Home About Network of subjects Linked subjects heatmap Book indices included Search by subject Search by reference Browse subjects Browse texts

Tiresias: The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Source Database



2789
Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.18-9.23
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN
NaN


Intertexts (texts cited often on the same page as the searched text):

25 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 19.15, 27.15-27.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

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׃ 27.15. אָרוּר הָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה פֶסֶל וּמַסֵּכָה תּוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה מַעֲשֵׂה יְדֵי חָרָשׁ וְשָׂם בַּסָּתֶר וְעָנוּ כָל־הָעָם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן׃ 27.16. אָרוּר מַקְלֶה אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.17. אָרוּר מַסִּיג גְּבוּל רֵעֵהוּ וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.18. אָרוּר מַשְׁגֶּה עִוֵּר בַּדָּרֶךְ וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.19. אָרוּר מַטֶּה מִשְׁפַּט גֵּר־יָתוֹם וְאַלְמָנָה וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.21. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־כָּל־בְּהֵמָה וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.22. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־אֲחֹתוֹ בַּת־אָבִיו אוֹ בַת־אִמּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.23. אָרוּר שֹׁכֵב עִם־חֹתַנְתּוֹ וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.24. אָרוּר מַכֵּה רֵעֵהוּ בַּסָּתֶר וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.25. אָרוּר לֹקֵחַ שֹׁחַד לְהַכּוֹת נֶפֶשׁ דָּם נָקִי וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 27.26. אָרוּר אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָקִים אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה־הַזֹּאת לַעֲשׂוֹת אוֹתָם וְאָמַר כָּל־הָעָם אָמֵן׃ 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" 27.15. Cursed be the man that maketh a graven or molten image, an abomination unto the LORD, the work of the hands of the craftsman, and setteth it up in secret. And all the people shall answer and say: Amen." 27.16. Cursed be he that dishonoureth his father or his mother. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.17. Cursed be he that removeth his neighbour’s landmark. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.18. Cursed be he that maketh the blind to go astray in the way. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.19. Cursed be he that perverteth the justice due to the stranger, fatherless, and widow. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.20. Cursed be he that lieth with his father’s wife; because he hath uncovered his father’s skirt. And all the people shall say: Amen. ." 27.21. Cursed be he that lieth with any manner of beast. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.22. Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.23. Cursed be he that lieth with his mother-in-law. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.24. Cursed be he that smiteth his neighbour in secret. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.25. Cursed be he that taketh a bribe to slay an innocent person. And all the people shall say: Amen." 27.26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say: Amen.’"
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 30.14, 38.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

30.14. כֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה׃ 38.26. בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְכֹל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְשֵׁשׁ־מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים׃ 30.14. Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD." 38.26. a beka a head, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that passed over to them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men."
3. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 21.25 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

21.25. וְהוֹכִחַ אַבְרָהָם אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת בְּאֵר הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר גָּזְלוּ עַבְדֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ׃ 21.25. And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away."
4. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.24, 19.17-19.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

5.24. אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ׃ 19.17. לֹא־תִשְׂנָא אֶת־אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא׃ 19.18. לֹא־תִקֹּם וְלֹא־תִטֹּר אֶת־בְּנֵי עַמֶּךָ וְאָהַבְתָּ לְרֵעֲךָ כָּמוֹךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 5.24. or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty." 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him." 19.18. Thou shalt not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD."
5. Hebrew Bible, Nahum, 1.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

1.2. אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם יְהוָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה וּבַעַל חֵמָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה לְצָרָיו וְנוֹטֵר הוּא לְאֹיְבָיו׃ 1.2. The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, The LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; The LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserveth wrath for His enemies."
6. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.8, 30.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

5.8. וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃ 30.15. וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל־יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת־כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ הֵקִים אֹתָם כִּי־הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ׃ 5.8. But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be the LORD’S, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him." 30.15. But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causeth all her vows to stand, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he hath let them stand, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them."
7. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 5.10 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE)

5.10. They hate him that reproveth in the gate, And they abhor him that speaketh uprightly."
8. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 29.21 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE)

29.21. מַחֲטִיאֵי אָדָם בְּדָבָר וְלַמּוֹכִיחַ בַּשַּׁעַר יְקֹשׁוּן וַיַּטּוּ בַתֹּהוּ צַדִּיק׃ 29.21. That make a man an offender by words, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, And turn aside the just with a thing of nought."
9. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 30.22 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

30.22. וַיְדַבֵּר יְחִזְקִיָּהוּ עַל־לֵב כָּל־הַלְוִיִּם הַמַּשְׂכִּילִים שֵׂכֶל־טוֹב לַיהוָה וַיֹּאכְלוּ אֶת־הַמּוֹעֵד שִׁבְעַת הַיָּמִים מְזַבְּחִים זִבְחֵי שְׁלָמִים וּמִתְוַדִּים לַיהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם׃ 30.22. And Hezekiah spoke encouragingly unto all the Levites that were well skilled in the service of the LORD. So they did eat throughout the feast for the seven days, offering sacrifices of peace-offerings, and giving thanks to the LORD, the God of their fathers.
10. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 8.7-8.8, 13.12-13.13 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE)

8.7. וְיֵשׁוּעַ וּבָנִי וְשֵׁרֵבְיָה יָמִין עַקּוּב שַׁבְּתַי הוֹדִיָּה מַעֲשֵׂיָה קְלִיטָא עֲזַרְיָה יוֹזָבָד חָנָן פְּלָאיָה וְהַלְוִיִּם מְבִינִים אֶת־הָעָם לַתּוֹרָה וְהָעָם עַל־עָמְדָם׃ 8.8. וַיִּקְרְאוּ בַסֵּפֶר בְּתוֹרַת הָאֱלֹהִים מְפֹרָשׁ וְשׂוֹם שֶׂכֶל וַיָּבִינוּ בַּמִּקְרָא׃ 13.12. וְכָל־יְהוּדָה הֵבִיאוּ מַעְשַׂר הַדָּגָן וְהַתִּירוֹשׁ וְהַיִּצְהָר לָאוֹצָרוֹת׃ 13.13. וָאוֹצְרָה עַל־אוֹצָרוֹת שֶׁלֶמְיָה הַכֹּהֵן וְצָדוֹק הַסּוֹפֵר וּפְדָיָה מִן־הַלְוִיִּם וְעַל־יָדָם חָנָן בֶּן־זַכּוּר בֶּן־מַתַּנְיָה כִּי נֶאֱמָנִים נֶחְשָׁבוּ וַעֲלֵיהֶם לַחֲלֹק לַאֲחֵיהֶם׃ 8.7. Also Jeshua, and Bani, and Sherebiah, Jamin, Akkub, Shabbethai, Hodiah, Maaseiah, Kelita, Azariah, Jozabad, Ha, Pelaiah, even the Levites, caused the people to understand the Law; and the people stood in their place." 8.8. And they read in the book, in the Law of God, distinctly; and they gave the sense, and caused them to understand the reading." 13.12. Then brought all Judah the tithe of the corn and the wine and the oil unto the treasuries." 13.13. And I made treasurers over the treasuries, Shelemiah the priest, and Zadok the scribe, and of the Levites, Pedaiah; and next to them was Ha the son of Zaccur, the son of Mattaniah; for they were counted faithful, and their office was to distribute unto their brethren."
11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 5.5, 7.2-7.3, 9.1-9.23, 10.4-10.10, 12.21-12.22, 13.5-13.13, 13.15-13.16, 14.3-14.16, 14.18, 15.4, 15.6-15.11, 15.14-15.15, 16.10-16.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 5.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

13. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 5.5, 7.2-7.3, 9.2-9.17, 9.19-9.23, 10.4-10.10, 12.21-12.22, 13.5-13.13, 13.15-13.16, 14.3-14.10, 14.12-14.16, 14.18, 15.4, 15.6-15.11, 15.14-15.15, 16.10-16.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9, 1.18-2.18, 3.13, 3.14, 3.15, 3.16, 3.17, 3.18, 3.19, 3.20, 3.21, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.19, 6.20, 7.8, 7.9, 8, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.26 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

15. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 9.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 9.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

17. Dead Sea Scrolls, Messianic Rule, 1.22, 1.25 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

18. New Testament, Matthew, 18.15-18.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

18.15. If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. 18.16. But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 18.17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector.
19. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 150 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

20. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE)

21. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

2b. וטמא מת תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן דאילו אב מטמא אדם וכלים ואילו תולדות אוכלין ומשקין מטמא אדם וכלים לא מטמא,הכא מאי אמר רב פפא יש מהן כיוצא בהן ויש מהן לאו כיוצא בהן,ת"ר ג' אבות נאמרו בשור הקרן והשן והרגל,קרן מנלן דת"ר (שמות כא, כח) כי יגח אין נגיחה אלא בקרן שנאמר (מלכים א כב, יא) ויעש לו צדקיה בן כנענה קרני ברזל ויאמר כה אמר ה' באלה תנגח את ארם וגו' ואומר (דברים לג, יז) בכור שורו הדר לו וקרני ראם קרניו בהם עמים ינגח,מאי ואומר וכי תימא דברי תורה מדברי קבלה לא ילפינן ת"ש בכור שורו הדר לו,והאי מילף הוא גילוי מילתא בעלמא הוא דנגיחה בקרן הוא,אלא מהו דתימא כי פליג רחמנא בין תם למועד ה"מ בתלושה אבל במחוברת אימא כולה מועדת היא,ת"ש בכור שורו הדר לו וגו',תולדה דקרן מאי היא נגיפה נשיכה רביצה ובעיטה,מאי שנא נגיחה דקרי לה אב דכתיב כי יגח נגיפה נמי כתיב (שמות כא, לה) כי יגוף האי נגיפה נגיחה היא דתניא פתח בנגיפה וסיים בנגיחה לומר לך זו היא נגיפה זו היא נגיחה,מאי שנא גבי אדם דכתיב כי יגח ומאי שנא גבי בהמה דכתיב כי יגוף,אדם דאית ליה מזלא כתיב כי יגח בהמה דלית לה מזלא כתיב כי יגוף,ומלתא אגב אורחיה קמ"ל דמועד לאדם הוי מועד לבהמה ומועד לבהמה לא הוי מועד לאדם,נשיכה תולדה דשן היא לא שן יש הנאה להזיקה הא אין הנאה להזיקה,רביצה ובעיטה תולדה דרגל היא לא רגל הזיקה מצוי הני אין הזיקן מצוי,אלא תולדותיהן לאו כיוצא בהן דאמר רב פפא אהייא,אילימא אהני מאי שנא קרן דכוונתו להזיק וממונך ושמירתו עליך הני נמי כוונתן להזיק וממונך ושמירתן עליך,אלא תולדה דקרן כקרן וכי קאמר רב פפא אשן ורגל,שן ורגל היכא כתיבי דתניא (שמות כב, ד) ושלח זה הרגל וכן הוא אומר (ישעיהו לב, כ) משלחי רגל השור והחמור,ובער זו השן וכן הוא אומר (מלכים א יד, י) כאשר יבער 2b. band one who is impurewith impurity imparted by a human bcorpse.A person, a vessel, or food that is rendered impure through contact with an item classified as a primary category of ritual impurity is characterized as a subcategory. In that domain, btheir subcategories are dissimilar to them, asany person or item classified as ba primary categoryof ritual impurity bimpurifies a person andimpurifies any bvesselswith which it comes into contact, bwhilea person or item classified as ba subcategory of ritual impurity impurifies food or drink, but does not impurify a person or vessels. /b,After determining that there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is like that of primary categories, e.g., Shabbat, and there are instances where the legal status of subcategories is dissimilar to that of primary categories, e.g., ritual impurity, the Gemara asks: bHere,with regard to the laws of damages, bwhatis the relationship between the primary categories and their subcategories? bRav Pappa said: There are, amongthe primary categories of damage, some whose subcategories bare similar to them, and there are, among them,some whose subcategories bare dissimilar to them. /b,§ Seeking to clarify Rav Pappa’s statement, the Gemara cites a ibaraitathat delineates the primary categories of damage. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThree primary categoriesof damage bwere statedin the Torah bwith regard to an ox.An ox causes damage in three ways, and each is classified as a distinct primary category of damage represented by a part of the body of the ox: There is bthecategory of bGoring [ ikeren /i],literally, horn. This is referring to an ox goring a person or an animal and causing damage. bAndthere is bthecategory of bEating [ ishen /i],literally, tooth. This is referring to one’s ox causing damage by consuming another person’s produce. bAndthere is bthecategory of bTrampling [ iregel /i],literally, foot. This is referring to an ox trampling another person’s belongings and causing damage. These are classified as primary categories because they are mentioned explicitly in the Torah.,The Gemara elaborates: bFrom where do wederive the primary category of bGoring?The source is bas the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: “And bifan ox bgoresa man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28); and bgoring isperformed bonlywith ba horn, as it is stated: “And Zedekiah, son of Chenaanah, made himself horns of iron, and said: So says the Lord: With these shall you gore the Arameans,until they are consumed” (I Kings 22:11). bAndthe verse also bstates: “His firstborn bull, majesty is his, and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations”(Deuteronomy 33:17).,The Gemara interrupts its citation of the ibaraitaand asks: bWhatis the purpose of citing the additional verse introduced with the term: bAndthe verse also bstates?The Gemara answers: bAnd if you would saythat the first verse cited is not a legitimate source as it is a verse from the Prophets, and bwe do not derive Torah matters from the texts of the tradition,i.e., Prophets and Writings, bcomeand bhearproof from the Torah: b“His firstborn bull, majesty is his.” /b,The Gemara rejects the possibility that the reason a second verse was cited is that the primary category of Goring cannot be derived from a verse in the Prophets: bBut is thisa halakhic bderivation? It is a mere disclosure of the matter, that goring isperformed bwith a horn.A verse in the Prophets can certainly serve as a source for that disclosure., bRather,the reason the ibaraitacites a second verse is blest you say,based on the first verse, that bwhen the Merciful One distinguishes betweenliability for damage caused by ban innocuousox, for which the owner is liable to pay half of the damages for the first three times that it gores, bandliability for damage caused by ba forewarnedox, which already gored three times and whose owner was cautioned to prevent the ox from goring, for which he is liable to pay the full damages, bthat statementapplies only to damage caused bwith a detachedhorn, like the horn of Zedekiah described in the verse, e.g., if an animal held a detached horn in its mouth and caused damage with it; bbutfor damage that an ox caused bwitha horn battachedto its head, bsaythat in ballcases the legal status of the ox bisthat of ba forewarnedox and its owner is liable to pay for all of the damage.,Therefore, the ibaraitasays: bComeand bheara proof from another verse: b“His firstborn bull, majesty is his,and his horns are the horns of the wild ox; with them he shall gore the nations,” where the reference is to a horn attached to the ox’s head. Evidently, when an ox gores with its own horns there is a distinction between an innocuous ox and a forewarned ox.,The Gemara resumes its citation of the ibaraita /i: bWhat is a subcategory of Goring?It includes any action that an ox performs with its body with the objective of inflicting damage: bPushing [ inegifa /i], biting, crouchingupon items with the objective of inflicting damage, band kicking. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhat is differentabout bgoring that it is characterizedas ba primary categoryof damage, bas it is writtenexplicitly in the verse: “And bifan ox bgoresa man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28); accordingly, inegifa /ishould balsobe characterized as a primary category, bas it is written: “Ifone man’s ox bhurts [ iyiggof]the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35)? The Gemara answers: bThis inegifa /imentioned in the verse, bisactually a reference to bgoring, as it is taughtin a ibaraitathat the verses states: “And if one man’s ox hurts [ iyiggof] the ox of another…or if it is known that the ox was a goring ox in time past” (Exodus 21:35–36). The verse bbeganits description of the case bwiththe term inegifaandit bconcluded withthe term bgoring to say to youthat in this context the two terms describe the same action: bThisaction bis inegifa /iand bthissame action bis goring. /b,The Gemara asks: If the two terms are interchangeable, bwhat is different with regard toan ox goring ba person that it is written:“And bifan ox bgoresa man or a woman” (Exodus 21:28), band what is different with regard toan ox goring ban animal that it is written: “Ifone man’s ox bhurts [ iyiggof]the ox of another” (Exodus 21:35)?,The Gemara explains: With regard to ba person, who hasthe bingenuityto defend himself and is not easily injured, bit is written: “Ifan ox bgores,”a term indicating an attack of greater force. With regard to ban animal, which does not havethe bingenuityto defend itself and is more easily injured, bit is written: “Ifan ox bhurts [ iyiggof],”a term indicating an attack of lesser force. The term iyiggofis related to the term imagefa /i, meaning plague. The Torah employs that term with regard to the goring of an animal to indicate that when an animal is gored, regardless of the force of the blow, it will likely result in its death., bAndthe Torah’s use of these terms bteaches us a matter in passing:Because the effort required for the ox to gore a person to death is greater than the effort required for the ox to gore an animal to death, the ihalakhais bthatan ox that is bforewarned with regard togoring ba person isalso bforewarned with regard to an animal. Butan ox that is bforewarned with regard to an animal is not forewarned with regard to a person. /b,The Gemara questions the classification in the ibaraitaof biting, crouching, and kicking as subcategories of Goring: Isn’t bbiting a subcategory of Eating,as the animal both eats and bites with its teeth? The Gemara answers: bNo,in cases included in the primary category of bEating, there is pleasurefor the animal binthe course of bitscausing bdamage.In bthiscase of damage caused by biting, bthere is nointrinsic bpleasurefor the animal binthe course of the bdamagethat bitcauses, as when the ox bites forcefully, the exclusive objective of the action is to cause damage.,The Gemara asks: Aren’t bcrouchingupon items band kickingitems in order to damage them each ba subcategory of Trampling,as the animal crouches by bending its legs and kicks with its feet? The Gemara answers: bNo,in cases included in the primary category of Trampling, the bdamage is commonplace,as it is caused in the course of the animal’s walking; in bthesecases of crouching and kicking, the bdamage is not commonplace,as animals do not typically kick or crouch upon utensils.,After citing the subcategories listed in the ibaraita /i, the Gemara resumes its analysis of the statement of Rav Pappa: bButwith regard to the statement bthat Rav Pappa said: There are among themsome whose subcategories bare dissimilar to them, to whichprimary category was Rav Pappa referring?, bIf we saythat his reference was bto thesesubcategories of Goring, bwhat is differentabout bGoringthat defines it as a unique primary category? What is different is bthatthe bobjectiveof the ox’s action bis to cause damage, andthe ox is byour property, andresponsibility for bits safeguarding,to prevent it from causing damage, is incumbent bupon you,its owner. In bthesesubcategories of Goring, i.e., pushing [ inegifa /i], biting, crouching, and kicking, bas well,the bobjectiveof the oxen’s actions bis to cause damage, andthe oxen are byour property, andresponsibility for btheir safeguarding,to prevent your oxen from causing damage, is incumbent bupon you. /b, bRather,it is apparent that the status of ba subcategory of Goring is likethat of the primary category of bGoring, and when Rav Pappa says:There are among them some whose subcategories are dissimilar to them, he was referring bto Eating and Trampling. /b,The Gemara asks: bWhere are Eating and Trampling writtenin the Torah that led them to be classified as primary categories? The Gemara answers: The source is bas the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: The verse states: “If a man causes a field or vineyard to be eaten, and he sends forth his animal, and it consumed in the field of another” (Exodus 22:4). The two parts of the verse are referring to different categories: b“And he sends forth,” this isa reference to btheprimary category of bTrampling,as sending forth results in the animal trampling another’s produce and damaging it, band likewise it states:“Happy are you that sow beside all waters bthat send forth the feet of the ox and the donkey”(Isaiah 32:20). Clearly the term “send forth” is a reference to trampling by the feet of the animal., b“And it consumed,” this isa reference to btheprimary category of bEating, and likewise it states:“And I will utterly sweep away the house of Jeroboam, bas one consumes with /b
22. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

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. strongMISHNA: /strong In a case where there bwere twowitnesses bobservingan individual violating a capital transgression bfrom this windowin a house, band two observing him from that windowin a house, band oneperson was bforewarningthe transgressor bin the middlebetween the two sets of witnesses, the ihalakhadepends on the circumstances. In a situation bwhere some ofthe witnesses observing from the two windows bsee each other,the testimony of all bthesewitnesses constitutes bone testimony, but ifthey do bnotsee each other, the testimony of bthesewitnesses constitutes btwoindependent btestimonies. Therefore,as two independent sets of witnesses, bif one ofthe sets bwas foundto be a set of bconspiringwitnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both bhe,the one accused of violating the capital transgression, band they,the conspiring witnesses, bare executed, and the secondset, whose testimony remained valid, bis exempt. /b, bRabbi Yosei says:Transgressors bare never executed unless his two witnesses arethe ones bforewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses… /bhe 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. bAlternatively,from the phrase b“at the mouth of two witnesses”one derives bthatthe judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the bSanhedrin will not heartestimony bfrom the mouth of an interpreter. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bRav Zutra bar Tuvya saysthat bRav says: From whereis it derived with regard bto disjointed testimony,in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, bthat it is not valid?It is derived from a verse, bas it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness”(Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: bWhatis the meaning of b“onewitness”? bIf we saythat it means bone witness literally, we learn it from the firstportion of the verse: b“At the mouth of two witnesses,”indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. bRather, whatis the meaning of b“onewitness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with bonewitness here and bonewitness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: It is written: b“He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,”from which it is derived bto includethe ihalakhathat in the case of btwowitnesses bwho observean individual violating a capital transgression, bone from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not jointo constitute a set of witnesses. bMoreover, evenif they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but bone after the other in one window, they do not jointo constitute a set of witnesses., bRav Pappa said to Abaye:Why is it necessary to mention both cases? bNow ifin the case where bonewitness views the incident bfrom this window and onewitness views the incident bfrom that window, where thiswitness bsees the entire incident and thatwitness bsees the entire incident, you saythat bthey do not jointo testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident bone after the other, where thiswitness bsees halfthe bincident and thatwitness bsees halfthe bincident,is it bnecessaryto say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye bsaid to him:It bis necessaryto state this ihalakha bonlywith regard btoa case where they witnessed one who bengages in intercourse with a forbidden relative,which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The itannaof the ibaraitateaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, bRava says:Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, bifthe witness in each window bsees the one who is forewarningthe accused, borif bthe one who is forewarningthe accused bcould seethe two disjointed witnesses, bthey jointo constitute a set of witnesses. bRava says:The one bforewarningthe accused of bwhomthe Sages bspokeneed not be a third witness, but bevenif the victim forewarns the murderer bfrom his own mouth, and evenif the forewarning emerged bfrom the mouth of a demon,meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate., bRav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimonyof two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, bis valid incases of bmonetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness”(Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that bit isonly bwith regard tocases of bcapital law thatdisjointed testimony bis not valid, but with regard tocases of bmonetary lawthat testimony bis valid. /b, bRav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so,and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, bincases of bcapital lawdisjointed testimony bshould sparethe 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. bWhy,then, bdid we learnin 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, bhe,the accused, band they,the conspiring witnesses, bare executed?The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is bdifficultaccording to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that bRabbi Yosei says:Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. bRav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei ofthe opinion that bthisline of breasoningis correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? bBut didn’t we learnin a mishna (9b): bRabbi Yosei says: An enemywho commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, bhe is executedeven if there was no forewarning, bdue tothe fact bthat hishalakhic status is blikethat of one who is bcautioned and forewarned.Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye bsaid to him: Thatstatement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei bisactually the opinion of bRabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A iḥaverdoes not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish betweenone who commits a transgression bunwittingly andone who does so bintentionally.A iḥaver /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: bAlternatively,from the phrase in the verse b“at the mouth of two witnesses”one derives bthatthe bSanhedrin will not heartestimony bfrom the mouth of an interpreter.The Gemara relates: There were bcertainpeople who spoke ba foreignlanguage bwho came before Ravafor judgment. bRava installed an interpreter between themand heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: bAnd how did he do so? But didn’t we learnin the mishna bthatthe bSanhedrin will not heartestimony bfrom the mouth of an interpreter?The Gemara answers: bRava knew what they were saying,as he understood their language, bbut he did not knowhow to brespondto them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna.
23. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

16b. big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר אע"פ שאמרו המשמש מטתו לאור הנר הרי זה מגונה בש"א צריכה שני עדים על כל תשמיש או תשמש לאור הנר ובה"א דיה בשני עדים כל הלילה,תניא אמרו להם ב"ש לב"ה לדבריכם ליחוש שמא תראה טיפת דם כחרדל בביאה ראשונה ותחפנה שכבת זרע בביאה שניה,א"ל ב"ה אף לדבריכם ליחוש עד שהרוק בתוך הפה שמא נימוק והולך לו,אמרו להם לפי שאינו דומה נימוק פעם אחת לנימוק שתי פעמים,תניא א"ר יהושע רואה אני את דברי ב"ש אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי כמה הארכת עלינו אמר להם מוטב שאאריך עליכם בעוה"ז כדי שיאריכו ימיכם לעוה"ב,אמר ר' זירא מדברי כולם נלמד בעל נפש לא יבעול וישנה,רבא אמר בועל ושונה כי תניא ההיא לטהרות,תניא נמי הכי בד"א לטהרות אבל לבעלה מותרת ובד"א שהניחה בחזקת טהרה אבל הניחה בחזקת טמאה לעולם היא בחזקתה עד שתאמר לו טהורה אני,א"ר אבא א"ר חייא בר אשי אמר רב בדקה בעד ואבד אסורה לשמש עד שתבדוק מתקיף לה ר' אילא אילו איתא מי לא משמשה ואע"ג דלא ידעה השתא נמי תשמש,א"ל רבא זו מוכיחה קיים וזו אין מוכיחה קיים,א"ר יוחנן אסור לאדם שישמש מטתו ביום אמר רב המנונא מאי קרא שנאמר (איוב ג, ג) יאבד יום אולד בו והלילה אמר הורה גבר לילה ניתן להריון ויום לא ניתן להריון ריש לקיש אמר מהכא (משלי יט, טז) בוזה דרכיו ימות,ור"ל האי קרא דר' יוחנן מאי דריש ביה מבעי ליה לכדדריש רבי חנינא בר פפא דדריש ר' חנינא בר פפא אותו מלאך הממונה על ההריון לילה שמו ונוטל טפה ומעמידה לפני הקב"ה ואומר לפניו רבש"ע טפה זו מה תהא עליה גבור או חלש חכם או טיפש עשיר או עני,ואילו רשע או צדיק לא קאמר כדר' חנינא דא"ר חנינא הכל בידי שמים חוץ מיראת שמים שנאמר (דברים י, יב) ועתה ישראל מה ה' אלהיך שואל מעמך כי אם ליראה וגו',ור' יוחנן א"כ נכתוב קרא גבר הורה מאי הורה גבר לילה ניתן להריון ויום לא ניתן להריון,ור' יוחנן האי קרא דר"ל מאי דריש ביה מבעי לי' לכדכתיב בספר בן סירא שלשה שנאתי וארבעה לא אהבתי שר הנרגל בבית המשתאות ואמרי לה שר הנרגן ואמרי לה שר הנרגז,והמושיב שבת במרומי קרת והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים והנכנס לבית חבירו פתאום אמר רבי יוחנן ואפילו לביתו,אמר רבי שמעון בן יוחאי ארבעה דברים הקב"ה שונאן ואני איני אוהבן הנכנס לביתו פתאום ואצ"ל לבית חבירו והאוחז באמה ומשתין מים 16b. strongGEMARA: /strong The mishna teaches that according to Beit Shammai it is permitted to engage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. In this regard, bthe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bEven thoughthe Sages bsaidwith regard to bone who engages in intercourse by the light of a lamp,that bthis is disgraceful, Beit Shammai say: A woman is requiredto examine herself with btwo cloths,once before and once after beachact of bintercourse, orshe must bengage in intercourse by the light of a lamp. And Beit Hillel say:It is bsufficientfor her to examine herself bwith two cloths throughout the night,once before the first act of intercourse and once after the final act of intercourse.,It bis taughtin a ibaraitathat bBeit Shammai said to Beit Hillel: According to your statementthat a woman may engage in intercourse several times in one night without an examination between each act of intercourse, blet us be concerned lest she will see,i.e., emit, ba drop of blood the size of a mustardseed bduring the firstact of bintercourse,and will thereby become impure, band semen from the secondact of bintercourse will cover it.Since the examination after the last act of intercourse will not reveal the drop of blood, the woman will erroneously think she is pure., bBeit Hillel said to themin response: bEven according to your statement, let us be concernedthat bwhile the salivawas still bin the mouth,i.e., while the blood was in her vagina, bperhaps it was squashed and disappeared.Even if she examines herself after each act of intercourse, as mandated by Beit Shammai, it is possible that the semen of that act covered the blood, and it will not be revealed by the examination.,Beit Shammai bsaid toBeit Hillel: One cannot compare the two situations, bas a squasheddrop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse bonce is not similar to a squasheddrop of blood after the woman has engaged in intercourse btwice,and therefore our concern is more reasonable.,It bis taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Yehoshua said: I seeas correct bthe statement of Beit Shammaiin this case. bHis students said to him:Our bteacher, how you have weighed [ ihe’erakhta /i] us downwith this stringent ruling. Rabbi Yehoshua bsaid to them: It is preferable that I weigh you down in this world, so thatyou do not sin by engaging in prohibited intercourse, i.e., so that byour days in the World-to-Come will be lengthened [ isheya’arikhu /i]. /b,§ bRabbi Zeira says: From the statements of all of them,i.e., both Beit Shammai, who permit engaging in intercourse a second time only after an examination, and Beit Hillel, who rule that the second examination must be performed only after the final act of intercourse of the night, bwe can learnthat their dispute relates only to that which is permitted after the fact. But ba pious person [ iba’al nefesh /i] should not engage in intercourse and repeathis act without an examination between each act., bRava says:Even a pious person bmay engage in intercourse and repeatthe act without an examination in between, as bwhen that ibaraita bis taught,it is referring btoa woman who handles bpure items.But with regard to intercourse with her husband, there is no cause for concern., bThisopinion bis also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bIn whatcase bis this statement said,i.e., that a woman must examine herself before and after every act of intercourse according to Beit Shammai, or before the first act and after the last act, according to Beit Hillel? It was said bwith regard toa woman who handles bpure items; buta woman bis permitted to her husbandeven without any examination, and he is not required to ask her if she is pure. bBut in whatcase bis thislenient bstatement said? Whenher husband traveled and bleft her with the presumptive status of ritual purity. Butif he bleft her with the presumptive status of ritual impurity,she remains bforever in her presumptive statusof impurity buntil she says to him: I am pure. /b,§ bRabbi Abba saysthat bRabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi saysthat bRav says:If a woman bexaminedherself at night bwith a cloth, andthe cloth bwasthen immediately blost, it is prohibited for her to engage in intercourseagain buntil she examinesherself with another cloth, as perhaps there was blood on the cloth that was lost. bRabbi Ila objects to this: Ifthis cloth bwere intact,i.e., if it were not lost, bcouldn’tthis woman bengage in intercoursewith her husband that night, on the basis that she will examine the cloth only the following day, bandisn’t this the ihalakha beven though she does not knowat the time of intercourse whether there is blood on the cloth? bNow too,although the cloth is lost, blet her engage in intercoursewith her husband., bRava said to him:There is a difference between the two cases, as when the cloth is intact, bthiswoman’s bproof exists,and if she discovers on the following day that she was impure they will be obligated to bring sin offerings for engaging in intercourse in a state of ritual impurity. bButwith regard to bthatwoman who lost her cloth, bher proof does not exist,and therefore they will never know if they require atonement.,§ bRabbi Yoḥa says: It is prohibited for a person to engage in intercourse by day. Rav Hamnuna says: What is the versefrom which this is derived? bAs it is stated: “Let the day perish on which I was born, and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child”(Job 3:3). It is derived from here that bnighttime is meant for conception, but daytime is not meant for conception. Reish Lakish saysthat the proof is bfrom here: “But he who despises his ways shall die”(Proverbs 19:16). One might see something unpleasing in his wife in the daylight and come to despise her.,The Gemara asks: bAnd how does Reish Lakish interpret this versecited bby Rabbi Yoḥa?The Gemara answers that bhe requiresthat verse bfor that which Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa taught. As Rabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa interpretedthat verse in the following manner: bThat angel that is appointed over conception is called: Night. Andthat angel btakesthe bdropof semen from which a person will be formed band presents it before the Holy One, Blessed be He, and says before Him: Master of the Universe, what will be of this drop?Will the person fashioned from it be bmighty or weak?Will he be bclever or stupid?Will he be bwealthy or poor? /b,The Gemara notes: bButthis angel bdoes not say:Will he be bwicked or righteous?This is bin accordance witha statement bof Rabbi Ḥanina, as Rabbi Ḥanina said: Everything is in the hand of Heaven, except for fear of Heaven.People have free will to serve God or not, bas it is stated: “And now, Israel, what does the Lord your God ask of you other than to fearthe Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 10:12). The fact that God asks of the Jewish people to fear Him indicates that it is a person’s choice to do so.,The Gemara explains: bAnd Rabbi Yoḥaderives two ihalakhotfrom the verse “and the night on which it was said: Conceived is a man-child,” as he holds as follows: bIf so,i.e., if it is referring only to the statement of the angel, blet the verse write:And the night that said: bA man-child is conceived. Whatis the meaning of: b“Conceived is a man-child”?It is derived from the juxtaposition of the word “night” and the word “conceived” that bnighttime is meant for conception but daytime is not meant for conception. /b,The Gemara asks: bAnd Rabbi Yoḥa, how does he interpret that versecited bby Reish Lakish?The Gemara answers that Rabbi Yoḥa brequiresthat verse: “But he who despises his ways shall die,” btoteach bthat which is written in the book of ben Sira: Threepeople bI have hated, and a fourth I have not loved: A minister who frequents [ ihanirgal /i] drinking houses,as he disgraces himself and leads himself to ruin and death; band some saya different version of the text: bA minister who chats [ ihanirgan /i]in drinking houses; band some saya third version: bA minister who is short-tempered [ ihanirgaz /i]when in drinking houses.,That is the first that he hated. bAndthe others are bone who dwells at the highest point of the city,where everyone sees him; band one who holdshis bpenis and urinates. Andthe fourth, whom he has not loved, is bone who enters the house of another suddenly,without warning. bRabbi Yoḥa says: Andthis includes bevenone who comes binto hisown bhousewithout prior warning, as the members of his household might be engaged in private activities.,The Gemara cites a similar saying. bRabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Four matters the Holy One, Blessed be He, hates, and I do not love them,and they are: bOne who enters his house suddenly, and needless to sayone who suddenly enters bthe house of another; and one who holdshis bpenis and urinates; /b
24. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

113a. גזייתא נינהו דשמטי סוסיא ואתו דברי להו,(וא"ל) רב לרב אסי לא תדור במתא דלא צניף בה סוסיא ולא נבח בה כלבא ואל תדור בעיר דריש מתא אסיא ולא תנסיב תרתי אי נסבת תרתי נסיב תלת,א"ל רב לרב כהנא הפוך בנבילתא ולא תיפוך במילי פשוט נבילתא בשוקא ושקיל אגרא ולא תימא כהנא אנא וגברא רבא אנא וסניא בי מלתא סלקת לאיגרא שירותך בהדך מאה קרי במתא בזוזא תותי כנפיך ניהוו,א"ל רב לחייא בריה לא תשתי סמא ולא תשוור ניגרא ולא תעקר ככא ולא תקנא בחיויא ולא תקנא בארמאה,תנו רבנן ג' אין מתקנאין בהן ואלו הן נכרי קטן ונחש קטן ותלמיד קטן מ"ט דמלכותייהו אחורי אודנייהו קאי,א"ל רב לאיבו בריה טרחי בך בשמעתא ולא מסתייע מילתא תא אגמרך מילי דעלמא אדחלא אכרעיך זבינך זבין כל מילי זבין ותחרט בר מחמרא דזבין ולא תחרט,שרי כיסיך פתח שקיך קבא מארעא ולא כורא מאיגרא,תמרא בחלוזך לבית סודנא רהיט ועד כמה אמר רבא עד תלתא סאה אמר רב פפא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי א"ד אמר רב חסדא אי לא דרמאי שכרא לא איעתרי מאי סודנא אמר רב חסדא סוד נאה וגמילות חסדים,אמר רב פפא כל אגב גביא בעי כל אשראי ספק אתי ספק לא אתי ודאתי מעות רעות נינהו,ג' דברים א"ר יוחנן משום אנשי ירושלים כשאתה יוצא למלחמה אל תצא בראשונה אלא תצא באחרונה כדי שתכנס בראשונה ועשה שבתך חול ואל תצטרך לבריות והוי משתדל עם מי שהשעה משחקת לו,(א"ר) שלשה דברים א"ר יהושע בן לוי משום אנשי ירושלים אל תרבה בגנות משום מעשה שהיה בתך בגרה שחרר עבדך ותן לה והוי זהיר באשתך מחתנה הראשון מ"ט רב חסדא אמר משום ערוה רב כהנא אמר משום ממון הא והא איתנהו,אמר רבי יוחנן שלשה מנוחלי העוה"ב אלו הן הדר בא"י והמגדל בניו לתלמוד תורה והמבדיל על היין במוצאי שבתות מאי היא דמשייר מקידושא לאבדלתא,א"ר יוחנן שלשה מכריז עליהן הקב"ה בכל יום על רווק הדר בכרך ואינו חוטא ועל עני המחזיר אבידה לבעליה ועל עשיר המעשר פירותיו בצינעה רב ספרא רווק הדר בכרך הוה 113a. barefound bon the paths [ igazyata /i]near the city, bas horsesbelonging to the demons bfleealong those paths, bandthe demons bcome to lead themaway. Generally, however, demons do not enter inhabited places., bAndRav bsaid to Rav Asi: Do not live in a city where horses do not neigh and where dogs do not bark,as these animals provide security and protection. bAnd do not live in a city where the mayor is a doctor,as he will be too busy working to govern properly. bAnd do not marry twowomen, as they will likely join forces against you. And bif youdo bmarry two, marry a thirdas well. If two of your wives plot against you, the third will inform you of their plans., bRav said to Rav Kahana:It is better for one bto turn over a carcass than to turn over his word,i.e., to break his promise. Rav further said: bSkin a carcass in the market and take payment, but do not say: I am a priest, or: I am a great man, and this matter disgusts me.It is preferable for one to work, even in menial labor, than to be dependent on others. Rav also advised Rav Kahana: If byou ascend to the roof,carry byour food with you.One should always carry his sustece with him, even if he goes only on a short trip. If bone hundred pumpkins in the citycost ba izuz /i, placethem carefully under bthe cornersof your clothes. Treat food respectfully even if it is inexpensive., bRav said to Ḥiyya, his son: Do notget into the habit of bdrinking medications,lest you develop an addiction. bAnd do not leap over a ditch,as you might hurt yourself in the process. bAnd do not pull out a tooth,but try to heal it if possible. bAnd do not provoke a snakein your house to try to kill it or chase it away. bAnd do not provoke a gentile,as this too is dangerous.,Similarly, bthe Sages taught:There are bthreebeings boneshould bnot provoke: A small gentile, and a small snake, and a smallTorah bscholar. What is the reason? Because their authority stands behind their ears.They will eventually grow up, assume power, each in his own way, and avenge those who have harassed them., bRav said to Ayvu, his son: I struggledto teach byou ihalakhabutmy efforts bdid not succeed,as you did not become a great scholar. bComeand bI will teach youabout bmundane matters: Sell your merchandise while the dustfrom the road is still bon your feet.As soon you return from your travels, sell your wares, lest the prices fall in the meantime. Furthermore, it is possible that banything you sellmight later cause you to bregretthe sale, bexcept for wine, which youcan bsell without regret.Since wine might go bad and be entirely lost, its sale is always advisable.,Rav further advised his son: bOpen your purseto accept payment, and only then bopen your sackto deliver the goods, to ensure you will receive payment for your merchandise. It is better to earn ba ikavfrom the ground than a ikorfrom the roof.A ikoris one hundred and eighty times larger than a ikav /i. This proverb means that it is preferable to earn a small amount from a local, safe transaction than to attempt to earn more through a distant, risky venture.,Rav continued: If there are bdates in your storeroom, run to the breweryto sell them. If you wait, there is a good chance the dates will go bad. The Gemara asks: bAnd how manydates should one keep for himself? bRava said: Up to three ise’a /i. Rav Pappa said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy. Some saythat it was bRav Ḥisda who said: If I were not a beer manufacturer I would not have become wealthy.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe meaning of the word isudana /i,the Aramaic term for a brewer? bRav Ḥisda said: A pleasant secret [ isod na’e /i] and acts of loving kindness,as brewing is a good way to make money and also enables one to perform good deeds.,The Gemara continues to offer advice about mundane matters. bRav Pappa said: Anythingyou acquire with a document bby meansof which ownership is transferred, i.e., a bill of acquisition or obligation, brequires collection,despite the fact that you are the legal owner. bAny sale on credit is uncertain whether or notit bwill cometo fruition. bAndeven bif itdoes bcometo fruition, bthe money is bad.These funds are difficult to collect, and they are generally not paid on time., bRabbi Yoḥa said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: When you go to war do not go out first, but go out last.The reason is bso thatif your side is defeated and you need to flee for your life, byou will enterthe refuge of the city bfirst. Andit is better to bmake your Shabbatlike an ordinary bweekday and do not be beholden toother bbeings. And exert yourselfto join together bwith one upon whom the hour smiles. /b, bRabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said three matters, citing the people of Jerusalem: Do not indulge in a shameful actin public, bbecause of the incident that occurredinvolving David and Bathsheba (see II Samuel 11–12). If byour daughter has grown up,it is better to bfree yourCanaanite bslave and givehim bto herthan to leave her to find a husband on her own. bAnd be careful with your wife with regard to her first son-in-law,as she is especially fond of him. bWhat is the reasonfor this warning? bRav Ḥisda said: Due tothe possibility of blicentiousness. Rav Kahana said: Due tothe fact that she might give him all your bmoneyand leave you impoverished. The Gemara comments: Since beither of thesecould bhappen,it is best to be prudent., bRabbi Yoḥa said: Threepeople are bamong those who inherit the World-to-Come: One who lives in Eretz Yisrael; one who raises his sons toengage bin Torah study; and one who recites ihavdalaover wine at the conclusion of Shabbat.The Gemara asks: bWhat isthe special importance of bthatmitzva, to recite ihavdalaover wine? The Gemara answers: This is referring to an individual with only a small amount of wine, bwhonevertheless bleaves some ofhis kiddush wine bfor ihavdala /i. /b, bRabbi Yoḥafurther bsaid: The Holy One, Blessed be He, proclaims aboutthe goodness of bthreekinds bof people every day,as exceptional and noteworthy individuals: bAbout a bachelor who lives in a city and does not sinwith women; babout a poor person who returns a lost object to its ownersdespite his poverty; band about a wealthy person who tithes his produce in private,without publicizing his behavior. The Gemara reports: bRav Safra was a bachelor living in a city. /b
25. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

30a. וכל לישני דבי דינא ולא הוה כתב בה במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי,סבר רבינא למימר היינו דריש לקיש א"ל רב נתן בר אמי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כל כי האי גוונא חיישינן לב"ד טועין,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אי כתב בה בי דינא תו לא צריך,ודילמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו ב"ד חצוף דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנא אשי,ודילמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו דכתיב בו (ואמרנא ליה לרבנא אשי) ואמר לן רבנא אשי,ת"ר אמר להן אחד אני ראיתי אביכם שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן בבית לא אמר כלום בשדה דבריו קיימין,כללו של דבר כל שבידו ליטלן דבריו קיימין אין בידו ליטלן לא אמר כלום,הרי שראו את אביהן שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן אם כמוסר דבריו קיימין אם כמערים לא אמר כלום,הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:,שנים אומרים זכאי כו': מיכתב היכי כתבי,ר' יוחנן אמר זכאי ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין (ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין) רבי (אליעזר) אמר מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לשלומי איהו מנתא בהדייהו דלמאן דאמר זכאי משלם ולמאן דאמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלם,ולמ"ד זכאי משלם לימא להו אי לדידי צייתיתון אתון נמי לא שלמיתון,אלא איכא בינייהו לשלומי אינהו מנתא דידיה למ"ד זכאי משלמי למ"ד פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלמי,ולמאן דאמר זכאי משלמי ולימרו ליה אי לאו את בהדן לא הוה סליק דינא מידי,אלא איכא בינייהו משום (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך רבי יוחנן אמר זכאי משום לא תלך רכיל,ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני פלוני מחייבין משום דמיחזי כשיקרא,ור' אלעזר אית ליה דמר ואית ליה דמר הלכך כתבי הכי מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני:,גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין כו': למאן אילימא לבעלי דינין התם קיימי אלא לעדים,כמאן דלא כרבי נתן דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד רבי נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין את דבריו,לא לעולם לבעלי דינין ורבי נחמיה היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כך היה מנהגן של נקיי הדעת שבירושלים מכניסין לבעלי דינין ושומעין דבריהן ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם ומוציאין אותן לחוץ ונושאין ונותנין בדבר (גמרו את הדבר מכניסין אותן כו'),והתניא גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים ההיא דלא כרבי נתן,גופא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא,איבעית אימא סברא אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי ומנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קמסהיד האי ואידך אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי,ואיבעית אימא קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע,ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד,זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחד,ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון חד למימר עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד ואידך והוא עד או ראה או ידע מ"מ:,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בב"ד עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא,אב"א סברא מר סבר עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי לממונא לא אתי,ואידך אטו כי אתו בהדי הדדי בחד פומא קא מסהדי אלא מצרפינן להו הכא נמי ליצרפינהו,ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו 30a. band all of the formulationsof an enactment bof the courtwere written in it. But only two were signed on it, bandthe following statement bwas not written in it: We wereconvened bin a session of threejudges, band oneof the judges bis nolonger here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly., bRavina thought to saythat bthis isa case in which the principle bof Reish Lakish,that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. bRav Natan bar Ami said to him: Thisis what bwe say in the name of Rava:In bany cases like this, we are concerned forthe possibility of ban erroneous courtthat thinks that two constitute a court., bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written inthe document: We, the members of bthe court,convened, it is bunnecessaryfor the deed to bfurtherstate that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.,The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says:With regard to btwojudges bwhoconvened a tribunal and bjudged, their verdict isa binding bverdict; butbecause they contravened the rabbinic ordice mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, bthey are called an impudent court.The Gemara answers: It was a document bin which it was written:We, the members of bthe court of Rabbana Ashi,convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.,The Gemara asks: bBut perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel,that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document bin which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us.Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. bThe Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: In a case where bone said tothe children of another: bI saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying:This money bbelongs to so-and-so,or: This money bis second tithe,and the money was found where he said, the ihalakhadepends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was bin the house,the witness has bsaid nothing.His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was bin the field, his statement stands,i.e., is accepted., bThe principle of the matteris as follows: In banycase bwhere it is inthe bpower ofthe witness bto takethe money, bhis statement stands;if bit is not in his power to takethe money, bhe has said nothing. /b,In a case bwherethe children themselves bsaw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, andthe father bsaid:This money bbelongs to so-and-so,or: This money bis second tithe, ifhe said so bas one who relaysinformation to his own children, bhis statement stands.But bifhe said so bas one who employs artifice,i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, bhe has said nothing,and they may spend the money.,In a case bwhereone bwas distressed about money that his father left himas an inheritance, because he could not find it, band the master of the dream,i.e., someone in his dream, bcame and said to him: It is such and suchan amount of money and bit is in such and such a place,but the money bis second tithe,and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and bthis wasan actual bincidentthat was brought before the Sages, band they saidthat he can spend the money, as bmattersappearing in bdreams do not make a differencein determining the practical ihalakha /i.,§ The mishna teaches that if btwojudges bsaythe defendant is bexemptand one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, bhow do they writethe verdict?, bRabbi Yoḥa says:They write that he is bexempt,without mentioning the dispute. bReish Lakish saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable;they must mention that there was a dispute. bRabbi Eliezer saysthat they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: bFrom the statement ofthe judges bso-and-so was deemed exempt,to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.,The Gemara asks: bWhatis the difference bbetweenthese opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference bbetween themis bwith regard towhether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must bpayhis bportionof restitution balong withthe judges of the majority. bAs according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,the minority judge bpaysas well, band according to the one who saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, he does not pay. /b,The Gemara asks: bBut according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,why bdoes he pay? Let him say tothe other judges: bIf you would have listened to me you would not have paid either.Why should I have to pay for your mistake?, bRather,he does not pay, and the practical difference bbetweenthe opinions is bwith regard towhether or not bthoseother judges must bpay his portionof the restitution. bAccording to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt, they paythe full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But baccording to the one who saysthat they specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, they do not paythe portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.,The Gemara asks: bBut according to the one who saysthat they write that he is bexempt,why bdo they payhis portion? bLet them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all,as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment., bRather,the difference bbetweenthe opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is bdue tothe prohibition of: b“You shall not go as a talebearer among your people”(Leviticus 19:16). bRabbi Yoḥa saysthat they write that he is bexempt due tothe prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: b“You shall not go as a talebearer.” /b, bReish Lakish saysthey specify: bSo-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bexempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deemhim bliable, becauseotherwise the document would bhave the appearance of falsehood,as not all the judges deemed him exempt., bAnd Rabbi Elazar acceptsthe opinion bofthis bSage,Rabbi Yoḥa, band acceptsthe opinion bofthat bSage,Reish Lakish. bTherefore, thisis what bthey write: From the statement ofthe judges, bso-and-so was deemed exempt.This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.,§ The mishna teaches that after the judges bfinished the matterand reached a decision, bthey would bringthem bin.The Gemara asks: bWhomwould they bring in? bIf we saythey would bring in bthe litigants,this cannot be, as bthey were therethe whole time; they never left the room. bRather,they would bring in bthe witnesses. /b,If so, bin accordance with whoseopinion is the mishna? It is bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Natan; as it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bThe testimonies ofindividual witnesses bare never combinedinto a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:Their testimonies are combined beven ina case where they saw the incident bone after the other. /b,The ibaraitacontinues: bAndfurthermore, btheir testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testifytogether bas one. Rabbi Natan says:They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges bhear the statement of thiswitness btoday, and when the otherwitness bcomes tomorrowthe judges bhear his statement.The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.,The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: bNo, actuallyit can be explained that the judges would bring in bthe litigants; and it isin accordance with the opinion of bRabbi Neḥemya. As it is taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem:When they would judge, btheywould bbring in the litigants and hear their statements, andthen btheywould bbring in the witnesses and hear their statementsin the presence of the litigants, bandthen btheywould btake themall boutsideof the courtroom band discuss the matterin their absence. Once bthey finished the matter theywould bbring them,i.e., the litigants, bin,to hear their verdict.,The Gemara asks: bBut isn’t it taughtin a ibaraitaexplicitly: When bthey finished the matter theywould bbring in the witnesses?The Gemara answers: bThat ibaraitais certainly bnot in accordance withthe opinion of bRabbi Natan. /b,§ The Gemara discusses bthematter bitself: The testimonies ofindividual witnesses bare never combinedinto a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says:Their testimonies are combined beven ina case where they saw the incident bone after the other.The Gemara asks: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse, and if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning:The first itannaholds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, babout the one hundred dinarsof debt bthat thisone bis testifying, thatone bis not testifying, andabout bthe one hundred dinars that thatone bis testifying, this one is not testifying.There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. bAnd the other itanna /i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since bbothwitnesses bare testifying about one hundred dinars in general,the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars., bAnd if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse, as it is written:“And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, band he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara explains: bAnd it is taughtin a ibaraitawith regard to the verse: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); bby inference, from thatwhich bis statedin the verse: bA witness shall not rise upagainst a man, even without the word “one,” bdo I not know that it isreferring to bonewitness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, bwhatis the meaning when bthe verse statesexplicitly: b“Onewitness”?, bThis established a paradigm,a basis for the principle that in bevery placein the Torah bwherethe word b“witness” is stated,it means that bthere are twowitnesses, bunless the verse specifies for youthat it is referring to only bonewitness., bAndaccording to the first itanna /i, bthe Merciful One expresses it in the singular form,i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” bto saythat they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses bunless the two of them sawthe incident transpire together bas one. And the other itanna /i, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: b“And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,”that bin any casewhere one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.,The ibaraitacited above teaches: bAndfurthermore, btheir testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testifytogether bas one. Rabbi Natan says:They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges bhear the statement of thiswitness btoday, and when the otherwitness bcomes tomorrowthe judges bhear his statement.The Gemara asks: bWith regard to what do they disagree?The Gemara answers: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning,and bif you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse. /b,The Gemara elaborates: bIf you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to blogical reasoning,as one bSage,the first itanna /i, bholdsthat bwhen one witness comesto testify, bhe comes torender the defendant liable to take ban oath.This is the ihalakhawhen there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. bHe does not come torender the defendant liable to pay bmoney,because for this two witnesses are necessary., bAnd the other itanna /i, Rabbi Natan, responds: bIs that to saythat bwhen they come together,they render the defendant ficially liable because bthey testify with one mouth?Obviously they testify one after the other. bRather,clearly it is the judges who bcombinetheir two testimonies into one. bHere too,when the witnesses come to court at different times, bletthe judges bcombinetheir testimonies., bAnd if you wish, saythat they disagree with regard to the interpretation of ba verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity”(Leviticus 5:1)


Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
abba saul Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
accusation Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92, 95
amoraim, amoraic period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79, 92, 103
apocrypha Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
aramaic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
archive Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
bailees (shomerin) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
bar kokhba caves Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
bible Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11, 56, 95, 130
biblical period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
capital matters Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 73, 79, 92
christianity Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92, 103
confession Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
conviction Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 103
court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
end of days, enoch, book of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
eschatological war Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
eschatology, sectarian Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
evidence Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
examiner Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 95
execution Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
exegesis, midrash Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
exegesis, sectarian Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 79, 95
ezra Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
family, status of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
financial contact, matters Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 73, 79, 92
fines, of one-fifth Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
flagellation, flogging (malqut) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79, 103
gentiles Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
god Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
halakhah/halakhot, and aggadah; law and narrative Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
hebrew, biblical Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11, 103, 130
hebrew, masoretic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
hebrew, qumran Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
hebrew Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
hermeneutics/hermeneutical—see also, interpretation Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
incarceration Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
income tax Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
interpretation—see also midrash Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
josiah, jubilees, book of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
judges Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 197; Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
judgment after death Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
judicial authority (misuse of), service, age limits for Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
law, apodictic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
law, biblical/rabbinic—see also, halakhah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156, 197
law, biblical Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
law, casuistic Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
law, sectarian Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
majority, legal Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
manual of discipline Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
marriage, age of' "267.0_56.0@midrash tadshe', organization" Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
maskil Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 71
masoretic text Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
mebaqqer Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 71
midrash/midrashim Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156, 197
military conscription, age limits for Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
moshav ha-rabbim Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 95
mustering Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
nehemiah Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
offender Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
offenses, grudge, bearing a Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
offenses, recording of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 95, 103
offenses, repetition of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 92, 103
offenses, reporting of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73
overseer, the Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 197
paqqid Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 71
penal code of the zadokite fragments, literary organization Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, law Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
prayer Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156, 197
priests, aaronide Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
priests/priesthood Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 197
property, restitution of lost or stolen Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
prophets Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
pseudepigrapha Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
punishment, penalty Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
pure food, removal from Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73
purity/ritual purity Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 197
qumran, headquarters of sect, library Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
qumran/qumran community Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
qumran literature, leadership figures Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 71
qumran literature, legal authority in Flatto, The Crown and the Courts (2021) 71
rabbi joshua ben levi Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
rabbi joshua ben qorha Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
rabbi yohanan Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
rabbis, rabbinic literature Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73
rav papa Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
records, written Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95, 103
reproof, time limit on Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
reproof Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 92, 95, 103
sabbath, code of zadokite fragments Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11
second commonwealth period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
sect, full status in Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
sect, membership in Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
sect, organizational regulations Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
sectarian settlements, archaeology of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
slander Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
synonymous variants Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 130
tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11, 79, 92, 95, 103
tax collector Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
testimony, combination of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 103
testimony, law of, (zadokite fragments) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 73, 79, 92, 95
testimony Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 79, 95, 103
torah' Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 156
torah Fraade, Legal Fictions: Studies of Law and Narrative in the Discursive Worlds of Ancient Jewish Sectarians and Sages (2011) 197
trial, liability to be tried Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79, 92
violation of the law Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 95
voting Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
vows, annulment of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 103
witnesses, insufficient Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 92
witnesses, number required Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73
witnesses, qualifications of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56
witnesses, reliability of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73
witnesses, single (one) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 103
witnesses, three Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 92
witnesses, two Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 73, 79, 92
witnesses Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 56, 95
zadokite fragments Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 11, 73