| 1. Septuagint, Leviticus, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.22, 35.2-35.5, 35.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 74, 126| 5.22. "וּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן׃", 35.2. "וְאִם־בְּשִׂנְאָה יֶהְדָּפֶנּוּ אוֹ־הִשְׁלִיךְ עָלָיו בִּצְדִיָּה וַיָּמֹת׃", 35.2. "צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם מִנַּחֲלַת אֲחֻזָּתָם עָרִים לָשָׁבֶת וּמִגְרָשׁ לֶעָרִים סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם׃", 35.3. "וְהָיוּ הֶעָרִים לָהֶם לָשָׁבֶת וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶם יִהְיוּ לִבְהֶמְתָּם וְלִרְכֻשָׁם וּלְכֹל חַיָּתָם׃", 35.3. "כָּל־מַכֵּה־נֶפֶשׁ לְפִי עֵדִים יִרְצַח אֶת־הָרֹצֵחַ וְעֵד אֶחָד לֹא־יַעֲנֶה בְנֶפֶשׁ לָמוּת׃", 35.4. "וּמִגְרְשֵׁי הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם מִקִּיר הָעִיר וָחוּצָה אֶלֶף אַמָּה סָבִיב׃", 35.5. "וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת־פְּאַת־קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֶת־פְּאַת־נֶגֶב אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֶת־פְּאַת־יָם אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֵת פְּאַת צָפוֹן אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְהָעִיר בַּתָּוֶךְ זֶה יִהְיֶה לָהֶם מִגְרְשֵׁי הֶעָרִים׃", | 5.22. "and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away’; and the woman shall say: ‘Amen, Amen.’", 35.2. "’Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and open land round about the cities shall ye give unto the Levites.", 35.3. "And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and their open land shall be for their cattle, and for their substance, and for all their beasts.", 35.4. "And the open land about the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.", 35.5. "And ye shall measure without the city for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the midst. This shall be to them the open land about the cities.", 35.30. "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.1, 5.6-5.13, 5.20-5.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 81, 114, 115, 126, 175| 5.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם־לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃", 5.1. "וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 5.6. "וְהֵבִיא אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ לַיהוָה עַל חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא נְקֵבָה מִן־הַצֹּאן כִּשְׂבָּה אוֹ־שְׂעִירַת עִזִּים לְחַטָּאת וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ׃", 5.7. "וְאִם־לֹא תַגִּיע יָדוֹ דֵּי שֶׂה וְהֵבִיא אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא שְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ־שְׁנֵי בְנֵי־יוֹנָה לַיהוָה אֶחָד לְחַטָּאת וְאֶחָד לְעֹלָה׃", 5.8. "וְהֵבִיא אֹתָם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן וְהִקְרִיב אֶת־אֲשֶׁר לַחַטָּאת רִאשׁוֹנָה וּמָלַק אֶת־רֹאשׁוֹ מִמּוּל עָרְפּוֹ וְלֹא יַבְדִּיל׃", 5.9. "וְהִזָּה מִדַּם הַחַטָּאת עַל־קִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחַ וְהַנִּשְׁאָר בַּדָּם יִמָּצֵה אֶל־יְסוֹד הַמִּזְבֵּחַ חַטָּאת הוּא׃", 5.11. "וְאִם־לֹא תַשִּׂיג יָדוֹ לִשְׁתֵּי תֹרִים אוֹ לִשְׁנֵי בְנֵי־יוֹנָה וְהֵבִיא אֶת־קָרְבָּנוֹ אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עֲשִׂירִת הָאֵפָה סֹלֶת לְחַטָּאת לֹא־יָשִׂים עָלֶיהָ שֶׁמֶן וְלֹא־יִתֵּן עָלֶיהָ לְבֹנָה כִּי חַטָּאת הִיא׃", 5.12. "וֶהֱבִיאָהּ אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן וְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן מִמֶּנָּה מְלוֹא קֻמְצוֹ אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָה וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה עַל אִשֵּׁי יְהוָה חַטָּאת הִוא׃", 5.13. "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן עַל־חַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא מֵאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה וְנִסְלַח לוֹ וְהָיְתָה לַכֹּהֵן כַּמִּנְחָה׃", 5.21. "נֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא וּמָעֲלָה מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְכִחֵשׁ בַּעֲמִיתוֹ בְּפִקָּדוֹן אוֹ־בִתְשׂוּמֶת יָד אוֹ בְגָזֵל אוֹ עָשַׁק אֶת־עֲמִיתוֹ׃", 5.22. "אוֹ־מָצָא אֲבֵדָה וְכִחֶשׁ בָּהּ וְנִשְׁבַּע עַל־שָׁקֶר עַל־אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה הָאָדָם לַחֲטֹא בָהֵנָּה׃", 5.23. "וְהָיָה כִּי־יֶחֱטָא וְאָשֵׁם וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־הַגְּזֵלָה אֲשֶׁר גָּזָל אוֹ אֶת־הָעֹשֶׁק אֲשֶׁר עָשָׁק אוֹ אֶת־הַפִּקָּדוֹן אֲשֶׁר הָפְקַד אִתּוֹ אוֹ אֶת־הָאֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר מָצָא׃", 5.24. "אוֹ מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יִשָּׁבַע עָלָיו לַשֶּׁקֶר וְשִׁלַּם אֹתוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִשִׁתָיו יֹסֵף עָלָיו לַאֲשֶׁר הוּא לוֹ יִתְּנֶנּוּ בְּיוֹם אַשְׁמָתוֹ׃", 5.25. "וְאֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ יָבִיא לַיהוָה אַיִל תָּמִים מִן־הַצֹּאן בְּעֶרְכְּךָ לְאָשָׁם אֶל־הַכֹּהֵן׃", 5.26. "וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְנִסְלַח לוֹ עַל־אַחַת מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־יַעֲשֶׂה לְאַשְׁמָה בָהּ׃", | 5.1. "And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;", 5.6. "and he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD for his sin which he hath sinned, a female from the flock, a lamb or a goat, for a sin-offering; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin.", 5.7. "And if his means suffice not for a lamb, then he shall bring his forfeit for that wherein he hath sinned, two turtle-doves, or two young pigeons, unto the LORD: one for a sin-offering, and the other for a burnt-offering.", 5.8. "And he shall bring them unto the priest, who shall offer that which is for the sin-offering first, and pinch off its head close by its neck, but shall not divide it asunder.", 5.9. "And he shall sprinkle of the blood of the sin-offering upon the side of the altar; and the rest of the blood shall be drained out at the base of the altar; it is a sin-offering.", 5.10. "And he shall prepare the second for a burnt-offering, according to the ordice; and the priest shall make atonement for him as concerning his sin which he hath sinned, and he shall be forgiven.", 5.11. "But if his means suffice not for two turtledoves, or two young pigeons, then he shall bring his offering for that wherein he hath sinned, the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a sin-offering; he shall put no oil upon it, neither shall he put any frankincense thereon; for it is a sin-offering.", 5.12. "And he shall bring it to the priest, and the priest shall take his handful of it as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke on the altar, upon the offerings of the LORD made by fire; it is a sin-offering.", 5.13. "And the priest shall make atonement for him as touching his sin that he hath sinned in any of these things, and he shall be forgiven; and the remt shall be the priest’s, as the meal-offering.", 5.20. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 5.21. "If any one sin, and commit a trespass against the LORD, and deal falsely with his neighbour in a matter of deposit, or of pledge, or of robbery, or have oppressed his neighbour;", 5.22. "or have found that which was lost, and deal falsely therein, and swear to a lie; in any of all these that a man doeth, sinning therein;", 5.23. "then it shall be, if he hath sinned, and is guilty, that he shall restore that which he took by robbery, or the thing which he hath gotten by oppression, or the deposit which was deposited with him, or the lost thing which he found,", 5.24. "or any thing about which he hath sworn falsely, he shall even restore it in full, and shall add the fifth part more thereto; unto him to whom it appertaineth shall he give it, in the day of his being guilty.", 5.25. "And he shall bring his forfeit unto the LORD, a ram without blemish out of the flock, according to thy valuation, for a guilt-offering, unto the priest.", 5.26. "And the priest shall make atonement for him before the LORD, and he shall be forgiven, concerning whatsoever he doeth so as to be guilty thereby.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.4, 16.29, 21.29, 23.7, 30.14, 38.26 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56, 59, 74, 78, 81| 12.4. "וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה׃", 12.4. "וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה׃", 16.29. "רְאוּ כִּי־יְהוָה נָתַן לָכֶם הַשַּׁבָּת עַל־כֵּן הוּא נֹתֵן לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי לֶחֶם יוֹמָיִם שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו אַל־יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי׃", 21.29. "וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת׃", 23.7. "מִדְּבַר־שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל־תַּהֲרֹג כִּי לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע׃", 30.14. "כֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה׃", 38.26. "בֶּקַע לַגֻּלְגֹּלֶת מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְכֹל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה לְשֵׁשׁ־מֵאוֹת אֶלֶף וּשְׁלֹשֶׁת אֲלָפִים וַחֲמֵשׁ מֵאוֹת וַחֲמִשִּׁים׃", | 12.4. "and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating ye shall make your count for the lamb.", 16.29. "See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.’", 21.29. "But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.", 23.7. "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.", 30.14. "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD.", 38.26. "a beka a head, that is, half a shekel, after the shekel of the sanctuary, for every one that passed over to them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, for six hundred thousand and three thousand and five hundred and fifty men.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.6, 17.15, 19.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28, 74, 78| 17.6. "עַל־פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת לֹא יוּמַת עַל־פִּי עֵד אֶחָד׃", 17.15. "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃", 19.15. "לֹא־יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכָל־עָוֺן וּלְכָל־חַטָּאת בְּכָל־חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר׃", | 17.6. "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.", 17.15. "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.", 19.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment", |
|
| 6. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 6-7 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
7. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 21.10, 21.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 21.13. "וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל וַיֵּשְׁבוּ נֶגְדּוֹ וַיְעִדֻהוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַבְּלִיַּעַל אֶת־נָבוֹת נֶגֶד הָעָם לֵאמֹר בֵּרַךְ נָבוֹת אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר וַיִּסְקְלֻהוּ בָאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת׃", | 21.10. "and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he die.’", 21.13. "And the two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him; and the base fellows bore witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying: ‘Naboth did curse God and the king.’ Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 31.17 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59| 31.17. "וְאֵת הִתְיַחֵשׂ הַכֹּהֲנִים לְבֵית אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם וְהַלְוִיִּם מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וּלְמָעְלָה בְּמִשְׁמְרוֹתֵיהֶם בְּמַחְלְקוֹתֵיהֶם׃", | 31.17. "and them that were reckoned by genealogy of the priests by their fathers’houses, and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses;", |
|
| 9. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 6.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28 |
10. Anon., Jubilees, 49.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59 | 49.17. And it is not permissible to slay it during any period of the light, but during the period bordering on the evening, |
|
| 11. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 17.8, 64.6-64.13 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59, 76 |
| 12. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56 |
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56 |
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.23, 9.23-10.3, 10.1, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.21, 14.20, 14.21, 14.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56, 73, 79, 92 |
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.23, 9.23-10.3, 10.1, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.21, 14.20, 14.21, 14.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 56, 73, 79, 92 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 6.19, 7.8, 9.16-9.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 96, 175 |
18. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 5.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 5.19. κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων· | 5.19. Don't receive an accusation against an elder, except at the word of two or three witnesses. |
|
19. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 13.1-13.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 78| 13.1. Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς·ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. 13.2. προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν τοῖς προημαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσομαι, 13.3. ἐπεὶ δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος χριστοῦ· ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, | |
|
20. New Testament, Acts, 5.1-5.11 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 175| 5.1. Ἀνὴρ δέ τις Ἁνανίας ὀνόματι σὺν Σαπφείρῃ τῇ γυναικὶ αὐτοῦ ἐπώλησεν κτῆμα 5.2. καὶ ἐνοσφίσατο ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς, συνειδυίης καὶ τῆς γυναικός, καὶ ἐνέγκας μέρος τι παρὰ τοὺς πόδας τῶν ἀποστόλων ἔθηκεν. 5.3. εἶπεν δὲ ὁ Πέτρος Ἁνανία, διὰ τί ἐπλήρωσεν ὁ Σατανᾶς τὴν καρδίαν σου ψεύσασθαί σε τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον καὶ νοσφίσασθαι ἀπὸ τῆς τιμῆς τοῦ χωρίου; 5.4. οὐχὶ μένον σοὶ ἔμενεν καὶ πραθὲν ἐν τῇ σῇ ἐξουσίᾳ ὑπῆρχεν; τί ὅτι ἔθου ἐν τῇ καρδίᾳ σου τὸ πρᾶγμα τοῦτο; οὐκ ἐψεύσω ἀνθρώποις ἀλλὰ τῷ θεῷ. 5.5. ἀκούων δὲ ὁ Ἁνανίας τοὺς λόγους τούτους πεσὼν ἐξέψυξεν· 5.6. καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας. ἀναστάντες δὲ οἱ νεώτεροι συνέστειλαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξενέγκαντες ἔθαψαν. 5.7. Ἐγένετο δὲ ὡς ὡρῶν τριῶν διάστημα καὶ ἡ γυνὴ αὐτοῦ μὴ εἰδυῖα τὸ γεγονὸς εἰσῆλθεν. 5.8. ἀπεκρίθη δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν Πέτρος Εἰπέ μοι, εἰ τοσούτου τὸ χωρίον ἀπέδοσθε; ἡ δὲ εἶπεν Ναί, τοσούτου. 5.9. ὁ δὲ Πέτρος πρὸς αὐτήν Τί ὅτι συνεφωνήθη ὑμῖν πειράσαι τὸ πνεῦμα Κυρίου; ἰδοὺ οἱ πόδες τῶν θαψάντων τὸν ἄνδρα σου ἐπὶ τῇ θύρᾳ καὶ ἐξοίσουσίν σε. 5.10. ἔπεσεν δὲ παραχρῆμα πρὸς τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ καὶ ἐξέψυξεν· εἰσελθόντες δὲ οἱ νεανίσκοι εὗρον αὐτὴν νεκράν, καὶ ἐξενέγκαντες ἔθαψαν πρὸς τὸν ἄνδρα αὐτῆς. 5.11. Καὶ ἐγένετο φόβος μέγας ἐφʼ ὅλην τὴν ἐκκλησίαν καὶ ἐπὶ πάντας τοὺς ἀκούοντας ταῦτα. | 5.1. But a certain man named Aias, with Sapphira, his wife, sold a possession, 5.2. and kept back part of the price, his wife also being aware of it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet. 5.3. But Peter said, "Aias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back part of the price of the land? 5.4. While you kept it, didn't it remain your own? After it was sold, wasn't it in your power? How is it that you have conceived this thing in your heart? You haven't lied to men, but to God." 5.5. Aias, hearing these words, fell down and died. Great fear came on all who heard these things. 5.6. The young men arose and wrapped him up, and they carried him out and buried him. 5.7. About three hours later, his wife, not knowing what had happened, came in. 5.8. Peter answered her, "Tell me whether you sold the land for so much."She said, "Yes, for so much." 5.9. But Peter asked her, "How is it that you have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they will carry you out." 5.10. She fell down immediately at his feet, and died. The young men came in and found her dead, and they carried her out and buried her by her husband. 5.11. Great fear came on the whole assembly, and on all who heard these things. |
|
21. New Testament, Apocalypse, 11.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 11.3. καὶ δώσω τοῖς δυσὶν μάρτυσίν μου, καὶ προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα, περιβεβλημένους σάκκους. | 11.3. I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. |
|
22. New Testament, Hebrews, 10.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 10.28. ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωυσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶνἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει· | 10.28. A man who disregards Moses' law dies without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. |
|
23. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.10 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 114| 4.10. "עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לָהֶם: \n", | 4.10. "[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them.", |
|
24. New Testament, John, 8.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 8.17. καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ γέγραπται ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν. | 8.17. It's also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. |
|
25. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.1, 8.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59, 75| 3.1. "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n", 8.4. "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n", | 3.1. "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.", 8.4. "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.", |
|
26. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 1.9. "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן: \n", | 1.9. "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.", |
|
27. New Testament, Matthew, 18.15-18.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 92| 18.15. Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου. ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου· 18.16. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα· 18.17. ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν, εἰπὸν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. | 18.15. "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. 18.16. But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 18.17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. |
|
28. Mishnah, Horayot, 1.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36| 1.4. "הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן טוֹעִין אַתֶּם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֻפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אַחַד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה לוֹ בָנִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֵדָה (ויקרא ד) וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר לה) עֵדָה, מָה עֵדָה הָאֲמוּר לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִין לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף עֵדָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִים לְהוֹרָאָה. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִים וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין פָּר. מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", | 1.4. "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.", |
|
29. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 7.5, 12.7-12.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 79| 7.5. "בדיני ממונות אומרין נזדקק הדין בדיני נפשות אין אומרין נזדקק הדין והגדול שבדיינים אומר נזדקק הדין אין שואלין מעומד ואין משיבין מעומד לא מגבוה ולא מרחוק ולא מאחורי הזקנים אין שואלין אלא בענין ואין משיבין אלא במדע ולא ישאל השואל בענין יתיר משלש הלכות אחד שואל ואחד אומר שלא לשאול נזקקין לשואל והשואל מעשה צריך שיאמר מעשה אני שואל והשואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין משיבין את השואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין צריך שיאמר שלא כענין שאלתי דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א א\"צ שכל התורה ענין אחד. ענין ושאינו ענין נזקקין לענין מעשה ושאינו מעשה נזקקין למעשה הלכה ומדרש נזקקין להלכה מדרש ואגדה נזקקין למדרש מדרש וק\"ו נזקקין לק\"ו ק\"ו וגזירה שוה נזקקין לק\"ו חכם ותלמיד נזקקין לחכם תלמיד ועם הארץ נזקקין לתלמיד היו שניהם חכמים ושניהם תלמידים ושניהם עמי הארץ שתי הלכות ושתי שאלות ושתי תשובות ושני מעשים הרשות ביד התורגמן מעתה כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים והן ישבו עד שאמר להם שבו כשאב ב\"ד נכנס עושים לו שתי שורות מכאן ומכאן עד שנכנס וישב במקומו חכם שנכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שנכנס וישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שהרבים צריכים להם מקפצן אפילו על ראשי העם ואע\"פ שאמרו אין שבח לתלמיד שיכנס באחרונה יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו בני חכמים תלמידי חכמים בזמן שיש בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי אביהם אין בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי העם ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק אומר בבית המשתה עושים אותן סניפין חכם שנכנס אין שואלין אותו עד שתתישב דעתו נכנס ומצאם כשהם עוסקים בהלכה לא יהא קופץ לתוך דבריהם עד שיודע באיזה ענין הן עוסקים ואם עשה כן על זה נאמר שבעה דברים בגולם. שבע מדות דרש הלל לפני זקני בתירה ק\"ו וגזרה שוה ובנין אב וכתוב אחד ובנין אב ושני כתובים וכלל ופרט וכלל וכיוצא בו ממקום אחר דבר הלמד מענינו אלו שבע מדות שדרש הלל הזקן לפני זקני בתירה. ", | 7.5. "...Hillel the elder expounded seven hermeneutical principles before the elders of Betheira: kal vachomer, gezeirah shavah, shnei kethuvim, kllal ufrat, kayotze bo bemakom acher (\"the same applies elsewhere\" — i.e., binyan av), davar halamed me'inyano (and davar halamed misofo)." |
|
30. Tosefta, Yevamot, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126| 4.7. "חכם שדן את הדין טימא וטיהר אסר והתיר וכן העדים שהעידו הרי אלו מותרין [ליקח] אבל אמרו חכמים [רחק] מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לכיעור יש זריז ונשכר [יש] זריז ונפסד שפל ונשכר שפל ונפסד שפל לערב שבת [לשבת] למוצאי שבת לערב שביעית [לשביעית] למוצאי שביעית לימי חולי של מועד וכ\"מ שיש בו נדנוד עבירה ה\"ז שפל ונשכר. ", | |
|
| 31. Josephus Flavius, Life, 49 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75 |
32. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 6.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126| 6.4. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא פָּתַר קְרָיָא בַּסּוֹטָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא, הִיא שֶׁחָטְאָה עַל בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁהוּא זָנָהּ וּמְפַרְנְסָהּ וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עִם אַחֵר, וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה (במדבר ה, כא): וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה. וְהוּא עֵד (במדבר ה, יג): וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ. אוֹ רָאָה (במדבר ה, יג): וְנֶעֱלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָּׁהּ וְלֹא מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אוֹ יָדָע (במדבר ה, יג): וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה. אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ, אִם לֹא תַגִּיד לַכֹּהֵן (במדבר ה, כז): וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ. | |
|
| 33. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 59 |
34. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36| 56b. עבדך וירגל בעבדך אל אדוני המלך ואדוני המלך כמלאך האלהים ועשה הטוב בעיניך ויאמר לו המלך למה תדבר עוד דבריך אמרתי אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה ויאמר מפיבשת אל המלך גם את הכל יקח אחרי אשר בא אדוני המלך בשלום אל ביתו אמר לו אני אמרתי מתי תבא בשלום ואתה עושה לי כך לא עליך יש לי תרעומות אלא על מי שהביאך בשלום,היינו דכתיב (דברי הימים א ח, לד) ובן יהונתן מריב בעל וכי מריב בעל שמו והלא מפיבשת שמו אלא מתוך שעשה מריבה עם בעליו יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו נצא בר נצא נצא הא דאמרן בר נצא דכתיב (שמואל א טו, ה) ויבא שאול עד עיר עמלק וירב בנחל אמר רבי מני על עסקי נחל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שאמר דוד למפיבשת אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רחבעם וירבעם יחלקו את המלוכה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אילמלי לא. קיבל דוד לשון הרע לא נחלקה מלכות בית דוד ולא עבדו ישראל ע"ז ולא גלינו מארצנו:,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר שלמה חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים א יא, ד) ולא היה לבבו שלם עם ה' אלהיו כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא,אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ההיא כרבי נתן דר' נתן רמי כתיב ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו והכתיב כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא הכי קאמר ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים ולא הלך,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ז) אז יבנה שלמה במה לכמוש שקוץ מואב שבקש לבנות ולא בנה,אלא מעתה (יהושע ח, ל) אז יבנה יהושע מזבח לה' שבקש לבנות ולא בנה אלא דבנה הכא נמי דבנה,אלא כדתניא רבי יוסי אומר (מלכים ב כג, יג) ואת הבמות אשר על פני ירושלים אשר מימין להר המשחה אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל לעשתרות שקוץ צדונים וגו',אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערם יהושפט ולא ביערם עד שבא יאשיה וביערם והלא כל ע"ז שבארץ ישראל אסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקיש ראשונים לאחרונים מה אחרונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לשבח אף ראשונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לגנאי,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ו) ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה' אלא מפני שהיה לו למחות בנשיו ולא מיחה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נוח לו לאותו צדיק שיהא שמש לדבר אחר ואל יכתב בו ויעש הרע בעיני ה',אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה הכניסה לו אלף מיני זמר ואמרה לו כך עושין לעבודה זרה פלונית וכך עושים לע"ז פלונית ולא מיחה בה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים ועלה בו שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול [של רומי],במתניתא תנא אותו היום שהכניס ירבעם שני עגלי זהב אחד בבית אל ואחד בדן נבנה צריף אחד וזהו איטליאה של יון:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר יאשיהו חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים ב כב, ב) ויעש הישר בעיני ה' וילך בכל דרך דוד אביו אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים ב כג, כה) וכמוהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב וגו',שכל דין שדן מבן שמנה עד שמנה עשרה החזירן להן שמא תאמר נטל מזה ונתן לזה תלמוד לומר בכל מאודו שנתן להם משלו,ופליגא דרב דאמר רב אין לך גדול בבעלי תשובה יותר מיאשיהו בדורו ואחד בדורנו ומנו אבא אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא ואמרי לה אחא אחוה דאבא אבוה דרב ירמיה בר אבא דאמר מר רבי אבא ואחא אחי הוו,אמר רב יוסף ועוד אחד בדורנו ומנו עוקבן בר נחמיה ריש גלותא והיינו. נתן דצוציתא אמר רב יוסף הוה יתיבנא בפירקא והוה קא מנמנם וחזאי בחילמא דקא פשט ידיה וקבליה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך במה בהמה /strong /big br br | |
|
35. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 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. b and all of the formulations /b of an enactment b of the court /b were written in it. But only two were signed on it, b and /b the following statement b was not written in it: We were /b convened b in a session of three /b judges, b and one /b of the judges b is no /b longer 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., b Ravina thought to say /b that b this is /b a case in which the principle b of Reish Lakish, /b that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. b Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This /b is what b we say in the name of Rava: /b In b any cases like this, we are concerned for /b the possibility of b an erroneous court /b that thinks that two constitute a court., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written in /b the document: We, the members of b the court, /b convened, it is b unnecessary /b for the deed to b further /b state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: /b With regard to b two /b judges b who /b convened a tribunal and b judged, their verdict is /b a binding b verdict; but /b because they contravened the rabbinic ordice mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, b they are called an impudent court. /b The Gemara answers: It was a document b in which it was written: /b We, the members of b the court of Rabbana Ashi, /b convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, /b that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document b in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. /b 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. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where b one said to /b the children of another: b I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, /b and the money was found where he said, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was b in the house, /b the witness has b said nothing. /b 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 b in the field, his statement stands, /b i.e., is accepted., b The principle of the matter /b is as follows: In b any /b case b where it is in /b the b power of /b the witness b to take /b the money, b his statement stands; /b if b it is not in his power to take /b the money, b he has said nothing. /b ,In a case b where /b the children themselves b saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and /b the father b said: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, if /b he said so b as one who relays /b information to his own children, b his statement stands. /b But b if /b he said so b as one who employs artifice, /b i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, b he has said nothing, /b and they may spend the money.,In a case b where /b one b was distressed about money that his father left him /b as an inheritance, because he could not find it, b and the master of the dream, /b i.e., someone in his dream, b came and said to him: It is such and such /b an amount of money and b it is in such and such a place, /b but the money b is second tithe, /b and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and b this was /b an actual b incident /b that was brought before the Sages, b and they said /b that he can spend the money, as b matters /b appearing in b dreams do not make a difference /b in determining the practical i halakha /i .,§ The mishna teaches that if b two /b judges b say /b the defendant is b exempt /b and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, b how do they write /b the verdict?, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b They write that he is b exempt, /b without mentioning the dispute. b Reish Lakish says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable; /b they must mention that there was a dispute. b Rabbi Eliezer says /b that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: b From the statement of /b the judges b so-and-so was deemed exempt, /b 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: b What /b is the difference b between /b these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference b between them /b is b with regard to /b whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must b pay /b his b portion /b of restitution b along with /b the judges of the majority. b As according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b the minority judge b pays /b as well, b and according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, he does not pay. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b does he pay? Let him say to /b the other judges: b If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either. /b Why should I have to pay for your mistake?, b Rather, /b he does not pay, and the practical difference b between /b the opinions is b with regard to /b whether or not b those /b other judges must b pay his portion /b of the restitution. b According to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, they pay /b the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But b according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, they do not pay /b the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b do they pay /b his portion? b Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all, /b as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment., b Rather, /b the difference b between /b the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is b due to /b the prohibition of: b “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” /b (Leviticus 19:16). b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that they write that he is b exempt due to /b the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: b “You shall not go as a talebearer.” /b , b Reish Lakish says /b they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, because /b otherwise the document would b have the appearance of falsehood, /b as not all the judges deemed him exempt., b And Rabbi Elazar accepts /b the opinion b of /b this b Sage, /b Rabbi Yoḥa, b and accepts /b the opinion b of /b that b Sage, /b Reish Lakish. b Therefore, this /b is what b they write: From the statement of /b the judges, b so-and-so was deemed exempt. /b 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 b finished the matter /b and reached a decision, b they would bring /b them b in. /b The Gemara asks: b Whom /b would they bring in? b If we say /b they would bring in b the litigants, /b this cannot be, as b they were there /b the whole time; they never left the room. b Rather, /b they would bring in b the witnesses. /b ,If so, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna? It is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan; as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b 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: b No, actually /b it can be explained that the judges would bring in b the litigants; and it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: /b When they would judge, b they /b would b bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and /b then b they /b would b bring in the witnesses and hear their statements /b in the presence of the litigants, b and /b then b they /b would b take them /b all b outside /b of the courtroom b and discuss the matter /b in their absence. Once b they finished the matter they /b would b bring them, /b i.e., the litigants, b in, /b to hear their verdict.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i explicitly: When b they finished the matter they /b would b bring in the witnesses? /b The Gemara answers: b That /b i baraita /i is certainly b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan. /b ,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself: The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, and if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning: /b The first i tanna /i holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, b about the one hundred dinars /b of debt b that this /b one b is testifying, that /b one b is not testifying, and /b about b the one hundred dinars that that /b one b is testifying, this one is not testifying. /b There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since b both /b witnesses b are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, /b the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, as it is written: /b “And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, b and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, /b if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara explains: b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with 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); b by inference, from that /b which b is stated /b in the verse: b A witness shall not rise up /b against a man, even without the word “one,” b do I not know that it is /b referring to b one /b witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, b what /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b explicitly: b “One /b witness”?, b This established a paradigm, /b a basis for the principle that in b every place /b in the Torah b where /b the word b “witness” is stated, /b it means that b there are two /b witnesses, b unless the verse specifies for you /b that it is referring to only b one /b witness., b And /b according to the first i tanna /i , b the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, /b i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” b to say /b that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: b “And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,” /b that b in any case /b where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.,The i baraita /i cited above teaches: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b and b if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b as one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b when one witness comes /b to testify, b he comes to /b render the defendant liable to take b an oath. /b This is the i halakha /i when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. b He does not come to /b render the defendant liable to pay b money, /b because for this two witnesses are necessary., b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Natan, responds: b Is that to say /b that b when they come together, /b they render the defendant ficially liable because b they testify with one mouth? /b Obviously they testify one after the other. b Rather, /b clearly it is the judges who b combine /b their two testimonies into one. b Here too, /b when the witnesses come to court at different times, b let /b the judges b combine /b their testimonies., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1), |
|
36. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 6b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ואחד מתרה בו באמצע בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו עדות אחת ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה,רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים דבר אחר על פי שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביא אמר רב מנין לעדות מיוחדת שהיא פסולה שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) לא יומת על פי עד אחד מאי אחד אילימא עד אחד ממש מרישא שמעינן לה על פי שנים עדים אלא מאי אחד אחד אחד,תניא נמי הכי לא יומת על פי עד אחד להביא שנים שרואים אותו אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה ואין רואין זה את זה שאין מצטרפין ולא עוד אלא אפילו בזה אחר זה בחלון אחד אין מצטרפין,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי השתא ומה אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה דהאי קא חזי כולו מעשה והאי קא חזי כולו מעשה אמרת לא מצטרפי בזה אחר זה דהאי חזי פלגא דמעשה והאי חזי פלגא דמעשה מיבעיא א"ל לא נצרכא אלא לבועל את הערוה,אמר רבא אם היו רואין את המתרה או המתרה רואה אותן מצטרפין אמר רבא מתרה שאמרו אפילו מפי עצמו ואפילו מפי השד,אמר רב נחמן עדות מיוחדת כשירה בדיני ממונות דכתיב לא יומת על פי עד אחד בדיני נפשות הוא דאין כשירה אבל בדיני ממונות כשירה,מתקיף לה רב זוטרא אלא מעתה בדיני נפשות תציל אלמה תנן הוא והן נהרגין קשיא:,רבי יוסי אומר וכו': א"ל רב פפא לאביי ומי אית ליה לרבי יוסי האי סברא והתנן רבי יוסי אומר השונא נהרג מפני שהוא כמועד ומותרה,א"ל ההוא רבי יוסי בר יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד:,דבר אחר ע"פ שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן: הנהו לעוזי דאתו לקמיה דרבא אוקי רבא תורגמן בינייהו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן רבא מידע הוה ידע מה דהוו אמרי ואהדורי הוא דלא הוה ידע | 6b. strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where there b were two /b witnesses b observing /b an individual violating a capital transgression b from this window /b in a house, b and two observing him from that window /b in a house, b and one /b person was b forewarning /b the transgressor b in the middle /b between the two sets of witnesses, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. In a situation b where some of /b the witnesses observing from the two windows b see each other, /b the testimony of all b these /b witnesses constitutes b one testimony, but if /b they do b not /b see each other, the testimony of b these /b witnesses constitutes b two /b independent b testimonies. Therefore, /b as two independent sets of witnesses, b if one of /b the sets b was found /b to be a set of b conspiring /b witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both b he, /b the one accused of violating the capital transgression, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed, and the second /b set, whose testimony remained valid, b is exempt. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Transgressors b are never executed unless his two witnesses are /b the ones b forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses… /b he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. b Alternatively, /b from the phrase b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says /b that b Rav says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to disjointed testimony, /b in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, b that it is not valid? /b It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: b What /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? b If we say /b that it means b one witness literally, we learn it from the first /b portion of the verse: b “At the mouth of two witnesses,” /b indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. b Rather, what /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with b one /b witness here and b one /b witness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,” /b from which it is derived b to include /b the i halakha /i that in the case of b two /b witnesses b who observe /b an individual violating a capital transgression, b one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Moreover, even /b if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but b one after the other in one window, they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: /b Why is it necessary to mention both cases? b Now if /b in the case where b one /b witness views the incident b from this window and one /b witness views the incident b from that window, where this /b witness b sees the entire incident and that /b witness b sees the entire incident, you say /b that b they do not join /b to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident b one after the other, where this /b witness b sees half /b the b incident and that /b witness b sees half /b the b incident, /b is it b necessary /b to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye b said to him: /b It b is necessary /b to state this i halakha /i b only /b with regard b to /b a case where they witnessed one who b engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, /b which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The i tanna /i of the i baraita /i teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, b Rava says: /b Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, b if /b the witness in each window b sees the one who is forewarning /b the accused, b or /b if b the one who is forewarning /b the accused b could see /b the two disjointed witnesses, b they join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Rava says: /b The one b forewarning /b the accused of b whom /b the Sages b spoke /b need not be a third witness, but b even /b if the victim forewarns the murderer b from his own mouth, and even /b if the forewarning emerged b from the mouth of a demon, /b meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate., b Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony /b of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, b is valid in /b cases of b monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that b it is /b only b with regard to /b cases of b capital law that /b disjointed testimony b is not valid, but with regard to /b cases of b monetary law /b that testimony b is valid. /b , b Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so, /b and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, b in /b cases of b capital law /b disjointed testimony b should spare /b the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. b Why, /b then, b did we learn /b in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, b he, /b the accused, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed? /b The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is b difficult /b according to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of /b the opinion that b this /b line of b reasoning /b is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (9b): b Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy /b who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, b he is executed /b even if there was no forewarning, b due to /b the fact b that his /b halakhic status is b like /b that of one who is b cautioned and forewarned. /b Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye b said to him: That /b statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei b is /b actually the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A i ḥaver /i does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between /b one who commits a transgression b unwittingly and /b one who does so b intentionally. /b A i ḥaver /i , who is a Torah scholar, does not require forewarning to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, whose opinion is cited in the mishna here, is of the opinion that forewarning is a necessary prerequisite to executing someone who is judged liable, and that forewarning must be issued by the witnesses.,§ The mishna teaches: b Alternatively, /b from the phrase in the verse b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b The Gemara relates: There were b certain /b people who spoke b a foreign /b language b who came before Rava /b for judgment. b Rava installed an interpreter between them /b and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: b And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter? /b The Gemara answers: b Rava knew what they were saying, /b as he understood their language, b but he did not know /b how to b respond /b to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna. |
|
37. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59| 24b. (דברי הימים ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד:,עד שיזקין עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר ר' חנינא עד שירתת,תנן התם בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל טמא ר' יוסי אומר בחולה ובזקן טמא בילד ובבריא טהור,ילד עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי חנינא כל שעומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא שהיה בן שמונים שנה והיה עומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמר רבי חנינא חמין ושמן שסכתני אמי בילדותי הן עמדו לי בעת זקנותי,ת"ר נתמלא זקנו ראוי ליעשות שליח ציבור ולירד לפני התיבה ולישא את כפיו מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות רבי אומר אומר אני עד שיהא בן עשרים,א"ר חסדא מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (עזרא ג, ח) ויעמידו [את] הלוים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לנצח על מלאכת בית ה' ואידך לנצח שאני,והא האי קרא בלוים כתיב כדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יז) איש מזרעך לדורותם מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר קטן פסול לעבודה ואפי' תם מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות אבל אחיו הכהנים אין מניחין אותו לעבוד עד שיהא בן כ',איכא דאמרי הא רבי היא ואפי' פסול דרבנן לית ליה ואיכא דאמרי רבי אית ליה פסול מדרבנן והא רבנן היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא אבל דיעבד עבודתו כשרה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר אויר כלי חרש טמא וגבו טהור אויר כל הכלים טהור וגבן טמא נמצא טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש,מנהני מילי דת"ר תוכו ואע"פ שלא נגע,אתה אומר אע"פ שלא נגע או אינו אלא אם כן נגע רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר נאמר (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו לטמא ונאמר תוכו ליטמא מה תוכו האמור לטמא אע"פ שלא נגע אף תוכו האמור ליטמא אע"פ שלא נגע,והתם מנלן אמר רבי יונתן התורה העידה על כלי חרס | 24b. b “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” /b (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.,The i baraita /i teaches that the priest is eligible for service b until he ages. /b The Gemara asks: b Until when, /b i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? b Rabbi Ela says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until /b his hands and feet begin to b tremble. /b , b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Mikvaot /i 8:4): With regard to b one who experienced a seminal emission who /b then b immersed /b in a ritual bath b and did not urinate /b before immersing, b when he urinates he is ritually impure, /b because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. b Rabbi Yosei says: In /b the case of b an ill /b person b and an elderly /b person, he is b ritually impure; in /b the case of b a young /b person b and a healthy /b person, he is b ritually pure, /b as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset., b Until when /b is one considered b a young /b person? b Rabbi Ela says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who /b is able to b stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe /b is considered young. b They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b The b hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age. /b , b The Sages taught: /b If b one’s beard /b is b fully /b grown, b he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community /b for various matters, b and to descend before the ark /b as a prayer leader, b and to lift his hands /b for the Priestly Benediction. b From when /b is a priest b fit for /b Temple b service? /b It is b from /b the time he reaches puberty and b grows two /b pubic b hairs. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: I say /b that he is not fit for Temple service b until he is twenty /b years of b age. /b , b Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is b as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” /b (Ezra 3:8). b And /b what does b the other /b i tanna /i hold? He holds that b to oversee is different /b and requires an older priest.,The Gemara asks: b But /b what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; b isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? /b The Gemara answers: It is understood b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations /b that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); b from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor /b priest is b unfit for /b Temple b service, even /b if he is b unblemished, /b as he is not a man. b From when /b is b he fit for service? From /b the time he reaches puberty and b grows two /b pubic b hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty /b years of b age. /b , b There are /b those b who say: This is /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he is /b of the opinion that there is b no disqualification /b for one between puberty and twenty years of age b even by rabbinic law. /b The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service i ab initio /i . b And there are /b those b who say: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b is of /b the opinion that there is b disqualification by rabbinic law /b in that case, b and this /b statement in the i baraita /i b is /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, and /b they hold that b it is i ab initio /i that /b one may b not /b perform the service, b but after the fact, his service is valid. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong That which is b ritually pure in an earthenware vessel /b is b ritually impure in all the /b other types of b vessels; /b that which is b ritually pure in all the /b other types of b vessels /b is b ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the b airspace of an earthenware vessel /b the vessel is b ritually impure, and /b if it fell on b its outer side, /b the vessel is b ritually pure. /b If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the b airspace of all the /b other types of b vessels, /b the vessels are b ritually pure, and /b if it fell on b their outer side, /b they are b ritually impure. It is found /b that that which is b ritually pure in an earthenware vessel /b is b ritually impure in all the /b other b vessels, /b and that which is b ritually pure in all the /b other b vessels /b is b ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [ i tokho /i ] any of them falls, whatever is in it [ i tokho /i ] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell b “in it [ i tokho /i ],” and even /b in a case b where /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.,The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that it is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, b or /b perhaps b it is /b impure b only if it did come into contact /b with the vessel? b Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: i Tokho /i is stated /b with regard b to transmitting impurity /b to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [ i tokho /i ] shall be impure,” b and i tokho /i is stated /b with regard b to becoming impure, /b as it is stated: “Into which [ i tokho /i ] any of them falls”; b just as /b in the case of b i tokho /i that is stated /b with regard b to transmitting impurity /b to food in its airspace, the food is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, b so too, /b in the case of b i tokho /i that is stated /b with regard b to /b the vessel b becoming impure, /b the vessel is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with it.,The Gemara asks: b And there, /b with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, b from where do we /b derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? b Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel /b |
|
38. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28| 56a. בכותל רעוע,אמר מר הכופף קמתו של חבירו בפני הדליקה היכי דמי אילימא דמטיא ליה ברוח מצויה בדיני אדם נמי נחייב אלא דמטיא ברוח שאינה מצויה,ורב אשי אמר טמון אתמר משום דשויה טמון באש:,אמר מר השוכר עדי שקר ה"ד אילימא לנפשיה ממונא בעי שלומי ובדיני אדם נמי ניחייב אלא לחבריה,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו במאי עסקינן אילימא בבי תרי פשיטא דאורייתא הוא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו,אלא בחד,ותו ליכא והאיכא (סימן העושה בסם ושליח חבירו נשבר) העושה מלאכה במי חטאת ובפרת חטאת פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא הנותן סם המות בפני בהמת חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא השולח את הבערה ביד חרש שוטה וקטן פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא המבעית את חבירו פטור מדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,והאיכא נשברה כדו ברה"ר ולא סלקה נפלה גמלו ולא העמידה ר"מ מחייב בהזיקן וחכ"א פטור בדיני אדם וחייב בדיני שמים,אין מיהא איכא טובא והני אצטריכא ליה מהו דתימא בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הפורץ גדר בפני בהמת חבירו מהו דתימא כיון דלמסתריה קאי מה עביד בדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,הכופף קמתו של חבירו נמי מהו דתימא לימא מי הוה ידענא דאתיא רוח שאינה מצויה ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,ולרב אשי דאמר נמי טמון איתמר מהו דתימא אנא כסויי כסיתיה ניהלך ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והשוכר עדי שקר נמי מהו דתימא לימא דברי הרב ודברי התלמיד דברי מי שומעין ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל,והיודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד לו נמי מהו דתימא מי יימר דכי הוה (אתינא) מסהדינא ליה הוה מודה דלמא הוה משתבע לשקרא ובדיני שמים נמי לא ליחייב קמ"ל:,נפרצה בלילה או שפרצוה לסטים כו': אמר רבה והוא שחתרה,אבל לא חתרה מאי חייב היכי דמי אילימא בכותל בריא כי לא חתרה אמאי חייב מאי ה"ל למעבד אלא בכותל רעוע כי חתרה אמאי פטור תחלתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס הוא,הניחא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס פטור אלא למ"ד תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס חייב מאי איכא למימר,אלא מתני' בכותל בריא ואפילו לא חתרה וכי איתמר דרבה אסיפא איתמר הניחה בחמה או שמסרה לחרש שוטה וקטן ויצתה והזיקה חייב אמר רבה ואפי' חתרה,לא מבעיא היכא דלא חתרה דכולה בפשיעה הוא אלא אפי' חתרה נמי מהו דתימא הויא לה תחילתו בפשיעה וסופו באונס קמ"ל דכולה פשיעה היא,מ"ט דאמר ליה מידע ידעת דכיון דשבקתה בחמה כל טצדקא דאית לה למיעבד עבדא ונפקא:,הוציאוה לסטים לסטים חייבין: | 56a. the i baraita /i is speaking b of an unstable wall /b that was about to fall and break in any event, and so his action did not actually cause any loss to the owner., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who bends another’s standing /b grain b before a fire, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that the i baraita /i is referring to a case b where /b the fire would b reach /b the bent grain b in a typical wind, let him /b also b be liable /b for the damage according to b human laws. Rather, /b it must be a case b where /b the fire could b reach /b the bent grain only b in an atypical wind. /b Therefore, he is exempt according to human laws, and, since the grain was destroyed due to his action, he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And Rav Ashi /b offered an alternative explanation and b said: /b The i baraita /i b was stated /b in the case of b a concealed /b item; in other words, this person did not bend the grain toward the fire but bent it over another item in order to conceal it. One is not liable to pay restitution for concealed items damaged by fire. Therefore, when this person bent the grain over an item, he caused indirect damage to the owner of that item b because he made it into a concealed /b item that was subsequently damaged by b fire, /b and the owner cannot reclaim his loss., b The Master says: /b With regard to the case mentioned in the i baraita /i of b one who hires false witnesses, what are the circumstances? If we say /b that he hired them b for his own /b benefit, in order to extract payment from another, b he is required to reimburse /b that person with b money, and he is liable according to human laws /b for receiving money under false circumstances. b Rather, /b the case is one where he hired false witnesses b for /b the benefit of b another. /b In such a case the injured party cannot sue the other litigant, since the latter did not hire the witnesses, nor can he sue the person who hired them, since that person received no personal benefit.,The i baraita /i teaches: b And one who knows testimony in support of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is exempt from liability according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. b With what /b circumstances b are we dealing? If we say /b that the case b involves two /b people who could testify, and their evidence would render the other party liable to pay, it b is obvious /b that each of them is liable according to the laws of Heaven; he has committed a transgression b by Torah law: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1). Therefore, it is unnecessary for the i baraita /i to mention this case., b Rather, /b the case of the i baraita /i b concerns a single /b witness, whose testimony is not sufficient to render another liable, and to which the transgression of Torah law consequently does not apply. Nevertheless, a litigant can be forced to take an oath based on the testimony of a single witness, and refusal to take this oath would obligate the litigant to pay. Therefore, the witness has caused an indirect loss and is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara asks: b And is there nothing else, /b i.e., is there no other case in which one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven? b But there is /b such a case. And before citing several cases that are not written in the i baraita /i the Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b device: b One who performs; with poison; and an agent; another; is broken. /b The Gemara returns to the first case: One b who performs labor with water of purification, /b which was meant to be used to purify one rendered ritually impure by a corpse, thereby rendering the water unfit for use, b or /b who performs labor b with the /b red b heifer of purification, /b invalidating the animal for use as an element of the purification ritual, is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the damage he caused is not evident, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven, /b as he caused a ficial loss.,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the following i halakha /i : With regard to b one who places poison before another’s animal, /b and the animal eats it and dies, he is b exempt according to human laws, /b since the animal caused its own death, b but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who sends /b an exposed b flame in the hand of a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, /b and the fire spreads, causing damage; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of b one who frightens another /b without touching him, but causes him injury; he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b ,The Gemara adds: b But there is /b the case of one b whose jug broke in the public domain and he did not remove /b the broken pieces, or one b whose camel fell and he did not stand it up /b again. b Rabbi Meir deems /b the owner of jug or of the camel b liable /b for the damage thereby caused to others, b and the Rabbis say that /b he is b exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven. /b Since there are so many other cases, why did Rabbi Yehoshua claim in the i baraita /i that there are only four cases when one is exempt according to human laws but liable according to the laws of Heaven?,The Gemara answers: b Yes, there are, in any event, many /b other cases, b but /b Rabbi Yehoshua held that it b was necessary for him /b to state the i halakha /i of b these /b four cases. The reason he stated them is b lest you say /b that in these cases b one should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in these cases one is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,The Gemara explains why one might have thought that there is no liability at all for each case in the i baraita /i : Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who breaches a fence /b that stood b before another’s animal, /b thereby allowing the animal to escape, is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Since /b the fence b is about to collapse /b even without this person’s intervention, b what did /b he really b do? /b Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who bends another’s standing /b grain is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say: Let /b the one who bent the grain b say /b to the owner: b Did I know that an atypical wind would come /b and cause the fire to spread? Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And according to Rav Ashi, who said /b that Rabbi Yehoshua’s ruling b was stated /b with regard to the case of b a concealed /b item, Rabbi Yehoshua mentioned liability according to the laws of Heaven b lest you say /b that the one who concealed the item could say: b I covered it for you /b in order to protect it from the fire. Based on that logic, one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven., b And /b Rabbi Yehoshua taught that there is liability b also /b in the case of b one who hires false witnesses, lest you say: Let /b the one who hired them b say: /b If the witnesses hear b the statement of the teacher, /b i.e., God, Who prohibited giving false testimony, b and the statement of the student, /b i.e., the one who hired them, b to whose statement /b should they b listen? /b Although the one who hired them encouraged these witnesses to sin, ultimately it was they who transgressed by not adhering to the instructions of God. b And /b based on this logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,Finally, Rabbi Yehoshua taught that b one who knows testimony /b in support b of another but does not testify on his behalf /b is liable according to the laws of Heaven, b lest you say /b that the witness could claim: b Who says that had I come forward /b and b testified on behalf of /b one litigant, the other litigant b would admit /b liability? b Perhaps he would have /b chosen to b take a false oath /b and absolve himself. Based on that logic one might have thought that b he should not be liable even according to the laws of Heaven. /b Therefore, Rabbi Yehoshua b teaches us /b that in such a case he is liable according to the laws of Heaven.,§ The mishna teaches: If the pen b was breached at night, or bandits breached it, /b and sheep subsequently went out and caused damage, the owner of the sheep is exempt. b Rabba says: And this /b first instance of a pen that was breached is referring specifically to a case b where /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall of the pen and by doing so caused the wall to collapse. In that case, the owner is completely blameless and therefore exempt from liability for any damage that ensues.,The Gemara asks: b But /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Would the owner be b liable? What are the circumstances? If we say /b that the pen had b a stable wall, /b then even b if /b the animal b did not tunnel, why /b is the owner b liable? What should he have done? /b Clearly, he cannot be held liable for the damage. b Rather, /b the pen had b an unstable wall. /b The Gemara asks: Even b if /b the animal b tunneled /b under the wall and knocked it down, b why /b is he b exempt? /b The damage in this case is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident. /b , b This works out well according to the one who said /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b he is b exempt /b from liability, since the ultimate cause of the damage was not his fault. b But according to the one who says /b that in any case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident /b he is b liable, /b as even without the accident his negligence could have caused damage, b what is there to say? /b , b Rather, /b the case of b the mishna concerns a stable wall, and even /b if the animal b did not tunnel /b under the wall the owner is exempt. b And when /b the statement b of Rabba was stated, it was stated with regard to the latter clause /b of the mishna that says: If the owner b left /b the animal b in the sun or conveyed it to a deaf-mute, an imbecile, or a minor, and /b the animal b went out and caused damage, /b the owner is b liable. /b Concerning this b Rabba stated: And /b the owner is liable b even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out under the wall of the pen.,The Gemara explains: b It is not necessary /b for the mishna to mention the case b where the animal did not tunnel /b its way out. In that case the owner is clearly liable, since b the entire /b incident occurred due to his b negligence /b of leaving the animal in the sun, thereby causing it distress and leading it to attempt escape by any possible means. b But even if /b the animal b tunneled /b its way out, the owner is liable, and this is the novelty in this ruling: b Lest you say /b that b this is /b a case of damage that is b initially through negligence and ultimately by accident, /b because animals do not typically tunnel their way out of a pen, the mishna b teaches us that /b it is considered as though b the entire /b damage resulted from the owner’s b negligence. /b , b What is the reason /b that the owner is liable? It is b that /b the one who suffered the damage b can say to /b the owner of the sheep: b You should have known that since you left it in the sun, it would utilize any means [ i tatzdeka /i ] available for it to use and /b it would b escape, /b so you are ultimately responsible for the damage.,§ The mishna teaches: If the b bandits /b themselves b took /b the sheep b out, the bandits are liable. /b |
|
| 39. Anon., Lexicon Artis Grammaticae (E Cod. Coislin. 345), 6.4 Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 40. Anon., Testament of Abraham, None Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75 |
| 41. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 42. Anon., Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 38 Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 43. Anon., Midrash Hagadol, None Tagged with subjects: •financial contact, matters Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
