Apparently, it is permitted to deceive a gentile.,The Gemara challenges this assertion: bBut is robberyfrom ba gentile permitted? Isn’t it taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Shimon saidthat bRabbi Akiva taught this matter when he came from Zephirin: From whereis it derived that it is bprohibitedto brob a gentile?It is from the fact that bthe verse stateswith regard to a Jew who has been sold as a slave to a gentile: b“After he is sold he may be redeemed”(Leviticus 25:48) |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)
| 31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא | 31a. The Gemara answers: bAre you settingthe statement of one bman againstthe statement of another bman?Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages bof Neharde’a say: Evenif bone saysthat it was ba black coin andthe other bone saysthat it was ba white cointheir testimonies bare combined. /b,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa,that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? bSay that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥasaying that two testimonies are combined in a case bwhere they do not contradict each other;but in a case bwhere they contradict each other, did he saythat they are combined?, bRather,the Sages of Neharde’a bstatedtheir opinion bin accordance withthe opinion of bthat itanna /i, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard toa case of btwo sets of witnesses, where oneset bsaysthat the plaintiff lent the defendant btwo hundreddinars, bandthe other bone saysthat he lent him bone hundred dinars.Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, bas one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred,i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., bWith regard to whatcase bdo they disagree?They disagree boverthe case of bone setof two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. bAs Beit Shammai saythat btheir testimony is divided.Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. bAnd Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred.Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the plaintiff gave the defendant ba barrel of wine, andthe other bone saysthat he gave him ba barrel of oil, there wasactually such ban incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami.Since wine was cheaper than oil, bRabbi Ami deemedthe defendant bliable to paythe plaintiff only the value of ba barrel of wine out ofthe value of ba barrel of oil,an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: bIn accordance with whoseopinion is this ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion transmitted by bRabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar saidthat two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case bwhere one hundred dinars issubsumed bwithin two hundred;perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in ba case like this,where the testimonies are about completely different items, bdid he saythat they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: bNo,this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is bnecessaryonly bwith regard to monetary value,i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where bonewitness bsaysthat the incident took place bon the upper floor [ ibadeyota /i] andthe other bone saysthat it occurred bon the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina saysthat ban incidentlike this bcame before RabbiYehuda HaNasi band he combined their testimonies.This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: bAnd from whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleavesthe courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bFrom whereis it derived that bwhenthe judge bleaves he should not say: I deemedyou bexempt and my colleagues deemedyou bliable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered meand consequently you were deemed liable? bThe verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16), band it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets”(Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study halland should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged btwenty-two years afterthe time the statement was revealed. bRav Ami removed him from the study hallas a punishment. Rav Ami bsaid: This is a revealer of secretsand he cannot be trusted., strongMISHNA: /strong bAny timeone of the litigants bbringsadditional bproof, he can overturn the verdictthat was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty daysfrom now, if bhe foundadditional proof bwithin thirty days, he can overturnthe verdict. If he found it bafter thirty days, he cannot overturnthe verdict anymore., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said:He can still overturn the verdict, as bwhat should thislitigant, bwhosought and bdid not findadditional proof bwithin thirtydays bbut foundit bafter thirtydays, bhave done? /b,In a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses, andthe latter bsaid: I have no witnesses,and the former bsaidto him: bBring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses,in this case, bthisproof or these witnesses are worth bnothing.It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should thislitigant, bwho did not know that he has witnesses andultimately bfound witnesses,or who bdid not know that he has a proof andultimately bfound proof, have done?Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then bhe saw that hewas about to be bdeemed liableto pay bin the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ ipundato /i],even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds bthat this isworth bnothing.If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strongGEMARA: /strong With regard to the first ihalakhain the mishna, bRabba bar Rav Huna says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsays:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bthe Rabbis. /b,The Gemara answers: bLest you saythat bthis statement,that the ihalakhais not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies iab initio /i, but after the fact,even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is bvalid,as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore bteaches us that ifthe court bactsin accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, bwe sendthe case bbackto court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant bsaid tothe other: bBring witnesses,and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel saidthat their testimony is valid. bRabba bar Rav Huna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Hunaalso bsaysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says:The ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it bobvious? Since he saysthat the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves thatthe ihalakhais not in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,The Gemara answers: bThisstatement of Rabba bar Rav Huna bteaches us thatspecifically bwith regard to that ihalakha /i, the ihalakha /iis bnot in accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to allother statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the ihalakha /iis bin accordance withthe statement of bRabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b,This is bto the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna saysthat bRabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taughta ruling bin our Mishna,the ihalakha /iis bin accordance with hisopinion, bexcept forthe following three cases: The responsibility of the bguarantor, andthe incident that occurred in the city of bTzaidan, andthe dispute with regard to bevidencein the bfinaldisagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the ihalakhais in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesseson your behalf? The child bsaid to them: No.They continued to ask: bDo you have evidence?The child bsaid to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable,in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child bwas walking and crying. These people heard him,and bsaid to him: We know about themonetary bmatters of your fatherand can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, bRav Naḥman said: Ina case like bthis, even the Rabbis concedethat the testimony is accepted, bas a child does not know about themonetary bmatters of his father.Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain woman from whose possessiona promissory bnote emerged,i.e., she was appointed to hold it. bShe said tothe judge: bI know that thispromissory bnote was repaid.The creditor should not use it to collect. bRav Naḥman deemed hertestimony bcredibleand did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., bRava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whoseopinion is your ruling? Is it bin accordance withthe opinion of bRabbiYehuda HaNasi, bwho saysthat bletters,i.e., the content of a promissory note, bare acquired bymerely btransferringthe document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman bsaid to him:That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, bhere it is different.Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, bas,since the promissory note was in her possession, bif she had wantedto, bshecould have bburned it.Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., bSome saythat there is another version of the story, according to which bRav Naḥman did not deem hertestimony bcredible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wantedto |
|
