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



1767
Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 6b


were two witnesses observing an individual violating a capital transgression from this window in a house, and two observing him from that window in a house, and one person was forewarning the transgressor in the middle between the two sets of witnesses, the halakha depends on the circumstances. In a situation where some of the witnesses observing from the two windows see each other, the testimony of all these witnesses constitutes one testimony, but if they do not see each other, the testimony of these witnesses constitutes two independent testimonies. Therefore, as two independent sets of witnesses, if one of the sets was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both he, the one accused of violating the capital transgression, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed, and the second set, whose testimony remained valid, is exempt.,Rabbi Yosei says: Transgressors are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses…he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. Alternatively, from the phrase “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter.,Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says that Rav says: From where is it derived with regard to disjointed testimony, in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, that it is not valid? It is derived from a verse, as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: What is the meaning of “one witness”? If we say that it means one witness literally, we learn it from the first portion of the verse: “At the mouth of two witnesses,” indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. Rather, what is the meaning of “one witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with one witness here and one witness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: This is also taught in a baraita: It is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,” from which it is derived to include the halakha that in the case of two witnesses who observe an individual violating a capital transgression, one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses. Moreover, even if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but one after the other in one window, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Rav Pappa said to Abaye: Why is it necessary to mention both cases? Now if in the case where one witness views the incident from this window and one witness views the incident from that window, where this witness sees the entire incident and that witness sees the entire incident, you say that they do not join to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident one after the other, where this witness sees half the incident and that witness sees half the incident, is it necessary to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye said to him: It is necessary to state this halakha only with regard to a case where they witnessed one who engages 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 tanna of the baraita teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, Rava says: Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, if the witness in each window sees the one who is forewarning the accused, or if the one who is forewarning the accused could see the two disjointed witnesses, they join to constitute a set of witnesses. Rava says: The one forewarning the accused of whom the Sages spoke need not be a third witness, but even if the victim forewarns the murderer from his own mouth, and even if the forewarning emerged from the mouth of a demon, meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate.,Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, is valid in cases of monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that it is only with regard to cases of capital law that disjointed testimony is not valid, but with regard to cases of monetary law that testimony is valid.,Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so, and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, in cases of capital law disjointed testimony should spare the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. Why, then, did we learn in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, he, the accused, and they, the conspiring witnesses, are executed? The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is difficult according to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that Rabbi Yosei says: Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of the opinion that this line of reasoning is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? But didn’t we learn in a mishna (9b): Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, he is executed even if there was no forewarning, due to the fact that his halakhic status is like that of one who is cautioned and forewarned. Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye said to him: That statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei is actually the opinion of Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A ḥaver does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between one who commits a transgression unwittingly and one who does so intentionally. A ḥaver, 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: Alternatively, from the phrase in the verse “at the mouth of two witnesses” one derives that the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter. The Gemara relates: There were certain people who spoke a foreign language who came before Rava for judgment. Rava installed an interpreter between them and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn in the mishna that the Sanhedrin will not hear testimony from the mouth of an interpreter? The Gemara answers: Rava knew what they were saying, as he understood their language, but he did not know how to respond to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna.


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

6 results
1. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.17-9.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

2. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.17-9.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE)

3. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

105b. סולדת בהן אבל היד סולדת בהן אין נוטלין בהן,ואיכא דמתני לה אסיפא אחרונים אין נוטלין אלא בצונן אבל בחמין לא אמר רב יצחק בר יוסף אמר רבי ינאי לא שנו אלא שהיד סולדת בהן אבל אין היד סולדת בהן נוטלין מכלל דראשונים אף על פי שהיד סולדת בהן מותר,אמצעיים רשות אמר רב נחמן לא שנו אלא בין תבשיל לתבשיל אבל בין תבשיל לגבינה חובה,אמר רב יהודה בריה דרבי חייא מפני מה אמרו מים אחרונים חובה שמלח סדומית יש שמסמא את העינים אמר אביי ומשתכח כי קורטא בכורא אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי כל מלחא מאי אמר ליה לא מבעיא,אמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא משו מיא בתראי על ארעא משום זוהמא אמר לי מר משום דשריא רוח רעה עלייהו,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שקיל מידי מפתורא כי נקיט איניש כסא למשתי שמא יארע דבר קלקלה בסעודה אמר לי מר משום דקשי לרוח צרדא,ולא אמרן אלא דשקיל ולא מהדר אבל משקל ואהדורי לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא חוץ לארבע אמות אבל תוך ארבע אמות לית לן בה ולא אמרן אלא מידי דצריך לסעודתא אבל מידי דלא צריך לסעודתא לית לן בה,מר בר רב אשי קפיד אפילו אאסיתא ובוכנא דתבלי מידי דצריכי לסעודתא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דכנשי נשווראה משום מנקירותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לעניותא,ההוא גברא דהוה מהדר עליה שרא דעניותא ולא הוה יכיל ליה דקא זהיר אנשוורא טובא יומא חד כרך ליפתא איבלי אמר השתא ודאי נפל בידאי בתר דאכיל אייתי מרא עקרינהו ליבלי שדינהו לנהרא שמעיה דקאמר ווי דאפקיה ההוא גברא מביתיה,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא שתי אופיא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכרסם מישתיה קשה לכרסם מינפח ביה קשיא לרישא מדחייה קשיא לעניותא מאי תקנתיה לשקעיה שקועי,לכרסם דחמרא שיכרא דשיכרא מיא דמיא לית ליה תקנתא והיינו דאמרי אינשי בתר עניא אזלא עניותא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה משום דמיחזי כרעבתנותא אמר לי מר משום דקשי לכשפים,רב חסדא ורבה בר רב הונא הוו קאזלי בארבא אמרה להו ההיא מטרוניתא אותבן בהדייכו לא אותבוה אמרה מלתא אסרתה לארבא אמרו אינהו מילתא שריוה אמרה להו מאי איעביד לכו דלא מקנח לכו בחספא ולא קטיל לכו כינה אמנייכו ולא אכיל לכו ירקא מכישא דאסר גינאה,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא אכלי ירקא דנפל אתכא משום מאיסותא אמר לי מר משום דקשה לריח הפה ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דלא יתבי תותי מרזיבא משום שופכים אמר לי מר משום דשכיחי מזיקין,הנהו שקולאי דהוו דרו חביתא דחמרא בעו לאיתפוחי אותבוה תותי מרזיבא פקעה אתו לקמיה דמר בר רב אשי אפיק שיפורי שמתיה אתא לקמיה אמר ליה אמאי תעביד הכי אמר ליה היכי אעביד כי אותביה באונאי,אמר ליה את בדוכתא דשכיחי רבים מאי בעית את הוא דשנית זיל שלים אמר ליה השתא נמי ליקבע לי מר זימנא ואפרע קבע ליה זימנא כי מטא זימנא איעכב כי אתא אמר ליה אמאי לא אתית בזמנך אמר ליה כל מילי דצייר וחתים וכייל ומני לית לן רשותא למשקל מיניה עד דמשכחינן מידי דהפקרא,ואמר אביי מריש הוה אמינא האי דשדי מיא מפומא דחצבא משום ציבתא אמר לי מר משום דאיכא מים הרעים,ההוא בר שידא דהוה בי רב פפא אזל לאתויי מיא מנהרא איעכב כי אתא אמרו ליה אמאי איעכבת אמר להו עד דחלפי מים הרעים אדהכי 105b. brecoil [ isoledet /i] fromthe water’s heat. bButif bthe hand recoils from it, one may not wash with it. /b, bAnd there are those who teacha version of bthisstatement bwith regard to the latter clauseof the ibaraita /i: For bfinalwaters, bone may wash only with coldwater, bbutone may bnotwash bwith hotwater. bRav Yitzḥak bar Yosef saysthat bRabbi Yannai says: They taughtthat one may not use hot water bonlyin a case bwherethe water is so hot that bthe hand recoils from it, but if the hand does not recoil from it, one may washwith it. The Gemara comments: One can learn bby inferencefrom this version of the statement bthatin the case of bfirstwaters, beven ifthe water is so hot that bthe hand recoils from it,it is bpermittedto use it for washing.,§ The ibaraitastates that bmiddlewaters are boptional. Rav Naḥman says: They taughtthis bonlywith regard to washing the hands bbetweenone bcooked dish andanother bcooked dishserved at a meal. bBut between a cooked dish and cheesethere is ban obligationto wash one’s hands.,§ The ibaraitafurther teaches that final waters are an obligation. bRav Yehuda, son of Rabbi Ḥiyya, says: For whatreason did the Sages bsay that final waters are an obligation?It is bbecause Sodomite salt issometimes bpresent,a small amount of bwhich blinds the eyes.Since Sodomite salt could remain on one’s hands, one must wash them after eating. bAbaye said: Andthis type of dangerous salt bis presentin the proportion of ba pinch[ikorta/b] binan entire ikor /i of regular salt. bRav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:If one bmeasured saltbetween meals, bwhatis the ihalakha /i? Must he wash his hands afterward? bHe said to him: It is not necessaryto say this; he is certainly obligated to do so.,§ bAbaye said: At first I would saythat bthis ihalakha bthat one may not washhis hands with bfinal waters over the groundis bdue to messiness.But the bMaster,Rabba, bsaid to methat it is bbecause an evil spirit rests uponthe water and passersby are liable to be afflicted., bAnd Abayealso bsaid: At first I would saythat the reason for bthisstatement of the Sages bthat one should not take anything from the table when a person is holding a cup to drink,is blest a mishap occur at the meal,i.e., the one holding the cup might have wanted the item that was taken, and since he is unable to speak he will choke in his anger. But bthe Mastersubsequently bsaid to methat it is bbecause it is bad forone’s health, causing ba spirit ofpain in bhalfhis head, i.e., a migraine., bAnd we saidthat this practice is prohibited bonly if one takesan item from the table band does not putit bback. Butas for btaking and putting back, we have noproblem bwith it. Andlikewise, bwe saidit is prohibited bonlyif one takes the item bbeyond four cubitsof the table. bButif one leaves it bwithin four cubits, we have noproblem bwith it. Andfurthermore, bwe saidthis ihalakha bonlywith regard to ban item that is necessary for the meal. Butin the case of ban item that is not necessary for the meal, we have noproblem bwith it. /b,The Gemara relates that bMar bar Rav Ashi was particularnot to remove any object from the table when someone was holding his cup in hand, beven with regard to a mortar [ iasita /i] and pestle [ ibukhna /i] for spices,like all bitems that are necessary for the meal. /b, bAnd Abayefurther bsaid: At first I would saythat bthispractice bthatpeople bcollect the crumbsof bread after a meal is bdue to cleanliness.But bthe Mastersubsequently bsaid to methat it is bbecauseleaving them bis bad for,i.e., it can increase, a person’s vulnerability to bpoverty. /b,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain man who was pursued by the ministering angel of poverty, butthe angel bwas unable toimpoverish bhim, as he was exceptionally careful with regard to crumbs. One daythat man bbrokehis bbread over grass,and some crumbs fell among the blades of grass. The angel bsaid: Now he will certainly fall into my hands,as he cannot collect all the crumbs. bAfterthe man bate, he brought a hoe, uprooted the grass,and bthrew it into the river.He subsequently bheardthe ministering angel of poverty bsay: Woeis me, bas that man has removed me from my house,i.e., my position of comfort., bAnd Abaye said: At first I would saythat bthispractice bthatpeople bdo not drink the foamfrom the top of a beverage is followed bbecauseit is brepulsive.But bthe Master said to methat it is followed bbecause it is bad forone’s vulnerability to bcatarrh.The Gemara comments: bDrinking it is bad for catarrh,while bblowingoff the foam from the drink bis bad for headpains, and bremoving itwith one’s hand bis bad for poverty.If so, bwhat is its remedy?How may one drink? He bshould sinkthe foam inside the beverage and then drink it.,The Gemara notes: The treatment bfor catarrhcaused by the foam bof wineis bbeer;the treatment for catarrh caused by the foam bof beeris bwater;and for catarrh caused by the foam bof water there is no remedy. And thisis in accordance with the adage bthat people say: Poverty follows the poor.Not only does a pauper have nothing to drink other than water, but there also is no treatment for the disease caused by his beverage., bAnd Abaye said: At first I would saythat the reason for bthispractice bthatpeople bdo not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardeneris bbecause it has the appearance of gluttony,as he does not wait to untie the bundle to eat. But bthe Master said to methat it is bbecauseit bis bad forone’s vulnerability to bwitchcraft. /b,The Gemara relates: bRav Ḥisda and Rabba bar Rav Huna were traveling on a boat. A certain matron said to them: Seat me together with youon the boat, but bthey did not seat heralongside them. bShe said something,an incantation, and thereby btied the boatto its spot so that it could not move. bTheytoo bsaid something andthereby breleased it.That matron bsaid to them: What can I do to you?Witchcraft has no power over you, basafter attending to your bodily functions, byou do not wipe yourselves with an earthenware shard, and you do not kill a lousethat you find bon your garments, and you do not eat vegetables from a bundle tied by the gardener. /b, bAnd Abaye said: At first I would sayas follows: The reason for bthispractice bthatpeople bdo not eat vegetables that fell on the tableis bbecauseit is breplusive.But bthe Master said to methat it is bbecause it is bad for halitosis. And Abaye said: At first I would saythat the reason for bthispractice bthatpeople bdo not sit under a gutteris bbecauseof the bwaste waterthat pours out of it. But bthe Master said to methat it is bbecause demons arecommonly bfoundthere.,The Gemara relates: There were bcertain porters who were carrying a barrel of wine.When bthey wanted to rest, they placed it under a gutterand the barrel bburst. They came before Mar bar Rav Ashi,who bbrought out horns andhad them blown as he bexcommunicatedthe demon of that place. The demon bcame beforeMar bar Rav Ashi, and the Sage bsaid to it: Why did you do this?The demon bsaid to him: Howelse bshould I act, whenthese men bplacea barrel bon my ear? /b,Mar bar Rav Ashi bsaid to it: What are you doing in a place where manypeople bare found? You are the one who deviatedfrom the norm; bgoand bpaythem the value of the barrel of wine. The demon bsaid to him: Let the Master now set a time for me,so that I can find the money, band I will pay.Mar bar Rav Ashi bset a time forhis payment. bWhenthat btime arrived,the demon bdelayedin coming to pay. bWhenthe demon eventually bcame,Mar bar Rav Ashi bsaid to it: Why did you not come atthe btimeset for byou?The demon bsaid to him:With regard to bany item that is tied up, or sealed, or measured, or counted, we have no authority to take it.We are unable to obtain money buntil we find an ownerless item.For this reason, it took him a long time to find enough money to pay for the barrel., bAnd Abaye said: At first I would saythat bthispractice bthatpeople bpour outa little bwater from the mouth of a pitcherbefore drinking from it is followed bbecause of twigsit might contain. But bthe Master said to methat it is followed bbecause there are foul watersin the pitcher.,The Gemara relates: There was ba certain son of a demon that was in Rav Pappa’s houseas a servant. It bwent to bring water from the river,and bit delayedin returning. bWhen it came,the members of Rav Pappa’s household bsaid to it: Why did you delay? It said to them:I waited buntil the foul waters passed. In the meantime, /b
4. Babylonian Talmud, Megillah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

16b. יכשל בו דאמר רבא בר מחסיא אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב בשביל משקל שני סלעים מילת שהוסיף יעקב ליוסף משאר אחיו נתגלגל הדבר וירדו אבותינו למצרים אמר רבי בנימן בר יפת רמז רמז לו שעתיד בן לצאת ממנו שיצא מלפני המלך בחמשה לבושי מלכות שנאמר ומרדכי יצא בלבוש מלכות תכלת וגו',(בראשית מה, יד) ויפול על צוארי בנימן אחיו כמה צוארין הוו ליה לבנימין אמר רבי אלעזר בכה על שני מקדשים שעתידין להיות בחלקו של בנימין ועתידין ליחרב ובנימין בכה על צואריו בכה על משכן שילה שעתיד להיות בחלקו של יוסף ועתיד ליחרב,(בראשית מה, יב) והנה עיניכם רואות ועיני אחי בנימין אמר רבי אלעזר אמר להם כשם שאין בלבי על בנימין אחי שלא היה במכירתי כך אין בלבי עליכם כי פי המדבר אליכם כפי כן לבי,(בראשית מה, כג) ולאביו שלח כזאת עשרה חמורים נושאים מטוב מצרים מאי מטוב מצרים אמר ר' בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר שלח לו יין [ישן] שדעת זקנים נוחה הימנו,(בראשית נ, יח) וילכו גם אחיו ויפלו לפניו אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר היינו דאמרי אינשי תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,תעלא מאי בצירותיה מאחווה אלא אי איתמר הכי איתמר (בראשית מז, לא) וישתחו ישראל על ראש המטה אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר תעלא בעידניה סגיד ליה,(בראשית נ, כא) וינחם אותם וידבר על לבם אמר רבי בנימין בר יפת אמר רבי אלעזר מלמד שאמר להם דברים שמתקבלין על הלב ומה עשרה נרות לא יכלו לכבות נר אחד נר אחד היאך יכול לכבות עשרה נרות,(אסתר ח, טז) ליהודים היתה אורה ושמחה וששון ויקר אמר רב יהודה אורה זו תורה וכן הוא אומר (משלי ו, כג) כי נר מצוה ותורה אור שמחה זה יום טוב וכן הוא אומר (דברים טז, יד) ושמחת בחגך ששון זו מילה וכן הוא אומר (תהלים קיט, קסב) שש אנכי על אמרתך,ויקר אלו תפלין וכן הוא אומר (דברים כח, י) וראו כל עמי הארץ כי שם ה' נקרא עליך ויראו ממך ותניא רבי אליעזר הגדול אומר אלו תפלין שבראש,ואת פרשנדתא וגו' עשרת בני המן אמר רב אדא דמן יפו עשרת בני המן ועשרת צריך לממרינהו בנשימה אחת מאי טעמא כולהו בהדי הדדי נפקו נשמתייהו אמר רבי יוחנן ויו דויזתא צריך למימתחה בזקיפא כמורדיא דלברות מאי טעמא כולהו בחד זקיפא אזדקיפו,אמר רבי חנינא בר פפא דרש ר' שילא איש כפר תמרתא כל השירות כולן נכתבות אריח על גבי לבינה ולבינה על גבי אריח,חוץ משירה זו ומלכי כנען שאריח על גבי אריח ולבינה על גבי לבינה מ"ט שלא תהא תקומה למפלתן,ויאמר המלך לאסתר המלכה בשושן הבירה הרגו היהודים אמר רבי אבהו מלמד שבא מלאך וסטרו על פיו,ובבאה לפני המלך אמר עם הספר אמר אמרה מיבעי ליה אמר רבי יוחנן אמרה לו יאמר בפה מה שכתוב בספר,דברי שלום ואמת אמר רבי תנחום ואמרי לה אמר רבי אסי מלמד שצריכה שרטוט כאמיתה של תורה,ומאמר אסתר קיים מאמר אסתר אין דברי הצומות לא אמר רבי יוחנן דברי הצומות ומאמר אסתר קיים (את ימי) הפורים האלה,כי מרדכי היהודי משנה למלך אחשורוש וגדול ליהודים ורצוי לרוב אחיו לרוב אחיו ולא לכל אחיו מלמד שפירשו ממנו מקצת סנהדרין,אמר רב יוסף גדול ת"ת יותר מהצלת נפשות דמעיקרא חשיב ליה למרדכי בתר ד' ולבסוף בתר חמשה מעיקרא כתיב (עזרא ב, ב) אשר באו עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה שריה רעליה מרדכי בלשן ולבסוף כתיב (נחמיה ז, ז) הבאים עם זרובבל ישוע נחמיה עזריה רעמיה נחמני מרדכי בלשן,אמר רב ואיתימא רב שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מבנין בית המקדש שכל זמן שברוך בן נריה קיים לא הניחו עזרא ועלה,אמר רבה אמר רב יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא גדול תלמוד תורה יותר מכבוד אב ואם שכל אותן שנים שהיה יעקב אבינו בבית עבר לא נענש דאמר מר 16b. bhehimself bshould stumbleby showing favoritism to Benjamin? bAs Rava bar Meḥaseyya saidthat bRav Ḥama bar Gurya saidthat bRav said: Due tothe weight of btwo sela of fine wool that Jacobgave to Joseph, which he badded towhat he gave bJoseph beyondwhat he gave bthe rest of his brothers,as he made him his special coat, bthe story progressed and our forefathers went down to Egypt.How then could Joseph have displayed similar favoritism toward Benjamin? bRabbi Binyamin bar Yefet said: Hewas not showing favoritism. Rather, he bintimated to him that a descendant was destined to issue from him who would go out from the presence of the kingwearing bfive royal garments, as it is stated: “And Mordecai went forthfrom the presence of the king bin royal apparel of sky blueand white, and with a great crown of gold, and with a wrap of fine linen and purple” (Esther 8:15).,The Gemara elaborates on certain elements in the story of Joseph and his brothers. The verse states with regard to Joseph: b“And he fell on his brother Benjamin’s neck [ itzavarei/b] and wept” (Genesis 45:14). The wording of the verse gives rise to a question, as the word itzavareiis plural, meaning necks: bHow many necks did Benjamin have,such that the verse should use the plural itzavareirather than the singular itzavar /i? bRabbi Elazar said:This intimates bthatJoseph bcried over the two Temples that were destined to be in thetribal bterritory of Benjamin and were destined to be destroyed.The same verse continues: b“And Benjamin wept on his neck”(Genesis 45:14); bhe cried over the tabernacle of Shiloh that was destined to be in thetribal bterritory of Joseph and was destined to be destroyed. /b,The verse states: b“And behold, your eyes see, and the eyes of my brother Benjamin”(Genesis 45:12). bRabbi Elazar said:Joseph bsaid tohis brothers as follows: bJust as Icertainly bharbor noresentment bin my heart toward my brother Benjamin, for he was noteven bpresent when I was sold, so too, I harbor noresentment btoward you.The verse continues: b“That it is my mouth [ iki fi /i] that speaks to you”(Genesis 45:12), i.e., bAs my mouth [ ikefi /i] is, so is my heart. /b,The verse states: b“And to his father he sent after this manner ten donkeys laden with the good things of Egypt”(Genesis 45:23). The Gemara asks: bWhat are “the good things of Egypt”that are mentioned but not specified here? bRabbi Binyamin bar Yefet saidthat bRabbi Elazar said: He sent him aged wine, which the elderly find pleasing. /b,Following Jacob’s death, it states concerning Joseph: b“And his brothers even went and fell down before him”(Genesis 50:18). bRabbi Binyamin bar Yefet saidthat bRabbi Elazar said: Thisexplains the folk saying bthat people say: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it,i.e., if a fox is appointed king, one must bow down before and submit oneself to it.,The Gemara expresses astonishment at the use of this parable: Are you calling Joseph ba fox? What, was he inferior to his brotherssuch that in relation to them you call him a fox? bRather, if such a statement was stated, it was stated as follows,not in connection with this verse, but rather in connection with a different verse. The verse states: b“And Israel bowed himself upon the head of the bed”(Genesis 47:31). With regard to this, bRabbi Binyamin bar Yefet saidthat bRabbi Elazar said: When the fox is in its hour, bow down to it,as Jacob had to bow down before his son Joseph, who had reached greatness.,It says with regard to Joseph’s remarks to his brothers: b“And he comforted them and spoke to their hearts”(Genesis 50:21). bRabbi Binyamin bar Yefet saidthat bRabbi Elazar said:This bteaches that he spoke to them words that are acceptable to the heart,and alleviated their fears. This is what he said: bIf ten lights could not put out one light,as all of you were unable to do me harm, bhow can one light put out ten lights? /b,§ The Gemara returns to its explanation of the Megilla. The verse states: b“The Jews had light and gladness, and joy and honor”(Esther 8:16). bRav Yehuda said: “Light”; thisis referring to the bTorahthat they once again studied. bAnd similarly it says: “For the mitzva is a lamp and the Torah is light”(Proverbs 6:23). b“Gladness” [ isimḥa /i]; thisis referring to bthe Festivalsthat they once again observed. bAnd similarly it says: “And you shall be glad [ ivesamakhta /i] on your Festival”(Deuteronomy 16:14). b“Joy” [ isasson /i]; thisis referring to bcircumcision,as they once again circumcised their sons. bAnd similarly it says: “I rejoice [ isas /i] at Your word”(Psalms 119:162), which the Sages understood as referring to David’s rejoicing over the mitzva of circumcision., b“Honor”; this isreferring to bphylacteries,which they once again donned. bAnd similarly it says: “And all peoples of the earth will see that you are called by the name of the Lord; and they will be afraid of you”(Deuteronomy 28:10). bAnd it was taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Eliezer the Great said: Thisis referring to bthe phylacteries worn on the head.Haman had banned the fulfillment of all the mitzvot mentioned, but upon Haman’s demise the Jews returned to their observance.,The verse states: “And in Shushan the capital the Jews slew and destroyed five hundred men. bAnd Parshandatha… /band Vaizatha, bthe ten sons of Haman”(Esther 9:6–10). bRav Adda from Jaffa said:When reading the Megilla, the names of bthe ten sons of Haman andthe word b“ten” must be said in one breath. What is the reasonfor this? It is that btheir souls all departed together. Rabbi Yoḥa said:The letter ivavinthe name b“Vaizatha”is a lengthened ivavand bmust be elongated as a pole, like a steering oar of a ship [ iliberot /i]. What is the reasonfor this? To indicate that bthey were all hanged on one pole. /b, bRabbi Ḥanina bar Pappa saidthat bRabbi Sheila, a man of the village of Timarta, interpreteda verse bhomiletically: Allof bthe songsin the Bible bare writtenin the form of ba half brick arranged upon a whole brick and a whole brick arranged upon a half brick,i.e., each line of the song is divided into a stitch of text, referred to as a half brick, which is separated by a blank space, referred to as a whole brick, from the concluding stitch of that line of text.,The next line of the song inverts the sequence. bThis is the principle for all songs in the Bible exceptfor bthis song,referring to the list of Haman’s sons, bandthe song listing bthe kings of Canaanwho were defeated by Joshua. These two songs are written in the form of ba half brick arranged upon a half brick and a whole brick arranged upon a whole brick,i.e., one stitch of text over another, and one blank space over another. bWhat is the reasonthat these two songs are written in this anomalous fashion? bSo that they should never rise from their downfall.Just as a wall that is built in this manner will not stand, so too, these individuals should have no resurgence.,The verse states: b“And the king said to Esther the queen: The Jews have slainand destroyed five hundred men bin Shushan the capital,and also the ten sons of Haman; what have they done in the rest of the king’s provinces? Now what is your petition and it shall be granted to you; and what more do you request, and it shall be done” (Esther 9:12). bRabbi Abbahu said: This teaches that an angel came and slapped him on his mouth,so that he was unable to finish what he was saying; he started with a complaint about what the Jews were doing, but ended on an entirely different note.,The verse states: b“But when she came before the king, he said with a letter”(Esther 9:25). Why does it say: b“He said”? It should have said: “She said,”as it was Esther who changed the decree. bRabbi Yoḥa said: She said toAhasuerus: bLet it be said byword of bmouth,indicating that bthat which is written in the lettershould also be ordered verbally.,With regard to what is stated: b“Words of peace and truth”(Esther 9:30), bRabbi Tanḥum said, and some saythat bRabbi Asisaid: This bteaches thata Megilla scroll brequires scoring,i.e., that the lines for the text must be scored onto the parchment, bas the Torah itself,i.e., as is done in a Torah scroll.,The verses say: “The matters of the fasts and their cry. bAnd the decree of Esther confirmedthese matters of Purim” (Esther 9:31–32). The Gemara asks: Should we say that b“the decree of Esther” indeedconfirmed these matters of Purim, but b“the matters of the fasts”did bnot?But didn’t the fasts also contribute to the miracle? bRabbi Yoḥa said:These two verses, b“The matters of the fastsand their cry. bAnd the decree of Esther confirmed these matters of Purim,”should be read as one.,The verse states: b“For Mordecai the Jew was second to the king Ahasuerus, and great among the Jews, and accepted by the majority of his brethren”(Esther 10:3). The Gemara comments: The verse indicates that Mordecai was accepted only b“By the majority of his brethren,” but not by all his brethren.This bteaches that somemembers bof the Sanhedrin parted from him,because he occupied himself with community needs, and was therefore compelled to neglect his Torah study. They felt that this was a mistake and that he should have remained active on the Sanhedrin., bRav Yosef said: Studying Torah is greater than saving lives, as initially,when listing the Jewish leaders who came to Eretz Yisrael, bMordecai was mentioned after fourother people, bbut at the endhe was listed bafter five.This is taken to indicate that his involvement in governmental affairs instead of in Torah study lowered his stature one notch. The Gemara proves this: bAt first it is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Seraiah, Reelaiah, Mordecai, Bilshan”(Ezra 2:2); bbut in the endin a later list bit is written: “Who came with Zerubbabel, Jeshua, Nehemiah, Azariah, Raamiah, Nahmani, Mordecai, Bilshan”(Nehemiah 7:7)., bRav said, and some saythat bRav Shmuel bar Martasaid: bStudying Torah is greaterand more important bthan building the Temple.A proof of this is that bfor as long as Baruch ben Neriah was alivein Babylonia, bEzra,who was his disciple, bdid not leave him and go upto Eretz Yisrael to build the Temple., bRabba saidthat bRav Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta said: Studying Torah isgreater and bmoreimportant bthan honoring one’s father and mother,and a proof of this is bthat for all those years that our father Jacob spent in the house of Eberand studied Torah there bhe was not punishedfor having neglected to fulfill the mitzva of honoring one’s parents. bAs the Master said: /b
5. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

70b. אין שואלין בשלום אשה על ידי בעלה אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל אין שואלין בשלום אשה כלל שלחה ליה דביתהו שרי ליה תגריה דלא נישוויך כשאר עם הארץ,א"ל מאי שיאטיה דמר הכא אמר ליה טסקא דהזמנותא שדר מר אבתראי אמר ליה השתא שותא דמר לא גמירנא טסקא דהזמנותא משדרנא למר אפיק דיסקא דהזמנותא מבי חדיה ואחזי ליה אמר ליה הא גברא והא דסקא אמר ליה הואיל ואתא מר להכא לישתעי מיליה כי היכי דלא לימרו מחנפי רבנן אהדדי,אמר ליה מאי טעמא שמתיה מר לההוא גברא ציער שליחא דרבנן ונגדיה מר דרב מנגיד על מאן דמצער שלוחא דרבנן דעדיף מיניה עבדי ליה,מאי טעמא אכריז מר עליה דעבדא הוא אמר ליה דרגיל דקרי אינשי עבדי ותני כל הפוסל פסול ואינו מדבר בשבחא לעולם ואמר שמואל במומו פוסל אימר דאמר שמואל למיחש ליה לאכרוזי עליה מי אמר,אדהכי והכי (אתא ההוא בר דיניה מנהרדעי) א"ל ההוא בר דיניה לרב יהודה לדידי קרית לי עבדא דאתינא מבית חשמונאי מלכא אמר ליה הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי קאתינא עבדא הוא,א"ל לא סבר לה מר להא דא"ר אבא אמר רב הונא אמר רב כל ת"ח שמורה הלכה ובא אם קודם מעשה אמרה שומעין לו ואם לאו אין שומעין לו אמר ליה הא איכא רב מתנה דקאי כוותי,רב מתנה לא חזייה לנהרדעא תליסר שני ההוא יומא אתא אמר ליה דכיר מר מאי אמר שמואל כי קאי חדא כרעא אגודא וחדא כרעא במברא א"ל הכי אמר שמואל כל דאמר מדבית חשמונאי מלכא קאתינא עבדא הוא דלא אישתיור מינייהו אלא ההיא רביתא דסלקא לאיגרא ורמיא קלא ואמרה כל דאמר מבית חשמונאי אנא עבדא הוא,נפלה מאיגרא ומיתה אכרוז עליה דעבדא הוא,ההוא יומא אקרען כמה כתובתא בנהרדעא כי קא נפיק נפקי אבתריה למירגמיה אמר להו אי שתיקו שתיקו ואי לא מגלינא עלייכו הא דאמר שמואל תרתי זרעייתא איכא בנהרדעא חדא מיקריא דבי יונה וחדא מיקריא דבי עורבתי וסימניך טמא טמא טהור טהור שדיוה לההוא ריגמא מידייהו וקם אטמא בנהר מלכא,מכריז רב יהודה בפומבדיתא אדא ויונתן עבדי יהודה בר פפא ממזירא בטי בר טוביה ברמות רוחא לא שקיל גיטא דחירותא מכריז רבא במחוזא בלאי דנאי טלאי מלאי זגאי כולם לפסול אמר רב יהודה גובאי גבעונאי דורנוניתא דראי נתינאי אמר רב יוסף האי בי כובי דפומבדיתא כולם דעבדי,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל ארבע מאות עבדים ואמרי לה ארבעת אלפים עבדים היו לו לפשחור בן אימר וכולם נטמעו בכהונה וכל כהן שיש בו עזות פנים אינו אלא מהם אמר אביי כולהו יתבן בשורא דבנהרדעא ופליגא דרבי אלעזר דאמר ר' אלעזר אם ראית כהן בעזות מצח אל תהרהר אחריו שנא' (הושע ד, ד) ועמך כמריבי כהן,אמר רבי אבין בר רב אדא אמר רב כל הנושא אשה שאינה הוגנת לו כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו מעיד על כל השבטים ואין מעיד עליו שנאמר (תהלים קכב, ד) שבטי יה עדות לישראל אימתי הוי עדות לישראל בזמן שהשבטים שבטי יה,אמר ר' חמא ברבי חנינא כשהקב"ה משרה שכינתו אין משרה אלא על משפחות מיוחסות שבישראל שנא' (ירמיהו לא, א) בעת ההיא נאם ה' אהיה לאלהים לכל משפחות ישראל לכל ישראל לא נאמר אלא לכל משפחות,[והמה] יהיו לי לעם אמר רבה בר רב הונא זו מעלה יתירה יש בין ישראל לגרים דאילו בישראל כתיב בהו (יחזקאל לז, כז) והייתי להם לאלהים [והמה] יהיו לי לעם ואילו בגרים כתיב (ירמיהו ל, כא) מי הוא זה ערב את לבו לגשת אלי נאם ה' והייתם לי לעם ואנכי אהיה לכם לאלהים,אמר רבי חלבו קשים גרים לישראל כספחת שנאמר (ישעיהו יד, א) ונלוה הגר עליהם ונספחו על בית יעקב כתיב הכא ונספחו וכתיב התם (ויקרא יד, נו) לשאת ולספחת,אמר רבי חמא בר חנינא כשהקדוש ברוך הוא 70b. bOne may not send greetings to a womaneven with a messenger, as this may cause the messenger and the woman to relate to each other inappropriately. Rav Naḥman countered by suggesting that he send his greetings bwith her husband,which would remove all concerns. Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: This is what Shmuel says: One may not send greetings to a woman at all.Yalta, bhis wife,who overheard that Rav Yehuda was getting the better of the exchange, bsenta message bto him: Release himand conclude your business with him, bso that he not equate you with another ignoramus. /b,Desiring to release Rav Yehuda, Rav Naḥman bsaid to him: What is the reasonthat bthe Master is here?Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: The Master sent me a summons.Rav Naḥman bsaid to him: Nowthat bI have noteven blearned the Master’sform of bspeech,as you have demonstrated your superiority to me by reproving me even over such matters, bcould Ihave bsent a summons to the Master?Rav Yehuda bremoved the summons from his bosom and showed it to him.While doing so, Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: Here is the man and here is the document.Rav Naḥman bsaid to him: Since the Master has come here, let him present his statement, in order thatpeople bshould not say: The Sages flatter one anotherand do not judge each other according to the letter of the law.,Rav Naḥman commenced the deliberation, and bsaid to him: What is the reasonthat bthe Master excommunicated that man?Rav Yehuda replied: bHe caused discomfort to an agentof one bof the Sages,and therefore he deserved the punishment of one who causes discomfort to a Torah scholar. Rav Naḥman challenged this answer: If so, blet the Master flog him, as Rav would flog one who causes discomfort to an agent of the Sages.Rav Yehuda responded: bIpunished bhim more severely than that.Rabbi Yehuda held that excommunication is a more severe punishment than flogging.,Rav Naḥman further inquired: bWhat is the reasonthat bthe Master proclaimed about him that he is a slave?Rav Yehuda bsaid to him:Because he bis in the habit of calling people slaves, andit bis taught: Anyone who disqualifiesothers by stating that their lineage is flawed, that is a sign that he himself bisof bflawedlineage. Another indication of his lineage being flawed is that bhe never speaks in praiseof others. bAnd Shmuel said: He disqualifies with hisown bflaw.Rav Naḥman retorted: You can bsay that Shmuel saidthis ihalakhaonly btothe degree that one should bsuspect himof being of flawed lineage. But bdid heactually bsaythis btothe extent that one could bproclaim about himthat he is of flawed lineage?,The Gemara continues the story: bMeanwhile, that litigant arrived from Neharde’a. That litigant said to Rav Yehuda: You call me a slave? I, who come from the house of the Hasmonean kings?Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: This is what Shmuel says: Anyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneankings, bis a slave.As will be explained, only slaves remained of their descendants.,Rav Naḥman, who heard this exchange, bsaid toRav Yehuda: bDoes the Master not hold in accordance with this ihalakha bthat Rabbi Abba saysthat bRav Huna saysthat bRav says:With regard to bany Torah scholar who proceeds to teacha ruling of ihalakha /iwith regard to a particular issue, bif he said it before an actionthat concerns himself occurred, btheyshould blisten to him,and his ruling is accepted. bBut if not,if he quoted the ihalakhaonly after he was involved in an incident related to the ihalakhahe is quoting, bthey do not listen to him,due to his personal involvement? Your testimony with regard to what Shmuel ruled should be ignored, as you stated it only after the incident. Rav Yehuda bsaid toRav Naḥman: bThere is Rav Mattana, who stands by myreport, since he has also heard this ruling of Shmuel.,The Gemara continues: bRav Mattana had not seenthe city of bNeharde’afor bthirteen years. Thatvery bday he arrived.Rav Yehuda bsaid to him:Does bthe Master remember what Shmuel said when he was standingwith bone foot on the bank and one foot on the ferry?Rav Mattana bsaid to him: This is what Shmuel saidat that time: bAnyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneankings, bis a slave, as none remained of them except for that young girl who ascended to the roof and raised her voice and said:From now on, banyone who says: I come from the house of the Hasmoneankings, bis a slave.Other than this girl, the only members of the family who remained were descendants of Herod, and he was an Edomite slave.,The girl then bfell from the roof and died,leaving only slaves from the Hasmoneans. With the confirmation of the report of the statement of Shmuel, btheyalso bpublicizedin Neharde’a babout him,i.e., that man who claimed to come from the Hasmonean kings, bthat he was a slave. /b,The Gemara relates: On bthat day, several marriage contracts were torn up in Neharde’a,as many had their marriages annulled after having discovered that they had married slaves. bWhenRav Yehuda bwas leavingNeharde’a, bthey pursued him,seeking bto stone him,as because of him it was publicized that their lineage was flawed. Rav Yehuda bsaid to them: If you are silent,remain bsilent. And ifyou will bnotremain silent, bI will reveal about you thisstatement bthat Shmuel said: There are twolines of boffspring in Neharde’a. One is called the dove’s house, and one is called the raven’s house. And your mnemonicwith regard to lineage is: The bimpurebird, the raven, is bimpure,meaning flawed, and the bpureone, the dove, is bpure,meaning unflawed. Upon hearing this, bthey threwall bthosestones that they were intending bto stone himwith bfrom their hands,as they did not want him to reveal who had a flawed lineage. bAndas a result of all of the stones thrown into the river, ba dam arose in the Malka River. /b,§ The Gemara continues the discussion of those with a flawed lineage: bRav Yehuda proclaimed in Pumbedita: Adda and Yonatan,known residents of that town, are bslaves; Yehuda bar Pappais a imamzer /i; Bati bar Tuviyya, in his arrogance, did not accept a bill of manumissionand is still a slave. bRava proclaimed inhis city of bMeḥoza: Balla’ai, Danna’ai, Talla’ai, Malla’ai, Zagga’ai: Allthese families bareof bflawedlineage. bRav Yehudalikewise bsays: Gova’ai,the inhabitants of a place called Gova, are in fact bGibeonites,and their name has been corrupted. Similarly, those people known as bDorenunitaare from bthe village of Gibeonites,and they may not marry Jews with unflawed lineage. bRav Yosef says:With regard to bthisplace called bBei Kuvei of Pumbedita,its residents bare alldescendants bof slaves. /b, bRav Yehuda saysthat bShmuel says: Four hundred slaves, and some say four thousand slaves, were owned by Pashḥur ben Immer,a priest in the time of Jeremiah, banddue to their greatness bthey were assimilated into the priesthoodand became known as priests. bAnd any priest who hasthe trait of binsolence is only from them. Abaye said: They all sit in the rowsof honor bthat are inthe city of bNeharde’a.The Gemara comments: And this statement bdisagrees withthe statement bof Rabbi Elazar, as Rabbi Elazar says: If you see an insolent priest, do not speculate about himthat he may be of flawed lineage, bsince it is stated: “For your people are as those who strive with a priest”(Hosea 4:4), which indicates that priests had a reputation for being cantankerous.,§ The Gemara discusses an idea raised earlier. bRabbi Avin bar Rav Adda saysthat bRav says:Concerning banyone who marries a woman who is not suited for himto marry, bwhen the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presenceupon the Jewish people, bHe testifies with regard to all the tribesthat they are His people, bbut He does not testify with regard to hewho married improperly, bas it is stated: “The tribes of the Lord, as a testimony to Israel”(Psalms 122:4). bWhen is it a testimony to Israel? When the tribes are the tribes of the Lord,but not when their lineage is flawed., bRabbi Ḥama, son of Rabbi Ḥanina, says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, rests His Divine Presence, He rests it only upon families ofunflawed lineage bamong Israel, as it is stated: “At that time, says the Lord, will I be the God of all the families of Israel”(Jeremiah 30:25). bof all Israel, is not stated, but “of all the families,”which includes only those of unflawed lineage, the renowned families of Israel.,The verse from Jeremiah ends with the words b“And they shall be my people.” Rabba bar Rav Huna says: This is a higher standardthat differentiates bbetweenthose born as bJews and converts, as with regard tothose born as bJews it is written about them: “And I will be their God, and they shall be My people”(Ezekiel 37:27), bwhereas with regard to converts it is written: “For who is he that has pledged his heart to approach unto Me? says the Lord. And you shall be My people, and I will be your God”(Jeremiah 30:21–22). This teaches that converts are not drawn close to God, as indicated by the words “And I will be your God,” until they first draw themselves near to God, as indicated by the subsequent phrase “And you shall be my people.”, bRabbi Ḥelbo says: Converts areas bdifficult for the Jewish people as a scab.The proof is bthat it is stated: “And the convert shall join himself with them, and they shall cleave [ ivenispeḥu /i] to the house of Jacob”(Isaiah 14:1). bIt is written here “ ivenispeḥu /i,” and it is written there,among the types of leprosy: b“And for a sore and for a scab [ isappaḥat /i]”(Leviticus 14:56). The use of a term with a similar root indicates that converts are like a scab for the Jewish people., bRabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina says: When the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b
6. 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
abaye Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
abba saul Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
amoraim, amoraic period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
ashi, rav Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
body, ear Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
capital matters Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
communities, rabbinic Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
conviction Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
court, of twenty-three (small sanhedrin) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
demon Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
execution Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
exegesis, sectarian Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
financial contact, matters Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
flagellation, flogging (malqut) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
incarceration Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
jesus Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
judgment after death Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
money Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
offenses, repetition of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
pharisaic-rabbinic tradition, law Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
rabbi joshua ben qorha Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
rabbinic authority Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
rain Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
sex Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
testimony, combination of Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
testimony, law of, (zadokite fragments) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
testimony Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
trial, liability to be tried Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
wine' Herman, Rubenstein, The Aggada of the Bavli and Its Cultural World (2018) 16
witnesses, single (one) Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
witnesses, three Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79
witnesses, two Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 79