The Ancient Mediterranean Religions Index Database
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

Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6

nanPerjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial."

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

30 results
1. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 19.16-19.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

19.16. כִּי־יָקוּם עֵד־חָמָס בְּאִישׁ לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה׃ 19.17. וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי־הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשֹּׁפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם׃ 19.18. וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשֹּׁפְטִים הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה עֵד־שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד שֶׁקֶר עָנָה בְאָחִיו׃ 19.19. וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃ 19.21. וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל׃ 19.16. If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him;" 19.17. then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days." 19.18. And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;" 19.19. then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee." 19.20. And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee." 19.21. And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot."
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.17 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

19.17. לֹא־תִשְׂנָא אֶת־אָחִיךָ בִּלְבָבֶךָ הוֹכֵחַ תּוֹכִיחַ אֶת־עֲמִיתֶךָ וְלֹא־תִשָּׂא עָלָיו חֵטְא׃ 19.17. Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart; thou shalt surely rebuke thy neighbour, and not bear sin because of him."
3. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 30.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

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׃ 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."
4. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 95.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE)

95.7. כִּי הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ עַם מַרְעִיתוֹ וְצֹאן יָדוֹ הַיּוֹם אִם־בְּקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ׃ 95.7. For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the flock of His hand. To-day, if ye would but hearken to His voice!"
5. Josephus Flavius, Jewish Antiquities, 4.219 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

4.219. 15. But let not a single witness be credited, but three, or two at the least, and those such whose testimony is confirmed by their good lives. But let not the testimony of women be admitted, on account of the levity and boldness of their sex Nor let servants be admitted to give testimony, on account of the ignobility of their soul; since it is probable that they may not speak truth, either out of hope of gain, or fear of punishment. But if any one be believed to have borne false witness, let him, when he is convicted, suffer all the very same punishments which he against whom he bore witness was to have suffered.
6. Mishnah, Hagigah, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

2.7. The garments of an am haaretz possess midras-impurity for Pharisees. The garments of Pharisees possess midras-impurity for those who eat terumah. The garments of those who eat terumah possess midras-impurity for [those who eat] sacred things. The garments of [those who eat] sacred things possess midras-impurity for [those who occupy themselves with the waters of] purification. Yose ben Yoezer was the most pious in the priesthood, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who ate] sacred things. Yoha ben Gudgada all his life used to eat [unconsecrated food] in accordance with the purity required for sacred things, yet his apron was [considered to possess] midras-impurity for [those who occupied themselves with the water of] purification."
7. Mishnah, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

10.3. How would they do it [reap the omer]?The agents of the court used to go out on the day before the festival and tie the unreaped grain in bunches to make it the easier to reap. All the inhabitants of the towns near by assembled there, so that it might be reaped with a great demonstration. As soon as it became dark he says to them: “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Has the sun set?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “With this sickle?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Into this basket?” And they answer, “Yes.” On the Sabbath he says to them, “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “On this Sabbath?” And they answer, “Yes.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” “Shall I reap?” And they answer, “Reap.” He repeated every matter three times, and they answer, “yes, yes, yes.” And why all of this? Because of the Boethusians who held that the reaping of the omer was not to take place at the conclusion of the [first day of the] festival."
8. Mishnah, Sotah, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

3.4. She had barely finished drinking when her face turns yellow, her eyes protrude and her veins swell. And [those who see her] exclaim, “Remove her! Remove her, so that the temple-court should not be defiled”. If she had merit, it [causes the water] to suspend its effect upon her. Some merit suspends the effect for one year, some merit suspends the effects for two years, and some merit suspends the effect for three years. Hence Ben Azzai said: a person must teach his daughter Torah, so that if she has to drink [the water of bitterness], she should know that the merit suspends its effect. Rabbi Eliezer says: whoever teaches his daughter Torah teaches her lasciviousness. Rabbi Joshua says: a woman prefers one kav (of food) and sexual indulgence to nine kav and sexual separation. He used to say, a foolish pietist, a cunning wicked person, a female separatist, and the blows of separatists bring destruction upon the world."
9. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.6-4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE)

4.6. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands." 4.7. The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you declare an uninterrupted flow of a liquid to be clean. The Pharisees say: we complain against you, Sadducees, that you declare a stream of water which flows from a burial-ground to be clean? The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, that you say, my ox or donkey which has done injury is liable, yet my male or female slave who has done injury is not liable. Now if in the case of my ox or my donkey for which I am not responsible if they do not fulfill religious duties, yet I am responsible for their damages, in the case of my male or female slave for whom I am responsible to see that they fulfill mitzvot, how much more so that I should be responsible for their damages? They said to them: No, if you argue about my ox or my donkey which have no understanding, can you deduce from there anything concerning a male or female slave who do have understanding? So that if I were to anger either of them and they would go and burn another person's stack, should I be liable to make restitution?" 4.8. A Galilean min said: I complain against you Pharisees, that you write the name of the ruler and the name of Moses together on a divorce document. The Pharisees said: we complain against you, Galilean min, that you write the name of the ruler together with the divine name on a single page [of Torah]? And furthermore that you write the name of the ruler above and the divine name below? As it is said, \"And Pharoah said, Who is the Lord that I should hearken to his voice to let Israel go?\" (Exodus 5:2) But when he was smitten what did he say? \"The Lord is righteous\" (Exodus 9:27)."
10. New Testament, Ephesians, 4.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

4.26. Be angry, and don't sin." Don't let the sun go down on your wrath
11. New Testament, Hebrews, 3.13 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

3.13. but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called "today;" lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin.
12. New Testament, Mark, 14.64 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE)

14.64. You have heard the blasphemy! What do you think?" They all condemned him to be worthy of death.
13. Tosefta, Berachot, 3.25 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.25. Eighteen Berachot (blessings) that the Sages have established [for the prayer of Shemoneh Esreh have been established] corresponding to eighteen mentionings [of God’s name] that are in [the chapter of Tehillim that begins with] “Ascribe to God, children of princes…” (Tehillim 29) And [a person] should include [the Beracha against] the heretics into [the Beracha] for the Rabbinical Jews, and [the Beracha] for the converts into [the Beracha] for the elders, and [the Beracha] for [King] David into [the Beracha] for [the rebuilding of] Jerusalem. But if he said each one of them separately he has fulfilled his obligation [of praying Shemoneh Esreh]."
14. Tosefta, Hagigah, 3.35 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

15. Tosefta, Niddah, 5.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

16. Tosefta, Parah, 3.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

17. Tosefta, Rosh Hashanah, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

18. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 6.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

19. Tosefta, Shabbat, 1.15 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

20. Tosefta, Sotah, 15.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

21. Tosefta, Sukkah, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

3.1. The lulav suspends the Sabbath in the beginning of its duty, and the willow in the end of its duty. There is a story that some Boethusians once hid the willows under some great stones on the Sabbath eve; but when this had become known to the common people they came and dragged them out from under the stones on the Sabbath, for the Boethusians do not acknowledge that the beating of the willow suspends the Sabbath."
22. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

23. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.12, 2.20 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE)

24. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 190 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

25. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 112 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE)

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

16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין 16b. bThe firstmembers of each pair bserved as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bThe Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as iNasi /i, and their counterpartsserved as bdeputy iNasi /i;this is bthe statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis saythe opposite: bYehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasiand Shimon ben Shataḥwas the iNasi /i. /b,The Gemara asks: bWho is the itanna /iwho taught bthat which the Sages taughtin a ibaraita /i: bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif I did not kill a conspiring witness.This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order bto counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed.Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., bShimon ben Shataḥ said to him:I swear that bI willnot bsee the consolationof Israel bif you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators;if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. bAnd they are not floggedif they are liable to such a penalty, bunless they are both found to be conspirators. Andif they testified falsely that someone owed money, bthey do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b,Hearing this, bYehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to ruleon any matter of blaw unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ,as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The ibaraitafurther relates: bAll of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executedindividual, to request forgiveness, band his voice was heardweeping. bThe people thought that it was the voice of that executedperson, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai bsaid to them: It is my voice,and byoushall bknowthat it is so, bfor tomorrow,i.e., sometime in the future, bhe will die, and his voice will nolonger bbe heard.Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., bRav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi:This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as bperhapsben Tabbai bappeasedthe executed individual in the World-to-Come. bOr,alternatively, the latter may have bprosecuted him by the lawof Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: bWhoseopinion does bthis ibaraitafollow? bGranted, if you sayit is in accordance bwiththat of bRabbi Meir,who bsaidthat bShimon ben Shataḥ was deputy iNasi /iwhile bRabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was iNasi /i, thatexplains why bhehad previously bissued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥto execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. bBut if you saythat the ibaraitais in accordance with bthe Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbaiwas bdeputy iNasi /iand bShimon ben Shataḥthe iNasi /i,why did he need to make such a commitment? bMaythe bdeputy iNasiissue a halakhic ruling in the presence ofthe iNasi /i? /b,The Gemara refutes this: bNo; whatdid he mean by baccepting upon himselfnot to rule on his own? bHe spokewith regard bto joiningthe ruling of others: bEvenwith regard to bjoiningthe ruling of others, bI will also not joinuntil I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: bMenaḥem departed and Shammai entered.The Gemara asks: bTo where didMenaḥem bdepart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray.Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. bRava said: He departed for the king’s service.He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. bThis is also taughtin a ibaraita /i: bMenaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with himto work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ bRav Shemen bar Abba saidthat bRabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ ishevut /i] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing handson the head of an offering on a Festival bis prohibited only as a rabbinic decreebecause it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet bthe greatestscholars bof each generation disputed it. /b,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This bis obvious.Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was bnecessary for himto state it because it is ba rabbinic decree related to a mitzva.In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: bThis too is obvious.In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes bto excludethe opinion bof the one who saidthat bthey disagree with regard to the actualobligation of bplacing hands,i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. bHetherefore bteaches usthat bit is a rabbinic decreethat is the subject bof their dispute,not the requirement itself., bRami bar Ḥama said:You can blearn from here,from this dispute, that the mitzva of bplacing handsrequires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but bwe also requirethat one places his hands bwith all his strength. For if it enters your mindthat bwe do not require all his strength, whatprohibition bdoes one violateby placing his hands? bLet him placethem on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., bThe Gemara raises an objectionto this from a ibaraita /i: b“Speak to the children of [ ibenei /i] Israel”(Leviticus 1:2). The word ibeneiliterally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b“And he shall placehis hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that bthe sons of Israel placetheir hands, bbut the daughters of Israel do not placethem. bRabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to placetheir hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., bRabbi Yosei said:The Sage bAbba Elazar related to methe following incident: bOn one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placedtheir hands bon it.We did this bnot because thereis an obligation of bplacing hands inthe case of bwomen, but in order to please the women,by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, bif it enters your mindthat bwe requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,would bwe perform work with consecratedofferings bin order to pleasethe bwomen?Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. bRather, isn’t itcorrect to bconclude from thisthat bwe do not requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength? /b,The Gemara rejects this: bActually, Icould bsay to youthat bwe do requireplacing hands bwith all one’s strength,but here they allowed women to place their hands bby saying to them: Ease your handsand do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: bIf so,then the reason formulated as: bNot because thereis an obligation to bplace hands inthe case of bwomen,is irrelevant to this law. bLet him derivethe permission for women to do so from the reason that bit is notconsidered bplacing hands at all.If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., bRabbi Ami said: He stated onereason band another. Onereason is bthat it is notconsidered bplacing hands at all,as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; band anotherreason is that they allowed it bin order to please the women. /b, bRav Pappa said: Learn from thisthat anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its bsides arelikewise bprohibited, for if it enters your mindto say that the bsides are permitted,they could have told the women bto placetheir hands bon the sides,i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. bRather,must one bnot conclude from thisthat the bsides are prohibited? /b
27. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

33b. או דילמא נוגעת היתה ולא סתרה,אמר רבא לפום חורפא שבשתא נהי נמי דסתרה כמה תסתור תסתור שבעה דיה כבועלה,תסתור יום אחד (ויקרא טו, כח) ואחר תטהר אמר רחמנא אחר אחר לכולן שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהם,וליטעמיך זב גופיה היכי סתר לטהרתו אמר רחמנא שלא תהא טומאה מפסקת ביניהן,אלא מאי אית לך למימר שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן הכא נמי שלא תהא טומאת זיבה מפסקת ביניהן,ואין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש וכו' רב פפא איקלע לתואך אמר אי איכא צורבא מרבנן הכא איזיל אקבל אפיה אמרה ליה ההיא סבתא איכא הכא צורבא מרבנן ורב שמואל שמיה ותני מתניתא יהא רעוא דתהוי כוותיה,אמר מדקמברכי לי בגוויה ש"מ ירא שמים הוא אזל לגביה רמא ליה תורא רמא ליה מתני' אהדדי תנן אין חייבין עליהן על ביאת מקדש ואין שורפין עליהן את התרומה מפני שטומאתה ספק אלמא מספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ורמינהי על ששה ספקות שורפין את התרומה על ספק בגדי עם הארץ,אמר רב פפא יהא רעוא דלתאכיל האי תורא לשלמא הכא במאי עסקינן בכותי חבר,כותי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה,שבקיה ואתא לקמיה דרב שימי בר אשי אמר ליה מאי טעמא לא משנית ליה בכותי שטבל ועלה ודרס על בגדי חבר ואזלו בגדי חבר ונגעו בתרומה,דאי משום טומאת עם הארץ הא טביל ליה ואי משום בועל נדה ספק בעל בקרוב ספק לא בעל בקרוב,ואם תמצי לומר בעל בקרוב ספק השלימתו ירוק ספק לא השלימתו והוי ספק ספיקא ואספק ספיקא לא שרפינן תרומה,ותיפוק ליה משום בגדי עם הארץ דאמר מר בגדי עם הארץ מדרס לפרושין אמר ליה בכותי ערום, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בנות צדוקין בזמן שנהגו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית רבי יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איבעיא להו סתמא מאי ת"ש בנות צדוקין בזמן שנוהגות ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן הרי הן ככותיות הא סתמא כישראלית אימא סיפא פרשו ללכת בדרכי ישראל הרי הן כישראלית הא סתמא ככותיות אלא מהא ליכא למשמע מיניה,ת"ש דתנן ר' יוסי אומר לעולם הן כישראלית עד שיפרשו ללכת בדרכי אבותיהן מכלל דת"ק סבר סתמא ככותיות ש"מ,תנו רבנן מעשה בצדוקי אחד שספר עם כהן גדול בשוק ונתזה צנורא מפיו ונפלה לכהן גדול על בגדיו והוריקו פניו של כהן גדול וקדם אצל אשתו,אמרה לו אף על פי שנשי צדוקים הן מתיראות מן הפרושים ומראות דם לחכמים,אמר רבי יוסי בקיאין אנו בהן יותר מן הכל והן מראות דם לחכמים חוץ מאשה אחת שהיתה בשכונתינו שלא הראת דם לחכמים ומתה,ותיפוק ליה משום צנורא דעם הארץ אמר אביי בצדוקי חבר אמר רבא צדוקי חבר בועל נדה משוית ליה אלא אמר רבא 33b. bOr perhapsit is because bshe was touchingthe semen, bandif so bshe has notthereby bnegatedher count, just as a izavdoes not negate his count if he touches semen., bRava says: Commensurate with the sharpnessof Rami bar Ḥama is the extent of his berror,as this is not a dilemma at all, since bevenif one could suggest bthata izavawho discharges semen has bindeed negatedher count, one must ask: bHow much should she negate?If one suggests bshe should negateall bsevendays of her counting, this is untenable, as bit is enough for herthat she should negate her count blikethe man who bengages in intercourse with her,i.e., like a izavwho discharges semen, who negates only one day.,And if one suggests that bshe should negate one dayalone, this too is untenable, as bthe Merciful One states:“But if she is purified from her izivathen she shall count to herself seven days, band after that she shall be pure”(Leviticus 15:28). The word b“after”indicates that she shall be pure only bafter all of them,i.e., after seven consecutive clean days, such bthat there should be no impurity separating between them.If so, there cannot be a situation where a izavanegates a single day, and consequently it cannot be that a izavawho discharges semen negates any part of her count.,The Gemara rejects Rava’s response: bAnd according to your reasoning, how does a izavhimself negateonly one day from his count due to a seminal emission? After all, bthe Merciful One states:“And when the izavis purified of his iziva /i, then he shall count for himself seven days for his purification, and wash his clothes, and bathe his flesh in running water, and he shall be pure” (Leviticus 15:13). The phrase: “Seven days bfor his purification,”indicates bthat there should be no impurity separating between them. /b, bRather, what have you to say?The verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them. Here too,with regard to a izava /i, the verse means only bthat there should not be an impurity of izivaseparating between them;a discharge of semen is not included in this restriction. It is therefore possible that a discharge of semen from a izavanegates only one day from her count. Accordingly, the dilemma raised by Rami bar Ḥama remains in place.,§ The mishna teaches: bButone who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain bis not liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple,nor does one burn iterumathat came into contact with those garments, because their impurity is uncertain. In connection to these ihalakhot /i, the Gemara relates that bRav Pappa happenedto come btothe city of bTavakh. He said: If there is a Torah scholar here I will go and greet him. A certain elderly woman said to him: There is a Torah scholar here and Rav Shmuel is his name, and he teaches imishnayot /i; may it beGod’s bwill that you should be like him. /b,Rav Pappa bsaidto himself: bFromthe fact bthat they bless me throughthis Rav Shmuel that I should be like him, I may bconclude from itthat bhe is a God-fearingindividual. Rav Pappa bwent tovisit bhim,and Rav Shmuel braised a bull for him,i.e., he slaughtered a bull in honor of Rav Pappa, and he also braiseda difficulty between two imishnayot /ithat apparently contradict bone another: We learnin the mishna: One who enters the Temple while wearing bthosegarments upon which a Samaritan had lain is bnot liableto bring an offering bfor entering the Temple, nor does one burn iteruma /ithat came into contact with bthosegarments, bbecause their impurity is uncertain. Evidently, we do not burn iterumadue to uncertainimpurity., bAndone can braise a contradictionfrom another mishna ( iTeharot4:5): bFor sixcases of buncertainimpurity bone burns the iteruma /iif it came into contact with them, or if a person came into contact with them and subsequently touched the iteruma /i. One of these is bfor the uncertaincase bof the garments of one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity [ iam ha’aretz /i].Such garments impart impurity through contact and through carrying, due to a concern that the wife of the iam ha’aretzmight have sat on them while she was menstruating. Evidently, one burns iterumadue to uncertain impurity., bRav Pappabegan his response with a supplication and bsaid: May it beGod’s bwill that this bull shall be eaten peacefully,i.e., that I will provide a satisfactory resolution of this contradiction. Since the bull was slaughtered in my honor, failing to resolve the contradiction might spoil the meal. Rav Pappa continued: bHere we are dealing with a Samaritanwho is bdevoted to the meticulous observance of mitzvot, especially ihalakhotof ritual purity, iteruma /i, and tithes [ iḥaver /i].There is therefore less concern with regard to his ritual purity than that of an iam ha’aretz /i. Consequently, the mishna here states that iterumais not burned on account of him.,Rav Shmuel rejected this response: Since the mishna is referring to men who engage in intercourse with menstruating women, bare you equating a Samaritan iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman? /b,Rav Pappa bleftRav Shmuel in embarrassment band came before Rav Shimi bar Ashi,to whom he related this incident. Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid to him: What is the reasonthat byou did not respond to himthat the ruling of the mishna is stated bwith regard to a Samaritan who immersedin a ritual bath band arosefrom his impure status, bandsubsequently btrod on the garments of a iḥaver /i,which means they are now considered the bedding of the Samaritan, bandthen those bgarments ofthe iḥaverwent and touched iteruma /i?In such a case one does not burn the iteruma /i., bAs, ifone would say to burn it bdue to the impurity of an iam ha’aretz /i, hehas bimmersedin a ritual bath. bAnd ifone were to suggest that it should be burned bbecausethe Samaritan is one who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman,this too is an unsatisfactory reason. This is because it is buncertainwhether bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, in which case his immersion does not remove his impurity; and it is buncertainwhether bhe did not recently engage in intercoursewith his wife, in which case he is in fact pure., bAndeven bif you saythat bhe recently engaged in intercoursewith his wife, another uncertainty remains: It is buncertainwhether his wife began counting seven days from an emission of green blood and ignored any subsequent emission of red blood and bcompletedher count for the bgreenblood, which would mean that she was in fact a menstruating woman when she engaged in sexual intercourse with her husband; and it is buncertainwhether bshe did not completea count of seven days from the emission of the green blood, rather from the emission of red blood, in which case she was not a menstruating woman when her husband engaged in intercourse with her. bAndtherefore bthis is a compound uncertainty, andthere is a principle that bone does not burn iterumaonaccount of ba compound uncertainty. /b,Rav Pappa raised an objection to Rav Shimi bar Ashi: bAnd letone bderivethat the garments of the iḥaverare impure bbecausethey came into contact with the bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /i. As the Master said:The bgarments of an iam ha’aretz /iare considered impure with the ritual impurity imparted by the btreadingof a izav /i, which means they impart impurity to people and to garments, bfor individuals who are scrupulous with regard to impurity [ iperushin /i].Rav Shimi bar Ashi bsaid toRav Pappa: The mishna is referring bto a naked Samaritan.Consequently, none of his garments came into contact with the garments of the iḥaver /i., strongMISHNA: /strong With regard to bSadducee girls, when they were accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women,whose ihalakhawas discussed in the previous mishna. If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish peopletheir status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman. Rabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. /b, strongGEMARA: /strong bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: bWhatis the ihalakhain ban unspecifiedcase, i.e., when the custom of a Sadducee woman is unknown? The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearevidence from the mishna: With regard to bSadducee girls, when they are accustomed to follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors theirstatus bis likethat of bSamaritan women.It can be inferred from the mishna bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.The Gemara rejects this suggestion: bSay the latter clause:If the Sadducee women babandonedthe customs of their ancestors in order bto follow in the ways of the Jewish people theirstatus bis likethat of ba Jewish woman.One may infer from this bthatin ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women. Rather, noinference is bto be learned from thismishna.,The Gemara suggests: bComeand bhearthe last clause of the mishna, bas we learnedin the mishna that bRabbi Yosei says: Theirstatus bis always likethat of ba Jewish woman, until they will abandonthe ways of the Jewish people in order bto follow in the ways of theirSadducee bancestors. By inference,one may conclude bthat the first itannaholdsthat in ban unspecifiedcase their status bis likethat of bSamaritan women.The Gemara affirms: bConclude from itthat this is the case.,§ bThe Sages taught:There was ban incident involving a certain Sadducee who was conversing with the High Priest in the marketplace, andas he was speaking, bsaliva [ itzinora /i] sprayed from his mouth and fell onto the garments of the High Priest. And the face of the High Priest turned green,as he feared that his garments had been rendered ritually impure. bAnd he rushed tothe Sadducee’s bwifeto inquire whether she properly observed the ihalakhotof menstruation, in which case his garments were not rendered impure by the saliva of her husband, as he is not considered one who engages in intercourse with a menstruating woman., bShe said to him: Even thoughwomen such as myself bare the wives of Sadducees,who do not follow in the ways of the iperushim /i, bthey are scared of the iperushimand they showtheir bblood to the Sageswhen an uncertainty arises. The garments of the High Priest are therefore pure, as the Sadducee wives properly observe the ihalakhotof menstruation., bRabbi Yosei says: We are familiar with thewives of Sadducees bmore so than everyoneelse, as they are our neighbors, bandI can testify that btheyall bshowtheir bblood to the Sages, except for a certain woman who wasliving bin our neighborhood who did not showher bblood to the Sages, and she died,as a punishment for her behavior.,The Gemara objects: bAnd letthe High Priest bderivethat his garments are impure bdue to the saliva of an iam ha’aretz /i,which imparts impurity. bAbaye said:That case involved ba Sadducee iḥaver /i,who was particular with regard to the ihalakhotof ritual purity. bRava said: Are you equating a Sadducee iḥaver /iwith a man who bengages in intercourse with a menstruating woman?After all, the High Priest was initially concerned that the Sadducee might engage in intercourse with his wife while she is still menstruating. bRather, Rava said: /b
28. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא 66a. bYour ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestialityand is therefore unfit for an offering, band the other,the owner of the ox, bis silent,the witness is bdeemed credible. And the itanna /iof the mishna also btaught( iBekhorot41a): bAndwith regard to an animal bthat was used for a transgressionor bthat killed,if this is attested to bby one witness or by the owner,he is bdeemed credible.The Gemara clarifies this case: bWhat are the circumstancesof bthiscase of the mishna, where the knowledge is established bby one witness? If the owner admitsto the claim, bthis isthe same as: bBy the owner. Rather, is it notreferring to a case bwherethe owner remains bsilent? /b,The Gemara comments: bAndeach of these statements of Abaye is bnecessary. As, had he taught usonly bthat firstcase, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: bWere it notfor the fact bthat he himselfwas bconvinced that he had committeda transgression, bhe would notcommit the transgression of bbringing a non-sacredanimal btothe Temple bcourtyardon the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., bButif the witness said: bYour ritually purefoods bwere rendered ritually impure,and the accused was silent, bwe would say:The reason bthathe is bsilentand refrains from denying the claim is bthat he thinkshe is not suffering any significant loss, as the food bis fit for himto eat bon his days of ritual impurity,because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., bAnd hadAbaye btaught usonly the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason bthiswitness is deemed credible is bthat he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity,and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. bButin the case of: bHis ox was usedby a man bfor an act of bestiality,the owner of the ox bcan saywith regard to his animal: bNot all the oxen standready to be sacrificed basan offering on the baltar.Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore bnecessaryfor Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ bA dilemma was raised beforethe Sages: If a husband is told bby one witnessthat bhis wife committed adultery, andthe husband remains bsilent, what isthe ihalakha /i? bAbaye said:The witness is bdeemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible.Why not? Because bit is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matterof testimony bfor forbidden sexual relationsthat can be attested to by bfewer than twowitnesses., bAbaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? It happened bthatthere was ba certain blind man who would review imishnayotbefore Mar Shmuel. One daythe blind man bwas late for him and was not arriving.Mar Shmuel bsent a messenger after himto assist him. bWhilethe bmessenger was goingto the blind man’s house bby one way,the blind man barrivedat the house of study bby a differentroute, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. bWhenthe bmessenger cameback, bhe saidthat he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that bhis wife committed adultery.The blind man bcame before Mar Shmuelto inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel bsaid to him: Ifthis messenger bis trusted by you, goand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher.,Abaye comments: bWhat, is it notcorrect to say that this means that bif he is trusted by you that he is not a thiefbut is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. bAnd Ravaexplains that Mar Shmuel meant: bIfhe bis trusted by you like twowitnesses, bgoand bdivorce her, but if not, do not divorceher. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., bAnd Abaye said: From where do I saythis claim of mine? bAs it is taughtin a ibaraita /i: bAn incidentoccurred bwith King Yannai, who went tothe region of bKoḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoicedwith ba great happinessover his victory. bAnd hesubsequently bsummoned all the Sages of the Jewish peopleand bsaid to them: Our ancestorsin their poverty bwould eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b, bAnd there was oneperson bpresent, a scoffer,a man of ban evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees,the Sages, bare against you.In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: bAnd what shall I doto clarify this matter? Elazar responded: bHave them stand bywearing bthe frontplate between your eyes.Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. bHe hadthe Pharisees bstand bywearing bthe frontplate between his eyes. /b,Now bthere was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you,i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. bLeave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron.The Gemara explains this last comment: bAs they would saythat Yannai’s bmother was taken captive in Modi’in,and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a iḥalal /i. bAnd the matter was investigated and was not discovered,i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. bAnd the Sages of Israel were expelled inthe king’s brage,due to this rumor., bAnd Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel.In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. bBut you are a king and a High Priest.Is bthis your judgmentas well? Yannai replied: bAnd what should I do?Elazar responded: bIf you listen to my advice, crush them.Yannai countered: bBut what will become of the Torah?He retorted: bBehold,it bis wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study.We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected intoYannai, bas he should have saidto Elazar ben Po’ira: This bworks out wellwith regard to bthe Written Torah,as it can be studied by all on their own, but bwhatwill become of bthe Oral Torah?The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The ibaraitacontinues: bImmediately, the evilarose and bcaught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolateof Torah buntil Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its formerglory. This completes the ibaraita /i.,Abaye asks: bWhat are the circumstancesof this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? bIf we say that twowitnesses bsaidthat bshe was taken captive, and twoothers bsaidthat bshe was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on thesewho said that she was not taken captive? Instead, brely on thesewho said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., bRather,it must be referring bto one witnesswho testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. bAnd the reasonthat the lone witness is not deemed credible is only bthat he is contradicted by theother btwo,from which it may be inferred that bif not for thatfact, bhe would be deemed credible.This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., bAnd Ravacould reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: bActually,one can say that there were btwowitnesses who testified that she was captured band twowho testified that she was not, bandthe case was decided bin accordance with thatwhich bRav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi saysin a different context, that it is referring bto conspiring witnesses.The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. bHere too,it is referring btowitnesses who rendered the first set bconspiring witnesses. /b, bAnd if you wish, saythat this is bin accordance withthe version of the story stated bby Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replacedYannai’s mother bwith a maidservant.The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., bRava says: /b
29. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

22b. ועד כמה עד ארבעין שנין איני והא רבה אורי בשוין,ומכות פרושין וכו' ת"ר שבעה פרושין הן פרוש שיכמי פרוש נקפי פרוש קיזאי פרוש מדוכיא פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה,פרוש שיכמי זה העושה מעשה שכם פרוש נקפי זה המנקיף את רגליו פרוש קיזאי א"ר נחמן בר יצחק זה המקיז דם לכתלים פרוש מדוכיא אמר רבה בר שילא דמשפע כי מדוכיא,פרוש מה חובתי ואעשנה הא מעליותא היא אלא דאמר מה חובתי תו ואעשנה,פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה אמרו ליה אביי ורבא לתנא לא תיתני פרוש מאהבה פרוש מיראה דאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות אפי' שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק דמטמרא מטמרא ודמגליא מגליא בי דינא רבה ליתפרע מהני דחפו גונדי אמר לה ינאי מלכא לדביתיה אל תתיראי מן הפרושין ולא ממי שאינן פרושין אלא מן הצבועין שדומין לפרושין שמעשיהן כמעשה זמרי ומבקשין שכר כפנחס, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big ר"ש אומר אין זכות תולה במים המרים ואם אתה אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררין מדהה אתה את המים בפני כל הנשים השותות ומוציא אתה שם רע על הטהורות ששתו שאומרים טמאות הן אלא שתלתה להן זכות רבי אומר הזכות תולה במים המאררים ואינה יולדת ואינה משבחת אלא מתנוונה והולכת לסוף היא מתה באותה מיתה,נטמאת מנחתה עד שלא קדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותפדה ואם משקדשה בכלי הרי היא ככל המנחות ותשרף ואלו שמנחותיהן נשרפות 22b. bAnd until whenis it considered too premature for a scholar to issue halakhic rulings? It is buntil forty years.The Gemara asks: bIs that so? But didn’t Rabba issue rulings,even though he lived for only forty years? The Gemara answers: It is permitted for a scholar who has not studied for so long to issue rulings bwhenhis knowledge reaches the level of the foremost scholar in his city and bthey are equals. /b,§ It states in the mishna: bAnd those who injurethemselves out of false babstinence [ iperushin /i]are people who erode the world. bThe Sages taught: There are sevenpseudo- brighteouspeople who erode the world: The brighteous of Shechem,the self- bflagellating righteous,the bbloodletting righteous,the bpestle /b-like brighteous,the brighteouswho say: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,those who are brighteous due to love,and those who are brighteous due to fear. /b,The Gemara explains: The brighteous of Shechem [ ishikhmi /i]; this isone bwho performsactions comparable to the bactionof the people of bShechem,who agreed to circumcise themselves for personal gain (see Genesis, chapter 34); so too, he behaves righteously only in order to be honored. The self- bflagellating righteous; this isone bwho injures his feet,as he walks slowly, dragging his feet on the ground in an attempt to appear humble, and injures his feet in the process. The bbloodletting righteous; Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak saysthat bthis isone bwho lets bloodby banging his head bagainst the wallsbecause he walks with his eyes shut, ostensibly out of modesty. The bpestle /b-like brighteous; Rabba bar Sheila saysthat this is one bwhowalks bbent over likethe bpestleof a mortar.,With regard to the brighteousone who says: Tell me bwhat my obligationis band I will perform it,the Gemara asks: bIsn’t this virtuousbehavior, as he desires to be aware of his obligations? bRather,this is referring to one bwho says:Tell me bwhat further obligationsare incumbent bupon me and I will perform them,indicating that he fulfills all of his mitzvot perfectly and therefore seeks additional obligations.,The ibaraitaalso includes in the list of pseudo-righteous people those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear,i.e., one who performs mitzvot due to love of their reward or due to fear of punishment. bAbaye and Rava said to the itanna /iwho transmitted this ibaraita /i: bDo not teachin the ibaraita /i: Those who are brighteous due to loveand those who are brighteous due to fear, as Rav Yehuda saysthat bRav says: A person should always engage in Torahstudy band inperformance of bthe mitzvot even ifhe does bnotdo so bfor their own sake, as throughperforming them bnot for their own sake,one bcomesto perform them bfor their own sake. /b, bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said:That bwhich is hidden is hidden, andthat bwhich is revealed is revealed,but in Heaven everything is known, and bthe great courtin Heaven bwill exact payment from those who wear the cloakof the righteous but are in fact unworthy. The Gemara relates: bKing Yannai said to his wifebefore he died: bDo not be afraid of the Pharisees [ iperushin /i], and neithershould you fear bfrom those who are not Pharisees,i.e., the Sadducees; brather,beware bof the hypocrites who appear like Pharisees, as their actions are like the act ofthe wicked bZimri and they requesta breward likethat of the righteous bPinehas(see Numbers, chapter 25)., strongMISHNA: /strong bRabbi Shimon says: Merit does not delaythe punishment bof the bitter waterof a isota /i, band if you saythat bmerit does delaythe punishment bof the water that causes the curse,as stated earlier by the Rabbis (20a), byou weaken [ imadhe /i]the power of bthebitter bwater before all the women who drinkthe water, who will no longer be afraid of it, as they will rely on their merit to save them. bAnd you defame the untainted women who drankthe water and survived, baspeople bsay: They are defiled butit is their bmerit that delayedthe punishment bfor them. RabbiYehuda HaNasi bsays: Merit delaysthe punishment bof the water that causes the curse, buta woman whose punishment is delayed bdoes not give birth and does not flourish; rather, she progressively deteriorates. Ultimately she dies by the same deathas a isotawho dies immediately.,§ If bthe meal-offeringof the isota bis rendered impure before it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure before being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is redeemed. But ifit is rendered impure bafter it has been sanctified in theservice bvessel, itsstatus bis likethat of ball theother bmeal-offeringsthat are rendered impure after being sanctified in a service vessel, band it is burned. And these arethe isotawomen bwhose meal-offerings are burnedif they have already been sanctified in a service vessel:
30. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE)

19b. מי איכא מידי דאנן לא מצינן למעבד ושלוחי דידן מצו עבדי הכי קאמרי ליה משביעין אנו עליך על דעתינו ועל דעת בית דין,הוא פורש ובוכה והן פורשין ובוכין וכו' הוא פורש ובוכה שחשדוהו צדוקי והם פורשין ובוכין דא"ר יהושע בן לוי כל החושד בכשרים לוקה בגופו,וכל כך למה שלא יתקן מבחוץ ויכניס כדרך שהצדוקין עושין,ת"ר מעשה בצדוקי אחד שהתקין מבחוץ והכניס ביציאתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה פגע בו אביו אמר לו בני אף על פי שצדוקין אנו מתיראין אנו מן הפרושים אמר לו כל ימי הייתי מצטער על המקרא הזה (ויקרא טז, ב) כי בענן אראה על הכפורת אמרתי מתי יבוא לידי ואקיימנו עכשיו שבא לידי לא אקיימנו,אמרו לא היו ימים מועטין עד שמת והוטל באשפה והיו תולעין יוצאין מחוטמו ויש אומרים ביציאתו ניגף דתני רבי חייא כמין קול נשמע בעזרה שבא מלאך וחבטו על פניו ונכנסו אחיו הכהנים ומצאו ככף רגל עגל בין כתפיו שנאמר (יחזקאל א, ז) ורגליהם רגל ישרה וכף רגליהם ככף רגל עגל,א"ר זכריה בן קבוטל וכו' מתני ליה רב חנן בר רבא לחייא בר רב קמיה דרב א"ר זכריה בן קפוטל ומחוי ליה רב בידיה קבוטל ונימא ליה מימר ק"ש הוה קרי,וכי האי גוונא מי שרי והא"ר יצחק בר שמואל בר מרתא הקורא את שמע לא ירמוז בעיניו ולא יקרוץ בשפתותיו ולא יורה באצבעותיו ותניא רבי אלעזר חסמא אומר הקורא את שמע ומרמז בעיניו ומקרץ בשפתותיו ומראה באצבעו עליו הכתוב אומר (ישעיהו מג, כב) ולא אותי קראת יעקב,לא קשיא הא בפרק ראשון הא בפרק שני,ת"ר (דברים ו, ז) ודברת בם בם ולא בתפלה ודברת בם בם יש לך רשות לדבר ולא בדברים אחרים,רבי אחא אומר ודברת בם עשה אותן קבע ואל תעשם עראי אמר רבא השח שיחת חולין עובר בעשה שנאמר ודברת בם בם ולא בדברים אחרים רב אחא בר יעקב אמר עובר בלאו שנאמר (קהלת א, ח) כל הדברים יגעים לא יוכל איש לדבר, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בקש להתנמנם פרחי כהונה מכין לפניו באצבע צרדא ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג עמוד והפג אחת על הרצפה ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן השחיטה, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי צרדא אמר רב יהודה צרתה דדא מאי היא גודל מחוי רב הונא ואזל קלא בכולי בי רב,ואומרים לו אישי כ"ג הפג אחת על הרצפה וכו' אמר רב יצחק על חדת מאי היא אמרי ליה אחוי קידה,ומעסיקין אותו עד שיגיע זמן שחיטה (וכו') תנא לא היו מעסיקין אותו לא בנבל ולא בכנור אלא בפה ומה היו אומרין (תהלים קכז, א) אם ה' לא יבנה בית שוא עמלו בוניו בו,מיקירי ירושלים לא היו ישנין כל הלילה כדי שישמע כ"ג קול הברה ולא תהא שינה חוטפתו תניא אבא שאול אמר אף בגבולין היו עושין כן זכר למקדש אלא שהיו חוטאין,אמר אביי ואיתימא ר"נ בר יצחק תרגומא נהרדעא דא"ל אליהו לרב יהודה אחוה דרב סלא חסידא אמריתו אמאי לא אתי משיח והא האידנא יומא דכיפורי הוא ואבעול כמה בתולתא בנהרדעא אמר ליה הקב"ה מאי אמר אמר ליה 19b. bis there any matter that we are unable to perform and our agents are able to perform?The role of the agent is to perform a task on behalf of the one who commissioned him. The agent cannot perform a task that the one who commissioned him is unable to perform. Since it is prohibited for Israelites to enter the priests’ courtyard and to perform the sacrificial rites, clearly the priests are not agents representing the Israelites. The language of the mishna in which the court Elders address the High Priest as their agent apparently contradicts that understanding. The Gemara answers: bThis is what they say to him: We administer an oath to you according to our understanding and the understanding of the court,cautioning him that he cannot rationalize violating the oath by claiming that he took the oath based on his own interpretation. He is bound by the understanding of the court. The mishna does not address the nature of the High Priest’s agency.,§ The mishna continues: After this oath, bhe would leavethem band cry and they would leavehim band cry.The Gemara explains: bHe turned aside and crieddue to the indignity bthat they suspected himof being ba Sadducee; and they turned aside and cried, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: One who suspects the innocentof indiscretion bis afflicted in his body.The High Priest might in fact be beyond reproach and they may have suspected him falsely.,The Gemara asks: bAnd whywere the Elders bsoinsistent that the High Priest take an oath? The Gemara explains: So that bhe would not preparethe incense and light it boutsidein the Sanctuary, before entering the Holy of Holies, band bringthe coal pan with the incense already burning on it bintothe Holy of Holies bin the mannerthat bthe Sadducees did.Since the High Priest is alone inside the Sanctuary and there is no way to ascertain whether he is in fact performing the service in the proper manner, the Elders insisted that he take an oath to perform it according to their instructions., bThe Sages taughtin the iTosefta /i: There was ban incident involving acertain bSadduceewho was appointed as High Priest, bwho prepared the incense outsideand then bbroughtit into the Holy of Holies. bUpon his emergence he was overjoyedthat he had succeeded. bThe father ofthat Sadducee bmet him and said to him: My son, although we are Sadduceesand you performed the service in accordance with our opinion, bwe fear the Phariseesand do not actually implement that procedure in practice. The son bsaid to hisfather: bAll my days I have been troubled over this verse: “For I will appear in the cloud above the Ark cover”(Leviticus 16:2). The Sadducees interpreted this verse to mean that God will appear above the Ark cover, i.e., will enter the Holy of Holies, only after the incense cloud is already there. bI said: When willthe opportunity bbecome available to me, and I will fulfill itaccording to the Sadducee interpretation? bNow thatthe opportunity bhas become available to me,will bI not fulfill it? /b,The Sages bsaid: Noteven ba few dayspassed buntil he died and was laid out in the garbagedump, band worms were coming out of his nosein punishment for his actions. bAnd some saythat bhe was struckas soon bas he emergedfrom the Holy of Holies, bas Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: A type of sound was heard in theTemple bcourtyard, as an angel came and struck him in the face. And his fellow priests came into remove him from there band they found the likeness of a footprint of a calf between his shoulders.That is the mark left by an angel striking, bas it is statedwith regard to angels: b“And their feet were straight feet, and the sole of their feet was like the sole of a calf’s foot”(Ezekiel 1:7).,§ It was taught in the mishna that bRabbi Zekharya ben Kevutalsays: Many times I read before the High Priest from the book of Daniel. bRav Ḥa bar Rava taught this to Ḥiyya bar Rav before Ravin the following manner: bRabbi Zekharya bar Kefutal said, and Rav demonstrated with his handthat the name should be pronounced bKevutal.The Gemara asks: Why did Rav demonstrate his point with a gesture? bLet himsimply bsay it.The Gemara answers: Rav bwas reciting iShema /iat that moment and could not interrupt iShemaby speaking.,The Gemara asks: bAnd isinterrupting in a manner bof that sort,by gesturing, bpermittedduring iShema /i? bDidn’t Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Shmuel bar Marta say: One who is reciting iShemashould neither make allusions with his eyes, nor open and closehis mouth bwith his lipsto convey a message, bnor gesture with his fingers? And it was taughtin a ibaraitathat bRabbi Elazar Ḥisma says: Concerning one who recites iShemaand makes allusions with his eyes, or opens and closeshis mouth bwith his lips, or gestures with his fingers, the verse says: “And you did not call out to Me, O Jacob”(Isaiah 43:22). By signaling while reciting iShemahe behaves contemptuously toward God, and it is tantamount to not having recited iShemabefore Him. How, then, could Rav gesture while reading iShema /i?,The Gemara answers: This is bnot difficult. Thisprohibition to interrupt one’s recitation of iShemawith a gesture applies binthe course of reciting the bfirst paragraphof iShema /i, which is more fundamental; bthatcase where Rav gestured was binthe course of reciting the bsecond paragraphof iShema /i, where gesturing to convey a significant message is permitted.,Apropos interruptions in the course of reciting iShema /i, the Gemara cites a ibaraitain which bthe Sages taught:“And these words, which I command you this day, shall be upon your heart; and you shall teach them diligently unto your children, band you shall talk of themwhen you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you arise” (Deuteronomy 6:6–7). This means that in the course bofreciting bthem,the study of Torah and the recitation of iShema /i, it is permitted to interrupt to state a significant matter, bbut notin the course bofreciting the iAmida bprayer,which may not be interrupted for any kind of speech. Another interpretation of the verse is: bAnd you shall talk of themis to emphasize that bit is permittedto interrupt iShema bto speak these mattersof Torah, but not to speak bother mattersthat may lead to levity., bRabbi Aḥa says: Talk of themmeans one must brender them,the words of Torah, ba permanentfixture, band not render them a temporaryexercise. bRava said: One who engages in idle chatterwithout Torah or any particular purpose bviolatesa bpositivecommandment, bas it is stated: And you shall talk of them;talk bof them and not of other matters. Rav Aḥa bar Ya’akov said:Furthermore, boneeven bviolates a negativecommandment, bas it is stated: “All these matters are wearisome; no man can ever state them”(Ecclesiastes 1:8). The phrase: No man can ever state them, is understood as a prohibition against engaging in idle chatter., strongMISHNA: /strong If the High Priest bsought to sleepat night, bthe young priestswould bsnap the middle [ itzerada /i] fingeragainst the thumb bbefore him, and theywould bsay to himevery so often: bMy Master, High Priest. Standfrom your bed band chillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bAnd theywould bengage himin various ways buntil the time would arrive to slaughter thedaily offering., strongGEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: bWhatis the itzerada /ifinger mentioned in the mishna? bRav Yehuda said: It is the rival [ itzara /i] of that [ ida /i]one. Which finger bis it? iTzeradais the rival of bthe thumb;it is the middle finger. The middle finger would be strongly positioned against the thumb, and when one separates them, the finger hits the palm, creating a sound. bRav Huna demonstratedthe loud noise that could be achieved by snapping with the middle finger, and bthe sound traveled throughout Rav’s study hall.The sound created was loud enough to keep the High Priest awake.,It was taught in the mishna that bthey said to him: My Master, High Priest.Stand from your bed and bchillyourself bonce on the floorand overcome your drowsiness. bRav Yitzḥak saidthat they said to the High Priest: bIntroduce something new.The Gemara asks: bWhat is itthat they asked him to introduce? bThey say to him: Demonstratehow to perform the ceremonial bbowing[ikidda /i].This was a form of bowing that was difficult to perform, in which the High Priest was expert. The thought was that the exercise would keep him awake.,The mishna continues: bAnd theywould bengage himin different ways buntil the time to slaughter thedaily offering bwould arrive.It was btaught: They would not occupy him with a harp or a lyre,which may not be played on a Festival, bbutwould sing bwiththeir bmouths. And what would they say?They would say this verse: b“Unless the Lord builds the house, its builders labor in vain on it;unless the Lord watches over the city, the watchman keeps vigil in vain” (Psalms 127:1). The message to the High Priest was that his service must be performed for the sake of Heaven for it to be accepted by God; otherwise his efforts would be in vain.,The Gemara relates that bthe prominentmen bof Jerusalem would not sleep the entire nightbut instead engaged in Torah study, bso thatthe bHigh Priest would hearthe bsound of noisein the city band sleep would not overcome himin the silence of the sleeping city. bIt was taughtin a ibaraitathat bAbba Shaul said: They would do so even in the outlying areasand stay awake all night bin acknowledgment of the Temple; however,the result was bthat they would sin,as the men and women would participate in games together to pass the time, leading to transgression., bAbaye said, and some sayit was bRav Naḥman bar Yitzḥakwho said: bInterpretthat statement as referring to bNeharde’a, as Elijahthe Prophet bsaid to Rav Yehuda, brotherof bRav Salla Ḥasida: You have saidand wondered: bWhy has the Messiah not come?Why is that surprising? bIsn’t today Yom Kippur, and relations were had with several virgins in Neharde’a,as the men and women stayed awake all night and that led to promiscuity? Rav Yehuda bsaid to him: What did the Holy One, Blessed be He, sayabout those sins committed by the Jewish people? bHe said:This is what God said:

Subjects of this text:

subject book bibliographic info
accusation Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
amoraim,seeing themselves as descendants of the pharisees Cohen (2010) 56
anger,bringing a charge in Schiffman (1983) 91
aqiva Samely (2002) 239
benjamin of nahawend Schiffman (1983) 104
boethusians Schiffman (1983) 104
execution Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
exegesis,sectarian Schiffman (1983) 91
exegesis,tannaitic Schiffman (1983) 91
guilt Schiffman (1983) 91
hermeneutics,sectarian Schiffman (1983) 91
josephus Schiffman (1983) 104
judah ben tabbai Schiffman (1983) 104
karaites Schiffman (1983) 91
law,apodictic Schiffman (1983) 104
law,derivation of Schiffman (1983) 91
law,sectarian Schiffman (1983) 91
mark,jesus before sanhedrin Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
mark,trial of jesus Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
mark,witnesses against jesus Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
mark Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
perushim,having no connection with the pharisees Cohen (2010) 56
pharisaic-rabbinic connection Cohen (2010) 56
pharisees Jaffee (2001) 180; Schiffman (1983) 104
punishment,penalty Schiffman (1983) 91
reproof,time limit on Schiffman (1983) 91
reproof Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
roman empire,judicial procedure Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
roman empire,local security services Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
sadducees Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
saduccees Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
sanhedrin Bickerman and Tropper (2007) 739
sectarian settlements,archaeology of Schiffman (1983) 104
shimon ben sheá¹\xadah Schiffman (1983) 104
tannaim,tannaitic law,judaism,period Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
tannaim,view of connection to pharisees' Cohen (2010) 56
temple scroll Fonrobert and Jaffee (2007) 142
vows,annulment of Schiffman (1983) 91
vows,fulfillment of Schiffman (1983) 91
witnesses,conspiring Schiffman (1983) 91, 104
witnesses,single (one) Schiffman (1983) 104