1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.5-5.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 115, 129| 5.5. "וְהָיָה כִי־יֶאְשַׁם לְאַחַת מֵאֵלֶּה וְהִתְוַדָּה אֲשֶׁר חָטָא עָלֶיהָ׃", 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׃", | 5.5. "and it shall be, when he shall be guilty in one of these things, that he shall confess that wherein he hath sinned;", 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.", |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 28.15-28.69 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 141, 142| 28.15. "וְהָיָה אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמַע בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוְּךָ הַיּוֹם וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַקְּלָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וְהִשִּׂיגוּךָ׃", 28.16. "אָרוּר אַתָּה בָּעִיר וְאָרוּר אַתָּה בַּשָּׂדֶה׃", 28.17. "אָרוּר טַנְאֲךָ וּמִשְׁאַרְתֶּךָ׃", 28.18. "אָרוּר פְּרִי־בִטְנְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתֶךָ שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרוֹת צֹאנֶךָ׃", 28.19. "אָרוּר אַתָּה בְּבֹאֶךָ וְאָרוּר אַתָּה בְּצֵאתֶךָ׃", 28.21. "יַדְבֵּק יְהוָה בְּךָ אֶת־הַדָּבֶר עַד כַּלֹּתוֹ אֹתְךָ מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃", 28.22. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בַּשַּׁחֶפֶת וּבַקַּדַּחַת וּבַדַּלֶּקֶת וּבַחַרְחֻר וּבַחֶרֶב וּבַשִּׁדָּפוֹן וּבַיֵּרָקוֹן וּרְדָפוּךָ עַד אָבְדֶךָ׃", 28.23. "וְהָיוּ שָׁמֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר עַל־רֹאשְׁךָ נְחֹשֶׁת וְהָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר־תַּחְתֶּיךָ בַּרְזֶל׃", 28.24. "יִתֵּן יְהוָה אֶת־מְטַר אַרְצְךָ אָבָק וְעָפָר מִן־הַשָּׁמַיִם יֵרֵד עָלֶיךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ׃", 28.25. "יִתֶּנְךָ יְהוָה נִגָּף לִפְנֵי אֹיְבֶיךָ בְּדֶרֶךְ אֶחָד תֵּצֵא אֵלָיו וּבְשִׁבְעָה דְרָכִים תָּנוּס לְפָנָיו וְהָיִיתָ לְזַעֲוָה לְכֹל מַמְלְכוֹת הָאָרֶץ׃", 28.26. "וְהָיְתָה נִבְלָתְךָ לְמַאֲכָל לְכָל־עוֹף הַשָּׁמַיִם וּלְבֶהֱמַת הָאָרֶץ וְאֵין מַחֲרִיד׃", 28.27. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בִּשְׁחִין מִצְרַיִם ובעפלים [וּבַטְּחֹרִים] וּבַגָּרָב וּבֶחָרֶס אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא׃", 28.28. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בְּשִׁגָּעוֹן וּבְעִוָּרוֹן וּבְתִמְהוֹן לֵבָב׃", 28.29. "וְהָיִיתָ מְמַשֵּׁשׁ בַּצָּהֳרַיִם כַּאֲשֶׁר יְמַשֵּׁשׁ הָעִוֵּר בָּאֲפֵלָה וְלֹא תַצְלִיחַ אֶת־דְּרָכֶיךָ וְהָיִיתָ אַךְ עָשׁוּק וְגָזוּל כָּל־הַיָּמִים וְאֵין מוֹשִׁיעַ׃", 28.31. "שׁוֹרְךָ טָבוּחַ לְעֵינֶיךָ וְלֹא תֹאכַל מִמֶּנּוּ חֲמֹרְךָ גָּזוּל מִלְּפָנֶיךָ וְלֹא יָשׁוּב לָךְ צֹאנְךָ נְתֻנוֹת לְאֹיְבֶיךָ וְאֵין לְךָ מוֹשִׁיעַ׃", 28.32. "בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ נְתֻנִים לְעַם אַחֵר וְעֵינֶיךָ רֹאוֹת וְכָלוֹת אֲלֵיהֶם כָּל־הַיּוֹם וְאֵין לְאֵל יָדֶךָ׃", 28.33. "פְּרִי אַדְמָתְךָ וְכָל־יְגִיעֲךָ יֹאכַל עַם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדָעְתָּ וְהָיִיתָ רַק עָשׁוּק וְרָצוּץ כָּל־הַיָּמִים׃", 28.34. "וְהָיִיתָ מְשֻׁגָּע מִמַּרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה׃", 28.35. "יַכְּכָה יְהוָה בִּשְׁחִין רָע עַל־הַבִּרְכַּיִם וְעַל־הַשֹּׁקַיִם אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תוּכַל לְהֵרָפֵא מִכַּף רַגְלְךָ וְעַד קָדְקֳדֶךָ׃", 28.36. "יוֹלֵךְ יְהוָה אֹתְךָ וְאֶת־מַלְכְּךָ אֲשֶׁר תָּקִים עָלֶיךָ אֶל־גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃", 28.37. "וְהָיִיתָ לְשַׁמָּה לְמָשָׁל וְלִשְׁנִינָה בְּכֹל הָעַמִּים אֲשֶׁר־יְנַהֶגְךָ יְהוָה שָׁמָּה׃", 28.38. "זֶרַע רַב תּוֹצִיא הַשָּׂדֶה וּמְעַט תֶּאֱסֹף כִּי יַחְסְלֶנּוּ הָאַרְבֶּה׃", 28.39. "כְּרָמִים תִּטַּע וְעָבָדְתָּ וְיַיִן לֹא־תִשְׁתֶּה וְלֹא תֶאֱגֹר כִּי תֹאכְלֶנּוּ הַתֹּלָעַת׃", 28.41. "בָּנִים וּבָנוֹת תּוֹלִיד וְלֹא־יִהְיוּ לָךְ כִּי יֵלְכוּ בַּשֶּׁבִי׃", 28.42. "כָּל־עֵצְךָ וּפְרִי אַדְמָתֶךָ יְיָרֵשׁ הַצְּלָצַל׃", 28.43. "הַגֵּר אֲשֶׁר בְּקִרְבְּךָ יַעֲלֶה עָלֶיךָ מַעְלָה מָּעְלָה וְאַתָּה תֵרֵד מַטָּה מָּטָּה׃", 28.44. "הוּא יַלְוְךָ וְאַתָּה לֹא תַלְוֶנּוּ הוּא יִהְיֶה לְרֹאשׁ וְאַתָּה תִּהְיֶה לְזָנָב׃", 28.45. "וּבָאוּ עָלֶיךָ כָּל־הַקְּלָלוֹת הָאֵלֶּה וּרְדָפוּךָ וְהִשִּׂיגוּךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לִשְׁמֹר מִצְוֺתָיו וְחֻקֹּתָיו אֲשֶׁר צִוָּךְ׃", 28.46. "וְהָיוּ בְךָ לְאוֹת וּלְמוֹפֵת וּבְזַרְעֲךָ עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 28.47. "תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־עָבַדְתָּ אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּשִׂמְחָה וּבְטוּב לֵבָב מֵרֹב כֹּל׃", 28.48. "וְעָבַדְתָּ אֶת־אֹיְבֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְשַׁלְּחֶנּוּ יְהוָה בָּךְ בְּרָעָב וּבְצָמָא וּבְעֵירֹם וּבְחֹסֶר כֹּל וְנָתַן עֹל בַּרְזֶל עַל־צַוָּארֶךָ עַד הִשְׁמִידוֹ אֹתָךְ׃", 28.49. "יִשָּׂא יְהוָה עָלֶיךָ גּוֹי מֵרָחוֹק מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ כַּאֲשֶׁר יִדְאֶה הַנָּשֶׁר גּוֹי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־תִשְׁמַע לְשֹׁנוֹ׃", 28.51. "וְאָכַל פְּרִי בְהֶמְתְּךָ וּפְרִי־אַדְמָתְךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַשְׁאִיר לְךָ דָּגָן תִּירוֹשׁ וְיִצְהָר שְׁגַר אֲלָפֶיךָ וְעַשְׁתְּרֹת צֹאנֶךָ עַד הַאֲבִידוֹ אֹתָךְ׃", 28.52. "וְהֵצַר לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ עַד רֶדֶת חֹמֹתֶיךָ הַגְּבֹהוֹת וְהַבְּצֻרוֹת אֲשֶׁר אַתָּה בֹּטֵחַ בָּהֵן בְּכָל־אַרְצֶךָ וְהֵצַר לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ בְּכָל־אַרְצְךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָךְ׃", 28.53. "וְאָכַלְתָּ פְרִי־בִטְנְךָ בְּשַׂר בָּנֶיךָ וּבְנֹתֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר נָתַן־לְךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר־יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיְבֶךָ׃", 28.54. "הָאִישׁ הָרַךְ בְּךָ וְהֶעָנֹג מְאֹד תֵּרַע עֵינוֹ בְאָחִיו וּבְאֵשֶׁת חֵיקוֹ וּבְיֶתֶר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יוֹתִיר׃", 28.55. "מִתֵּת לְאַחַד מֵהֶם מִבְּשַׂר בָּנָיו אֲשֶׁר יֹאכֵל מִבְּלִי הִשְׁאִיר־לוֹ כֹּל בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ׃", 28.56. "הָרַכָּה בְךָ וְהָעֲנֻגָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־נִסְּתָה כַף־רַגְלָהּ הַצֵּג עַל־הָאָרֶץ מֵהִתְעַנֵּג וּמֵרֹךְ תֵּרַע עֵינָהּ בְּאִישׁ חֵיקָהּ וּבִבְנָהּ וּבְבִתָּהּ׃", 28.57. "וּבְשִׁלְיָתָהּ הַיּוֹצֵת מִבֵּין רַגְלֶיהָ וּבְבָנֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד כִּי־תֹאכְלֵם בְּחֹסֶר־כֹּל בַּסָּתֶר בְּמָצוֹר וּבְמָצוֹק אֲשֶׁר יָצִיק לְךָ אֹיִבְךָ בִּשְׁעָרֶיךָ׃", 28.58. "אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת הַכְּתוּבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת־הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 28.59. "וְהִפְלָא יְהוָה אֶת־מַכֹּתְךָ וְאֵת מַכּוֹת זַרְעֶךָ מַכּוֹת גְּדֹלוֹת וְנֶאֱמָנוֹת וָחֳלָיִם רָעִים וְנֶאֱמָנִים׃", 28.61. "גַּם כָּל־חֳלִי וְכָל־מַכָּה אֲשֶׁר לֹא כָתוּב בְּסֵפֶר הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת יַעְלֵם יְהוָה עָלֶיךָ עַד הִשָּׁמְדָךְ׃", 28.62. "וְנִשְׁאַרְתֶּם בִּמְתֵי מְעָט תַּחַת אֲשֶׁר הֱיִיתֶם כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמַיִם לָרֹב כִּי־לֹא שָׁמַעְתָּ בְּקוֹל יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 28.63. "וְהָיָה כַּאֲשֶׁר־שָׂשׂ יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם לְהֵיטִיב אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַרְבּוֹת אֶתְכֶם כֵּן יָשִׂישׂ יְהוָה עֲלֵיכֶם לְהַאֲבִיד אֶתְכֶם וּלְהַשְׁמִיד אֶתְכֶם וְנִסַּחְתֶּם מֵעַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־אַתָּה בָא־שָׁמָּה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ׃", 28.64. "וֶהֱפִיצְךָ יְהוָה בְּכָל־הָעַמִּים מִקְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעַד־קְצֵה הָאָרֶץ וְעָבַדְתָּ שָּׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יָדַעְתָּ אַתָּה וַאֲבֹתֶיךָ עֵץ וָאָבֶן׃", 28.65. "וּבַגּוֹיִם הָהֵם לֹא תַרְגִּיעַ וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה מָנוֹחַ לְכַף־רַגְלֶךָ וְנָתַן יְהוָה לְךָ שָׁם לֵב רַגָּז וְכִלְיוֹן עֵינַיִם וְדַאֲבוֹן נָפֶשׁ׃", 28.66. "וְהָיוּ חַיֶּיךָ תְּלֻאִים לְךָ מִנֶּגֶד וּפָחַדְתָּ לַיְלָה וְיוֹמָם וְלֹא תַאֲמִין בְּחַיֶּיךָ׃", 28.67. "בַּבֹּקֶר תֹּאמַר מִי־יִתֵּן עֶרֶב וּבָעֶרֶב תֹּאמַר מִי־יִתֵּן בֹּקֶר מִפַּחַד לְבָבְךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּפְחָד וּמִמַּרְאֵה עֵינֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר תִּרְאֶה׃", 28.68. "וֶהֱשִׁיבְךָ יְהוָה מִצְרַיִם בָּאֳנִיּוֹת בַּדֶּרֶךְ אֲשֶׁר אָמַרְתִּי לְךָ לֹא־תֹסִיף עוֹד לִרְאֹתָהּ וְהִתְמַכַּרְתֶּם שָׁם לְאֹיְבֶיךָ לַעֲבָדִים וְלִשְׁפָחוֹת וְאֵין קֹנֶה׃", 28.69. "אֵלֶּה דִבְרֵי הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה לִכְרֹת אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל בְּאֶרֶץ מוֹאָב מִלְּבַד הַבְּרִית אֲשֶׁר־כָּרַת אִתָּם בְּחֹרֵב׃", | 28.15. "But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee.", 28.16. "Cursed shalt thou be in the city, and cursed shalt thou be in the field.", 28.17. "Cursed shall be thy basket and thy kneading-trough.", 28.18. "Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the young of thy flock.", 28.19. "Cursed shalt thou be when thou comest in, and cursed shalt thou be when thou goest out.", 28.20. "The LORD will send upon thee cursing, discomfiture, and rebuke, in all that thou puttest thy hand unto to do, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly; because of the evil of thy doings, whereby thou hast forsaken Me.", 28.21. "The LORD will make the pestilence cleave unto thee, until He have consumed thee from off the land, whither thou goest in to possess it.", 28.22. "The LORD will smite thee with consumption, and with fever, and with inflammation, and with fiery heat, and with drought, and with blasting, and with mildew; and they shall pursue thee until thou perish.", 28.23. "And thy heaven that is over thy head shall be brass, and the earth that is under thee shall be iron.", 28.24. "The LORD will make the rain of thy land powder and dust; from heaven shall it come down upon thee, until thou be destroyed.", 28.25. "The LORD will cause thee to be smitten before thine enemies; thou shalt go out one way against them, and shalt flee seven ways before them; and thou shalt be a horror unto all the kingdoms of the earth.", 28.26. "And thy carcasses shall be food unto all fowls of the air, and unto the beasts of the earth, and there shall be none to frighten them away.", 28.27. "The LORD will smite thee with the boil of Egypt, and with the emerods, and with the scab, and with the itch, whereof thou canst not be healed.", 28.28. "The LORD will smite thee with madness, and with blindness, and with astonishment of heart.", 28.29. "And thou shalt grope at noonday, as the blind gropeth in darkness, and thou shalt not make thy ways prosperous; and thou shalt be only oppressed and robbed alway, and there shall be none to save thee.", 28.30. "Thou shalt betroth a wife, and another man shall lie with her; thou shalt build a house, and thou shalt not dwell therein; thou shalt plant a vineyard, and shalt not use the fruit thereof.", 28.31. "Thine ox shall be slain before thine eyes, and thou shalt not eat thereof; thine ass shall be violently taken away from before thy face, and shall not be restored to thee; thy sheep shall be given unto thine enemies; and thou shalt have none to save thee.", 28.32. "Thy sons and thy daughters shall be given unto another people, and thine eyes shall look, and fail with longing for them all the day; and there shall be nought in the power of thy hand.", 28.33. "The fruit of thy land, and all thy labours, shall a nation which thou knowest not eat up; and thou shalt be only oppressed and crushed away:", 28.34. "so that thou shalt be mad for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.", 28.35. "The LORD will smite thee in the knees, and in the legs, with a sore boil, whereof thou canst not be healed, from the sole of thy foot unto the crown of thy head.", 28.36. "The LORD will bring thee, and thy king whom thou shalt set over thee, unto a nation that thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers; and there shalt thou serve other gods, wood and stone.", 28.37. "And thou shalt become an astonishment, a proverb, and a byword, among all the peoples whither the LORD shall lead thee away.", 28.38. "Thou shalt carry much seed out into the field, and shalt gather little in; for the locust shall consume it.", 28.39. "Thou shalt plant vineyards and dress them, but thou shalt neither drink of the wine, nor gather the grapes; for the worm shall eat them.", 28.40. "Thou shalt have olive-trees throughout all thy borders, but thou shalt not anoint thyself with the oil; for thine olives shall drop off.", 28.41. "Thou shalt beget sons and daughters, but they shall not be thine; for they shall go into captivity.", 28.42. "All thy trees and the fruit of thy land shall the locust possess.", 28.43. "The stranger that is in the midst of thee shall mount up above thee higher and higher; and thou shalt come down lower and lower.", 28.44. "He shall lend to thee, and thou shalt not lend to him; he shall be the head, and thou shalt be the tail.", 28.45. "And all these curses shall come upon thee, and shall pursue thee, and overtake thee, till thou be destroyed; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to keep His commandments and His statutes which He commanded thee.", 28.46. "And they shall be upon thee for a sign and for a wonder, and upon thy seed for ever;", 28.47. "because thou didst not serve the LORD thy God with joyfulness, and with gladness of heart, by reason of the abundance of all things;", 28.48. "therefore shalt thou serve thine enemy whom the LORD shall send against thee, in hunger, and in thirst, and in nakedness, and in want of all things; and he shall put a yoke of iron upon thy neck, until he have destroyed thee.", 28.49. "The LORD will bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as the vulture swoopeth down; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;", 28.50. "a nation of fierce countece, that shall not regard the person of the old, nor show favour to the young.", 28.51. "And he shall eat the fruit of thy cattle, and the fruit of thy ground, until thou be destroyed; that also shall not leave thee corn, wine, or oil, the increase of thy kine, or the young of thy flock, until he have caused thee to perish.", 28.52. "And he shall besiege thee in all thy gates, until thy high and fortified walls come down, wherein thou didst trust, throughout all thy land; and he shall besiege thee in all thy gates throughout all thy land, which the LORD thy God hath given thee.", 28.53. "And thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters whom the LORD thy God hath given thee; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall straiten thee.", 28.54. "The man that is tender among you, and very delicate, his eye shall be evil against his brother, and against the wife of his bosom, and against the remt of his children whom he hath remaining;", 28.55. "so that he will not give to any of them of the flesh of his children whom he shall eat, because he hath nothing left him; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in all thy gates.", 28.56. "The tender and delicate woman among you, who would not adventure to set the sole of her foot upon the ground for delicateness and tenderness, her eye shall be evil against the husband of her bosom, and against her son, and against her daughter;", 28.57. "and against her afterbirth that cometh out from between her feet, and against her children whom she shall bear; for she shall eat them for want of all things secretly; in the siege and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemy shall straiten thee in thy gates.", 28.58. "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;", 28.59. "then the LORD will make thy plagues wonderful, and the plagues of thy seed, even great plagues, and of long continuance, and sore sicknesses, and of long continuance.", 28.60. "And He will bring back upon thee all the diseases of Egypt, which thou wast in dread of; and they shall cleave unto thee.", 28.61. "Also every sickness, and every plague, which is not written in the book of this law, them will the LORD bring upon thee, until thou be destroyed.", 28.62. "And ye shall be left few in number, whereas ye were as the stars of heaven for multitude; because thou didst not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God.", 28.63. "And it shall come to pass, that as the LORD rejoiced over you to do you good, and to multiply you; so the LORD will rejoice over you to cause you to perish, and to destroy you; and ye shall be plucked from off the land whither thou goest in to possess it.", 28.64. "And the LORD shall scatter thee among all peoples, from the one end of the earth even unto the other end of the earth; and there thou shalt serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou nor thy fathers, even wood and stone.", 28.65. "And among these nations shalt thou have no repose, and there shall be no rest for the sole of thy foot; but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and languishing of soul.", 28.66. "And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear night and day, and shalt have no assurance of thy life.", 28.67. "In the morning thou shalt say: ‘Would it were even! ’ and at even thou shalt say: ‘Would it were morning! ’ for the fear of thy heart which thou shalt fear, and for the sight of thine eyes which thou shalt see.", 28.68. "And the LORD shall bring thee back into Egypt in ships, by the way whereof I said unto thee: ‘Thou shalt see it no more again’; and there ye shall sell yourselves unto your enemies for bondmen and for bondwoman, and no man shall buy you.", 28.69. "These are the words of the covet which the LORD commanded Moses to make with the children of Israel in the land of Moab, beside the covet which He made with them in Horeb.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 9.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 142| 9.2. "בִּשְׁנַת אַחַת לְמָלְכוֹ אֲנִי דָּנִיֵּאל בִּינֹתִי בַּסְּפָרִים מִסְפַּר הַשָּׁנִים אֲשֶׁר הָיָה דְבַר־יְהוָה אֶל־יִרְמִיָה הַנָּבִיא לְמַלֹּאות לְחָרְבוֹת יְרוּשָׁלִַם שִׁבְעִים שָׁנָה׃", 9.2. "וְעוֹד אֲנִי מְדַבֵּר וּמִתְפַּלֵּל וּמִתְוַדֶּה חַטָּאתִי וְחַטַּאת עַמִּי יִשְׂרָאֵל וּמַפִּיל תְּחִנָּתִי לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהַי עַל הַר־קֹדֶשׁ אֱלֹהָי׃", | 9.2. "in the first year of his reign I Daniel meditated in the books, over the number of the years, whereof the word of the LORD came to Jeremiah the prophet, that He would accomplish for the desolations of Jerusalem seventy years.", |
|
| 4. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 2.2, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 6.27-7.2 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 142 |
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 6.11-6.14, 9.11-9.12, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129, 138, 142 |
| 6. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 6.11-6.14, 9.11-9.12, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129, 138, 142 |
| 7. Tosefta, Megillah, 3.27 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014), Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity, 361 |
8. New Testament, Matthew, 5.33-5.37 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 5.33. Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 5.34. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μν̀ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ· 5.35. μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως· 5.36. μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 5.37. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. | 5.33. "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,' 5.34. but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 5.35. nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 5.36. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black. 5.37. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. |
|
9. Mishnah, Horayot, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 2.7. "אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּבִין, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִים. אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּבִין, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, וְהַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָּב עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר: \n", | 2.7. "The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.", |
|
10. Mishnah, Keritot, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 2.4. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה וְלָדוֹת הַרְבֵּה, הִפִּילָה בְתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה וְחָזְרָה וְהִפִּילָה בְתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת תְּאוֹמִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבִיאָה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. מְבִיאָה עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הָרְבִיעִי. אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, וְהַיֹּלֶדֶת, וְהַמְצֹרָע. וּמַה בֵּין הַשִּׁפְחָה לְבֵין כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוְתָה לָהֶן לֹא בָעֹנֶשׁ וְלֹא בַקָּרְבָּן, שֶׁכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת בְּחַטָּאת וְהַשִּׁפְחָה בְּאָשָׁם. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת בִּנְקֵבָה, וְשִׁפְחָה בְּזָכָר. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה שָׁוִין בַּמַּכּוֹת וּבַקָּרְבָּן, וּבַשִּׁפְחָה לֹא הִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִישׁ לָאִשָּׁה בַּמַּכּוֹת וְלֹא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ בַּקָּרְבָּן. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת, עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כַגּוֹמֵר, וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. זֶה חֹמֶר הֶחְמִיר בַּשִּׁפְחָה, שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג: \n", | 2.4. "A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.", |
|
11. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.2-4.3, 4.11 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 4.2. "וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה הֵן חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n", 4.3. "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהוֹדוּ, פְּטוּרִים. כָּפְרוּ, חַיָּבִים עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְכָפְרוּ, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: \n", 4.11. "אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", | 4.2. "And they are liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of knowledge of] testimony, but they are not liable for unintentional transgression. And what are they liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A sliding scale sacrifice.", 4.3. "The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge].", 4.11. "If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt.", |
|
12. New Testament, James, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 5.12. Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τό Ναί ναὶ καὶ τό Οὔ οὔ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. | 5.12. But above all things, my brothers, don't swear, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your "yes" be "yes," and your "no," "no;" so that you don't fall into hypocrisy. |
|
13. New Testament, John, 4.27 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014), Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity, 361| 4.27. Καὶ ἐπὶ τούτῳ ἦλθαν οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐθαύμαζον ὅτι μετὰ γυναικὸς ἐλάλει· οὐδεὶς μέντοι εἶπεν Τί ζητεῖς; ἤ Τί λαλεῖς μετʼ αὐτῆς; | 4.27. At this, his disciples came. They marveled that he was speaking with a woman; yet no one said, "What are you looking for?" or, "Why do you speak with her?" |
|
| 14. New Testament, Mark, 9 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014), Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity, 361 |
15. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.2-7.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 7.2. "אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו ואם אמר [נשבע אני] אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה.", 7.3. "[משביעין] אותו בשבועה האמורה בתורה שנאמר (בראשית כ״ד:ג׳) ואשביעך בה' אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ אומרין לו הוי יודע שלא על [תנאי שבלבך] אנו משביעין אותך אלא על [תנאי שבלבנו וכן] מצינו כשהשביע [משה] את [בני] ישראל [בערבות מואב] אמר להם [לא על תנאי שבלבבכם אני משביע אתכם אלא על תנאי שבלבבנו שנאמר] (דברים כ״ט:י״ד) ולא אתכם לבדכם וגו' כי את אשר ישנו פה [וגו'] אין לי אלא אתכם מנין לדורות הבאים אחריכם ולגרים שנתוספו עליכם תלמוד לומר [ולא אתכם לבדכם אלא] (שם) ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום [אין] לי אלא מצות [שנצטוו ישראל על הר סיני מנין לרבות מקרא מגילה] ת\"ל (אסתר ט׳:כ״ז) קימו וקבלו וגו' ולא יעבור.", 7.4. "ברכת הלל ושמע ותפלה נאמרין בכל לשון רבי אומר אומר אני שאין שמע נאמר אלא בלשון הקדש שנאמר (דברים ו׳:ו׳) והיו הדברים האלה וגו'.", | |
|
16. Tosefta, Shevuot, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 3.1. "המשביע את חבירו על דבר שיש בו שוה פרוטה וכפר ה\"ז משלם קרן וחומש ואשם. המשביע את העדים על דבר שיש בו שוה פרוטה וכפרו הרי אלו חייבין קרבן ופטורין מן הממון שנאמר ונשא עונו קרבן ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר נאמר כאן ונשא עונו ונאמר להלן עונו ישא מה עונו ישא האמור להלן נטילת נשמה אף עונו ישא האמור כאן נטילת נשמה ונשא עונו מלמד שבכלל נשיאת עון קרבן." | |
|
17. Mishnah, Berachot, 5.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Poorthuis and Schwartz (2014), Saints and role models in Judaism and Christianity, 361| 5.5. "הַמִּתְפַּלֵּל וְטָעָה, סִימָן רַע לוֹ. וְאִם שְׁלִיחַ צִבּוּר הוּא, סִימָן רַע לְשׁוֹלְחָיו, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁשְּׁלוּחוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם כְּמוֹתוֹ. אָמְרוּ עָלָיו עַל רַבִּי חֲנִינָא בֶן דּוֹסָא, כְּשֶׁהָיָה מִתְפַּלֵּל עַל הַחוֹלִים וְאוֹמֵר, זֶה חַי וְזֶה מֵת. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, מִנַּיִן אַתָּה יוֹדֵעַ. אָמַר לָהֶם, אִם שְׁגוּרָה תְפִלָּתִי בְּפִי, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְקֻבָּל. וְאִם לָאו, יוֹדֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁהוּא מְטֹרָף: \n", | 5.5. "One who is praying and makes a mistake, it is a bad sign for him. And if he is the messenger of the congregation (the prayer leader) it is a bad sign for those who have sent him, because one’s messenger is equivalent to one’s self. They said about Rabbi Hanina ben Dosa that he used to pray for the sick and say, “This one will die, this one will live.” They said to him: “How do you know?” He replied: “If my prayer comes out fluently, I know that he is accepted, but if not, then I know that he is rejected.”", |
|
18. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 4.3. "אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 4.3. "A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam.", |
|
| 19. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, 1.2 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period, orality in Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 205 |
20. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period, orality in Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 205| 49b. ואינו מתקבל:,תנו רבנן לעולם ימכור אדם כל מה שיש לו וישא בת תלמיד חכם לא מצא בת תלמיד חכם ישא בת גדולי הדור לא מצא בת גדולי הדור ישא בת ראשי כנסיות לא מצא בת ראשי כנסיות ישא בת גבאי צדקה לא מצא בת גבאי צדקה ישא בת מלמדי תינוקות ולא ישא בת עמי הארץ מפני שהן שקץ ונשותיהן שרץ ועל בנותיהן הוא אומר (דברים כז, כא) ארור שוכב עם כל בהמה,תניא ר' אומר עם הארץ אסור לאכול בשר (בהמה) שנאמר (ויקרא יא, מו) זאת תורת הבהמה והעוף כל העוסק בתורה מותר לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף וכל שאינו עוסק בתורה אסור לאכול בשר בהמה ועוף:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ מותר לנוחרו ביום הכיפורים שחל להיות בשבת אמרו לו תלמידיו ר' אמור לשוחטו אמר להן זה טעון ברכה וזה אינו טעון ברכה:,אמר רבי אלעזר עם הארץ אסור להתלוות עמו בדרך שנאמר (דברים ל, כ) כי היא חייך ואורך ימיך על חייו לא חס על חיי חבירו לא כל שכן,אמר רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר רבי יוחנן עם הארץ מותר לקורעו כדג אמר רבי שמואל בר יצחק ומגבו:,תניא אמר רבי עקיבא כשהייתי עם הארץ אמרתי מי יתן לי תלמיד חכם ואנשכנו כחמור אמרו לו תלמידיו רבי אמור ככלב אמר להן זה נושך ושובר עצם וזה נושך ואינו שובר עצם:,תניא היה רבי מאיר אומר כל המשיא בתו לעם הארץ כאילו כופתה ומניחה לפני ארי מה ארי דורס ואוכל ואין לו בושת פנים אף עם הארץ מכה ובועל ואין לו בושת פנים:,תניא רבי אליעזר אומר אילמלא אנו צריכין להם למשא ומתן היו הורגין אותנו,תנא רבי חייא כל העוסק בתורה לפני עם הארץ כאילו בועל ארוסתו בפניו שנאמר (דברים לג, ד) תורה צוה לנו משה מורשה אל תקרי מורשה אלא מאורסה,גדולה שנאה ששונאין עמי הארץ לתלמיד חכם יותר משנאה ששונאין עובדי כוכבים את ישראל ונשותיהן יותר מהן: תנא שנה ופירש יותר מכולן,תנו רבנן ששה דברים נאמרו בעמי הארץ אין מוסרין להן עדות ואין מקבלין ממנו עדות ואין מגלין להן סוד ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על היתומים ואין ממנין אותן אפוטרופוס על קופה של צדקה ואין מתלוין עמהן בדרך ויש אומרים אף אין מכריזין על אבידתו,ותנא קמא זמנין דנפיק מיניה זרעא מעליא ואכיל ליה שנאמר (איוב כז, יז) יכין וצדיק ילבש:,וכן מי שיצא וכו':,למימרא דרבי מאיר סבר כביצה הוא דחשיב ורבי יהודה סבר כזית נמי חשיב ורמינהי עד כמה הן מזמנין עד כזית ורבי יהודה אומר עד כביצה,אמר רבי יוחנן מוחלפת השיטה,אביי אמר לעולם לא תיפוך התם בקראי פליגי הכא בסברא פליגי התם בקראי פליגי רבי מאיר סבר (דברים ח, י) ואכלת זו אכילה ושבעת זו שתיה ואכילה בכזית ורבי יהודה סבר ואכלת ושבעת אכילה שיש בה שביעה ואיזו זו בכביצה,הכא בסברא פליגי דרבי מאיר סבר חזרתו כטומאתו מה טומאתו בכביצה אף חזרתו בכביצה ור' יהודה סבר חזרתו | 49b. b and unacceptable. /b , b The Sages taught: A person should always /b be willing to b sell all he has /b in order to b marry the daughter of a Torah scholar. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of a Torah scholar, he should marry the daughter of /b one of the b great /b people b of the generation, /b who are pious although they are not Torah scholars. If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of the b great /b people b of the generation, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the heads of the congregations. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of b the heads of the congregations, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the charity collectors. /b If b he cannot find the daughter of /b one of b the charity collectors, he should marry the daughter of /b one of b the schoolteachers. /b However, b he should not marry the daughter of an ignoramus [ i am ha’aretz /i ] because they are vermin and their wives are /b similar to b a creeping animal, /b as their lifestyle involves the violation of numerous prohibitions. b And with regard to their daughters /b the verse b states: “Cursed is he who lies with an animal” /b (Deuteronomy 27:21), as they are similar to animals in that they lack any knowledge or moral sense.,The Gemara continues its discussion with regard to an ignoramus. b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: It is prohibited for an ignoramus to eat meat, as it is stated: “This is the law [ i torah /i ] of the beast and of the fowl” /b (Leviticus 11:46). He expounds: b Anyone who engages in Torah /b study b is permitted to eat the meat of animals and fowl, and anyone who does not engage in Torah /b study b is prohibited to eat the meat of animals or fowl. /b ,The Gemara proceeds to mention some sharply negative statements of the Sages in which they overstated their negative sentiments with regard to ignoramuses, although these ignoramuses were wicked in addition to being boors ( i ge’onim /i ). b Rabbi Elazar said: It is permitted to stab an ignoramus /b to death b on Yom Kippur that occurs on Shabbat. His students said to him: Master, /b at least b say /b that it is permitted b to slaughter him. He said to them: /b I intentionally used the word stab, as b this /b term, slaughtering, b requires a blessing /b when one slaughters an animal, b and that /b term, stabbing, b does not require a blessing /b in any context., b Rabbi Elazar said: It is prohibited to accompany an ignoramus /b while traveling b on the road /b due to concern that the ignoramus might try to harm his traveling partner, b as it is stated /b with regard to Torah: b “For it is your life and the length of your days” /b (Deuteronomy 30:20). An ignoramus has not studied any Torah, indicating that b he is not concerned about his own life; /b with regard b to another’s life, all the more so. /b , b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: It is permitted to tear /b open b an ignoramus like a fish. Rabbi Shmuel bar Yitzḥak said: And /b one may cut him open b from his back /b and thereby cause his immediate death by piercing his spinal cord rather than his stomach., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Akiva said: When I was an ignoramus I said: Who will give me a Torah scholar /b so that b I will bite him like a donkey? His students said to him: Master, say /b that you would bite him b like a dog! He said to them: /b I specifically used that wording, as b this one, /b a donkey, b bites and breaks bones, and that one, /b a dog, b bites but does not break bones. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Meir would say: Anyone who marries off his daughter to an ignoramus /b is considered b as though he binds her and places her before a lion. /b Why is this so? b Just as a lion mauls /b its prey b and eats and has no shame, so too, an ignoramus strikes /b his wife b and /b then b engages in sexual relations /b with her without appeasing her first, b and has no shame. /b , b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Eliezer says: If we did not need /b the ignoramuses b for business, they would kill us. /b ,The Gemara shifts to a discussion of an ignoramus who has some degree of sensitivity ( i Me’iri /i ). b Rabbi Ḥiyya taught: Anyone who engages in Torah /b study b in the presence of an ignoramus, /b causing the ignoramus embarrassment and anguish over his inability to study Torah, b is considered as though he had sexual relations with /b the ignoramus’s b betrothed /b bride b in his presence, as it is stated: “Moses commanded us the Torah, an inheritance /b [ b i morasha /i /b ] for the congregation of Jacob” (Deuteronomy 33:4). b Do not read it /b as b inheritance [ i morasha /i ]; rather, /b read it as b betrothed [ i me’orasa /i ]. /b The Torah is compared to the betrothed bride of the Jewish people until one studies it and thereby consummates his marriage with it.,Similarly, he said: b The hatred which ignoramuses have for a Torah scholar is greater than the hatred that the nations of the world have for the Jewish people. And /b the b wives /b of the ignoramuses hate Torah scholars b more than /b the ignoramuses themselves. b It was taught /b in the i Tosefta /i that one b who studied /b Torah b and left /b his studies hates Torah scholars b more than all of them. /b , b The Sages taught: Six statements were made with regard to ignoramuses: One may not entrust them with testimony, /b i.e., one may not appoint them as witnesses to a particular event or transaction. Additionally, b one may not accept testimony from them, /b as they are not considered trustworthy, and b one should not reveal a secret to them, /b as they will reveal it. b One may not appoint them as steward [ i apotropos /i ] over /b an estate belonging to b orphans, /b due to concern that they might make improper use of the orphans’ property. Likewise, b one may not appoint them as guardian over a charity fund. /b Finally, b one should not accompany them /b while traveling b on the road, /b due to concern for one’s safety. b And there are those who say: One does not even announce their lost /b items, meaning that if one finds a lost article from such a person, he is allowed to keep it without making an effort to locate the owner ( i Me’iri /i ).,The Gemara asks: What is the reasoning of b the first i tanna /i , /b who holds that one must announce having found the lost article of an ignoramus? The Gemara explains: b Sometimes upstanding offspring will come from him and will consume /b the property, b as it is stated: “He may prepare it but the just shall put it on” /b (Job 27:17). It is possible for a wicked person to prepare something for himself that will later be used by a righteous person.,The Gemara returns to explaining the mishna. It was taught: b And so too, one who left /b Jerusalem with sacrificial meat in his possession must return to Jerusalem to burn it, just as one is required to return in order to remove leaven from his possession. According to Rabbi Meir, this i halakha /i applies with regard to an egg-bulk of sacrificial meat or leaven, whereas Rabbi Yehuda disagrees and says the minimum amount for both is an olive-bulk.,The Gemara asks: b Is that to say that Rabbi Meir holds /b that b an egg-bulk is /b the minimal amount that is considered b significant, and Rabbi Yehuda holds that an olive-bulk is also /b considered b significant? /b The Gemara b raises a contradiction /b from a mishna in i Berakhot /i : b How much /b food must one eat in order b to obligate /b those with whom he ate b in a i zimmun /i ? An olive-bulk /b of food is sufficient according to the unattributed opinion in the mishna, which is generally that of Rabbi Meir. b And Rabbi Yehuda says: An egg-bulk /b is the minimum measure to obligate those with whom one ate in a i zimmun /i . This seems to contradict the opinions of Rabbi Meir and Rabbi Yehuda stated in the mishna here., b Rabbi Yoḥa said: The opinions are reversed /b in one of these sources, and must be emended., b Abaye said: Actually, do not reverse /b the opinions. b There, they disagree with regard to /b the interpretation of b verses, /b while b here, they disagree with regard to logical reasoning. /b How so? b There, /b with regard to i zimmun /i , b they disagree with regard to /b the interpretation of b verses. Rabbi Meir holds /b that the verse: “And you shall eat and be satisfied and bless the Lord your God” (Deuteronomy 8:10) should be understood as follows: b “And you shall eat,” that is eating; “and be satisfied,” that is drinking. /b The standard halakhic principle is that b eating /b is defined as the consumption of b an olive-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: “And you shall eat and you shall be satisfied” /b refers b to eating that includes satisfaction. And what is /b considered eating with satisfaction? It is consumption of b an egg-bulk. /b ,However, b here, /b in the cases of leaven and consecrated food, b they disagree /b not with regard to the interpretation of verses but b with regard to logical reasoning, as Rabbi Meir holds: /b The requirement to b return /b consecrated food b is analogous to its ritual impurity. Just as its /b susceptibility to b ritual impurity is /b only when it is the size of an b egg-bulk, so too, /b the requirement to b return it is /b only when it is the size of an b egg-bulk. And Rabbi Yehuda holds: /b The requirement to b return /b consecrated food |
|
21. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 138| 14b. תניא הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין,קתני במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה צריך למימר,אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא הא דמחתא אורייתא אארעא הא דנקיט לה בידיה מחתא על ארעא דעתיה אגווילי נקט לה בידיה דעתיה על האזכרות שבה,ואיבעית אימא דמחתא על ארעא והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחתא על ארעא כיוון דאמר במה שכתוב בה מהני וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני,ואי בעית אימא כולה מציעתא נמי דנקיט ליה בידיה והא קא משמע לן כיוון דנקיט ליה בידיה אף על גב דלא אמר אלא בה כמאן דאמר במה שכתוב בה דמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר שאני מהלך האומר לאשה קונם שאני משמשך הרי זה בלא יחל דברו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איתמר קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אל יישן היום שמא יישן למחר ורב נחמן אמר יישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא יישן למחר ומודה רב יהודה באומר קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום שישן היום | 14b. § b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who takes a vow /b by associating an item b with a Torah /b scroll b has not said anything, /b and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. /b Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God’s name in his vow. If he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld. /b ,The Gemara asks: b It is taught /b that if he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. Need it be said /b that the i halakha /i is the same if he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it? /b That is obvious., b Rav Naḥman said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to b where the Torah /b scroll b is placed on the ground, /b while b that /b case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to b where he is holding it in his hands. /b If b it is placed on the ground, /b whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the parchment, /b i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where b he is holding it in his hands /b and associates the item with what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the mentions [ i azkarot /i ] /b of the name of God b that are in it, /b and the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the entire i baraita /i is referring to a case b where it is placed on the ground, and this /b middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, b teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is /b an b effective /b vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. b And /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b teaches /b employing the style: b This, and it is unnecessary to say that. /b The i baraita /i teaches the i halakha /i where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire middle clause, /b i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case b where he is holding /b the Torah scroll b in his hands. And /b the i baraita /i b teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With /b the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is b considered /b to be b like one who said: With what is written in it. /b Therefore, the item is prohibited., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to one who says: b Sleeping is /b forbidden b for me as if /b it were b an offering [ i konam /i ], /b thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: b Speaking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or: b Walking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or b one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is i konam /i for me, /b if he violates the vow b he is in /b violation of the prohibition b “He shall not profane his word” /b (Numbers 30:3)., strong GEMARA: /strong b It was stated /b that with regard to one who says: b Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow /b and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. b And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today, /b as there is currently no prohibition, b and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, /b as he will be careful not to sleep. b And Rav Yehuda concedes /b that b in /b a case where b he says: Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today. /b |
|
| 22. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 94 |
23. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period, orality in Found in books: Rubenstein (2003), The Culture of the Babylonian Talmud. 205| 63a. ואימא הר הבית דאסור במנעל לילפא ממנעל אבל (ב"ה) דשרי במנעל אדיליף ממנעל ולהיתר נילף מקפנדריא ולאסור,אלא אמר רבא כי ביתו מה ביתו אקפנדריא קפיד אינש ארקיקה ומנעל לא קפיד אינש אף ב"ה קפנדריא הוא דאסור רקיקה ומנעל שרי:,כל חותמי ברכות שבמקדש וכו':,כל כך למה לפי שאין עונין אמן במקדש ומנין שאין עונין אמן במקדש שנאמר (נחמיה ט, ה) קומו ברכו את ה' אלהיכם מן העולם עד העולם ואומר (נחמיה ט, ה) ויברכו (את) שם כבודך ומרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה,יכול כל הברכות כולן תהא להן תהלה אחת ת"ל ומרומם על כל ברכה ותהלה על כל ברכה וברכה תן לו תהלה:,התקינו שיהא אדם שואל בשלום חברו וכו': מאי ואומר,וכי תימא בעז מדעתיה דנפשיה קאמר ת"ש (שופטים ו, יב) ה' עמך גבור החיל וכי תימא מלאך הוא דקאמר ליה לגדעון ת"ש (משלי כג, כב) אל תבוז כי זקנה אמך,ואומר (תהלים קיט, קכו) עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך אמר רבא האי קרא מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש,מרישיה לסיפיה מדריש עת לעשות לה' מאי טעם משום הפרו תורתך מסיפיה לרישיה מדריש הפרו תורתך מ"ט משום עת לעשות לה',תניא הלל הזקן אומר בשעת המכניסין פזר בשעת המפזרים כנס ואם ראית דור שהתורה חביבה עליו פזר שנאמר (משלי יא, כד) יש מפזר ונוסף עוד ואם ראית דור שאין התורה חביבה עליו כנס שנא' עת לעשות לה' הפרו תורתך,דרש בר קפרא זלת קבוץ קנה מינה באתר דלית גבר תמן הוי גבר אמר אביי ש"מ באתר דאית גבר תמן לא תהוי גבר,פשיטא לא נצרכה אלא בששניהם שוין,דרש בר קפרא איזוהי פרשה קטנה שכל גופי תורה תלוין בה (משלי ג, ו) בכל דרכיך דעהו והוא יישר ארחותיך אמר רבא אפילו לדבר עבירה,דרש בר קפרא לעולם ילמד אדם את בנו אומנות נקיה וקלה מה היא אמר רב חסדא מחטא דתלמיותא:,תניא ר' אומר לעולם אל ירבה אדם רעים בתוך ביתו שנא' (משלי יח, כד) איש רעים להתרועע,תניא ר' אומר אל ימנה אדם אפטרופוס בתוך ביתו שאלמלי לא מינה פוטיפר את יוסף אפטרופוס בתוך ביתו לא בא לאותו דבר,תניא ר' אומר למה נסמכה פרשת נזיר לפרשת סוטה לומר לך שכל הרואה סוטה בקלקולה יזיר עצמו מן היין,אמר חזקיה בריה דר' פרנך אמר רבי יוחנן למה נסמכה פרשת סוטה לפרשת תרומות ומעשרות לומר לך כל שיש לו תרומות ומעשרות ואינו נותן לכהן סוף נצרך לכהן על ידי אשתו שנאמר (במדבר ה, י) ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו וסמיך ליה איש איש כי תשטה אשתו וכתיב והביא האיש את אשתו וגו' ולא עוד אלא סוף שנצרך להן שנאמר ואיש את קדשיו לו יהיו,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק ואם נתנן סוף מתעשר שנאמר (במדבר ה, י) איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה לו יהיה ממון הרבה,א"ר הונא בר ברכיה משום רבי אלעזר הקפר כל המשתף שם שמים בצערו כופלין לו פרנסתו שנאמר (איוב כב, כה) והיה שדי בצריך וכסף תועפות לך,ר' שמואל בר נחמני אמר פרנסתו מעופפת לו כצפור שנאמר וכסף תועפות לך,א"ר טבי א"ר יאשיה כל המרפה עצמו מדברי תורה אין בו כח לעמוד ביום צרה שנאמר (משלי כד, י) התרפית ביום צרה צר כחכה א"ר אמי בר מתנה אמר שמואל ואפילו מצוה אחת שנאמר התרפית מכל מקום,אמר רב ספרא ר' אבהו הוה משתעי כשירד חנינא בן אחי רבי יהושע לגולה היה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחוצה לארץ,שגרו אחריו שני ת"ח רבי יוסי בן כיפר ובן בנו של זכריה בן קבוטל כיון שראה אותם אמר להם למה באתם אמרו ליה ללמוד תורה באנו הכריז [עליהם] אנשים הללו גדולי הדור הם ואבותיהם שמשו בבית המקדש כאותה ששנינו זכריה בן קבוטל אומר הרבה פעמים קריתי לפניו בספר דניאל,התחיל הוא מטמא והם מטהרים הוא אוסר והם מתירים הכריז עליהם אנשים הללו של שוא הם של תהו הם אמרו לו כבר בנית ואי אתה יכול לסתור כבר גדרת ואי אתה יכול לפרוץ,אמר להם מפני מה אני מטמא ואתם מטהרים אני אוסר ואתם מתירים אמרו לו מפני שאתה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחו"ל,אמר להם והלא עקיבא בן יוסף היה מעבר שנים וקובע חדשים בחו"ל אמרו לו הנח רבי עקיבא שלא הניח כמותו בארץ ישראל א"ל אף אני לא הנחתי כמותי בא"י אמרו לו גדיים שהנחת נעשו תישים בעלי קרנים והם שגרונו אצלך וכן אמרו לנו לכו ואמרו לו בשמנו אם שומע מוטב ואם לאו יהא בנדוי | 63a. b and say /b as follows: With regard to b the Temple Mount, /b where one is b prohibited /b from wearing b shoes, let us derive /b the prohibition of spitting b from /b the case of b shoes. However, /b with regard to b a synagogue, /b where one is b permitted /b to wear b shoes, instead of deriving /b the law with regard to spitting b from /b the case of b shoes and permitting /b it, b derive it from /b the case of b a shortcut, and prohibit /b it., b Rather, Rava said /b a different reason: The synagogue is b like one’s house. Just as one objects to /b a person using b his house as a shortcut, /b but b does not mind spitting and /b wearing b shoes /b therein, b so too /b in the case of a b synagogue, a shortcut is prohibited /b while b spitting and /b wearing b shoes are permitted. /b ,We learned in the mishna: b At the conclusion of all blessings /b recited b in the Temple, /b the one reciting the blessing would say: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, until everlasting.,The Gemara explains: b Why /b were they insistent upon this formula b to that extent? Because one does not answer amen in the Temple. /b Because there is a unique response to the blessings in the Temple, a unique formula for their conclusion was instituted. b From where /b is it derived b that one does not answer amen in the Temple? As it is stated: “Stand up and bless the Lord, your God, from everlasting to everlasting” /b (Nehemiah 9:5), which refers to the conclusion. b The verse /b in Nehemiah b continues: “And let them say: Blessed be Your glorious name, that is exalted above all blessing and praise” /b (Nehemiah 9:5). The response is exalted above other blessings.,From the beginning of the verse, I b might /b have thought that b all of the blessings there will have /b only b a single /b expression of b praise, /b amen. Therefore, b the verse teaches: “That is exalted above all blessing and praise”; for every blessing, a /b unique b praise is offered. /b Therefore, the appropriate response to a blessing in the Temple is: Blessed are You Lord, God of Israel, from everlasting until everlasting.,We learned in the mishna that the Sages b instituted that a person will greet another /b with the name of God, and several biblical sources were cited. The Gemara asks: b Why /b is it necessary for the mishna to cite all of those sources, introduced with the phrase: b And it says? /b Why was the proof from Boaz’s statement to the harvesters: The Lord is with you, insufficient?,The Gemara explains: b And if you say: Boaz said this on his own, /b and it proves nothing with regard to normative practice, b come and hear /b a proof from the verse: b “The Lord is with you, mighty man of valor” /b (Judges 6:12). b And if you say /b that b it was an angel who said /b this b to Gideon, /b that perhaps this verse was the angel informing Gideon that the Lord is with him, but it is not the standard formula of a greeting, b come /b and b hear /b proof from the verse: b “And despise not your mother when she is old” /b (Proverbs 23:22); the customs of the nation’s elders are an adequate source from which to derive i halakha /i ., b And /b the verse b states: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah” /b (Psalms 119:126). of this, b Rava said: This verse /b can be b interpreted from beginning to end, and /b can be b interpreted from end to beginning. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: This verse can be b interpreted from beginning to end: It is time to work for the Lord; what is the reason? Because they have made void Your Torah, /b so it must be remedied. Conversely, it can be b interpreted from end to beginning /b as follows: b They have made void Your Torah; what is the reason? Because it is time to work for the Lord. /b By means of violating the Torah, it is possible to fundamentally rectify the situation.,With regard to this verse, b it was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Hillel the Elder says: At the time of gathering, /b if the Sages of the generation see to it that the Torah remains the purview of the few, b disseminate /b it to the public at large. b At the time of dissemination, gather, /b and leave it to others to disseminate the Torah. b And if you see a generation for whom Torah is beloved, disseminate, as it is stated: “There is who scatters, and yet increases” /b (Proverbs 11:24). However, b if you see a generation for whom Torah is not beloved, gather; /b do not cause the Torah to be disgraced, b as it is stated: “It is time to work for the Lord; they have made void Your Torah.” /b Preventing Torah study in that situation is a manifestation of work for the Lord.,On a similar note, b bar Kappara taught: /b If the price of the merchandise has b declined, jump and purchase from it; and where there is no man, there be a man; /b where there is no one to fill a particular role, accept that role upon yourself. b Abaye said: Infer from this /b that b where there is a man, there do not be a man. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t Abaye’s conclusion b obvious? /b The Gemara explains: b This /b statement b is only necessary /b in a case b where /b there are b two who are equal. /b Although you, too, are suited to fill that role, since another qualified person is already filling that role, allow him to succeed., b Bar Kappara taught: Which is a brief passage upon which all fundamental /b principles of b Torah are dependent? “In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will direct your paths” /b (Proverbs 3:6). b Rava said: /b One must apply this principle b even to acts of transgression, /b as even then one must adhere to God and refrain from sinning excessively., b Bar Kappara taught: A person should always teach his child a clean and simple craft. /b The Gemara asks: b What /b craft is considered clean and simple? b Rav Ḥisda said: Cutting precious stones. /b ,Several ethical tenets and guidelines for life b were taught /b in a i baraita /i . b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: One should never have too many friends in his house, /b i.e., people should not become accustomed to being overly intimate in his house, b as it is stated: “There are friends that one has to his own hurt” /b (Proverbs 18:24); one with friends of that kind will ultimately come to quarrel., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Do not appoint an administrator [ i apitropos /i ] within your house, as had Potiphar not appointed Joseph as administrator within his house, /b Joseph b would not have come to that incident /b involving him in allegations of sexual impropriety., b It was taught /b in a i baraita /i , b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: Why is the portion of the Nazirite /b (Numbers ch. 6) b juxtaposed with the portion of the i sota /i /b (Numbers ch. 5)? They are juxtaposed b to tell you that anyone who sees a i sota /i in her disgrace, /b her transgression, b should renounce wine, /b as wine is one of the causes of that transgression., b Ḥizkiya, son of Rabbi Parnakh, said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Why is the portion of i sota /i juxtaposed with the portion of i terumot /i and tithes /b (Numbers ch. 5)? They are juxtaposed b to tell you: Anyone who has i terumot /i and tithes and does not give them to a priest, /b will b ultimately require /b the services of b a priest by means of his wife, as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” ( /b Numbers 5:10). This refers to one who keeps those hallowed items for himself. b To this /b the Torah b juxtaposed: “If any man’s wife go aside and act unfaithfully against him” /b (Numbers 5:12). b And it is written: “Then shall the man bring his wife unto the priest” /b (Numbers 5:15). b Moreover, ultimately /b that man b will require /b assistance from the tithe given to the poor, b as it is stated: “And every man’s hallowed things shall be his” /b (Numbers 5:10). He will himself need those very hallowed items that he was unwilling to give to others., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: And if he gave them, ultimately /b he will b become wealthy, as it is said: “Whatsoever any man gives the priest, it shall be his” /b (Numbers 5:10); b much property shall be his. /b , b Rav Huna bar Berekhya said in the name of Rabbi Elazar HaKappar: Anyone who includes the name of heaven in his distress, /b i.e., who turns and prays to God in his time of trouble, b his livelihood will /b ultimately b be doubled, as it is stated: “And the Almighty be your treasure, and precious [ i toafot /i ] silver unto you” /b (Job 22:25). If you include God in your trouble, your silver will be doubled. i Eif /i , which in Aramaic means double, is etymologically similar to i toafot /i ., b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani said /b a different explanation: This means that b his sustece flies [ i meofefet /i ] to him like a bird, as it is stated: “And precious silver [ i toafot /i ] unto you.” /b , b Rabbi Tavi said in the name of Rabbi Yoshiya: Anyone who is lax in his /b study of b matters of Torah will /b ultimately b lack the strength to stand on a day of adversity, as it is stated: “If you faint in the day of adversity, your strength is small indeed” /b (Proverbs 24:10). b Rav Ami bar Mattana said /b that b Shmuel said: And even /b if he was lax in the performance of b a single /b mitzva, b as it is stated: If you faint; /b this applies b in any case, /b even in the case of a single mitzva., b Rav Safra said: Rabbi Abbahu would relate: When Ḥanina, son of Rabbi Yehoshua’s brother, went to the Diaspora, /b Babylonia, b he would intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael. Because Judaism in Eretz Yisrael had declined in the wake of the bar Kokheva rebellion, he considered it necessary to cultivate the Jewish community in Babylonia as the center of the Jewish people. Among other things, he intercalated the years and established the months even though the i halakha /i restricts those activities to Eretz Yisrael.,Eventually, the Sages of Eretz Yisrael b sent two Torah scholars after him, Rabbi Yosei ben Keifar and the grandson of Zekharya ben Kevutal. When /b Ḥanina b saw them, he asked them: Why did you come? They responded: We came to study Torah. /b Since he saw his standing enhanced by the Sages of Eretz Yisrael coming to study Torah from him, b he proclaimed about them: These people are eminent /b scholars b of our generation, and their fathers served in the Temple. As we learned /b in tractate i Yoma /i : b Zekharya ben Kevutal says: Many times I read before /b the High Priest from b the book of Daniel /b on the eve of Yom Kippur.,These two scholars, however, began to dispute every decision Ḥanina rendered in response to questions raised in the study hall. b He /b ruled it b impure and they /b ruled it b pure; he prohibited /b it b and they permitted /b it. Eventually, b he proclaimed about them: These people are worthless. They are /b good b for nothing /b and they know nothing. b They said to him: You have already built /b up our names and glorified us; b you cannot now demolish. You have already built a fence and you cannot break through it. /b , b He said to them: Why is it that /b when b I /b rule something b impure, you /b rule it b pure; /b when b I prohibit /b it, b you permit /b it? b They said to him: /b We do this b because you intercalate the years and establish the months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael., b He said to them: Didn’t /b Rabbi b Akiva ben Yosef /b also b intercalate years and establish months outside of Eretz /b Yisrael? b They replied to him: Leave /b the case of b Rabbi Akiva, as, /b when he left, b he did not leave behind anyone /b as great in Torah b as he in Eretz Yisrael. /b Rabbi Ḥanina b said to them: I also did not leave behind anyone /b as great b as me in Eretz Yisrael. They said to him: The kids who you left behind have grown into goats with horns; /b they are greater than you are. b And they sent us to you, and this is what they said to us: Go and tell him in our name: If he obeys, fine; and if /b he does b not /b obey, b he will be ostracized. /b |
|
24. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 22b. אינן בכי יותן,טעמא מאי לאו משום דלא אמרינן כיון דאיגלאי מילתא דהשתא ניחא ליה מעיקרא נמי ניחא ליה שאני התם דכתיב כי יתן עד שיתן,אי הכי רישא נמי התם כדרב פפא דרב פפא רמי כתיב כי יתן וקרינן כי יותן הא כיצד,בעינן כי יותן דומיא דכי יתן מה יתן לדעת אף כי יותן נמי לדעת,ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק מנין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת דכתיב (דברים כב, ג) וכן תעשה לחמורו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם יצאתה זו שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם,ואיסורא דומיא דהיתירא מה היתירא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן שרא אף איסורא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן אסורה תיובתא דרבא תיובתא,והלכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם,א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי וכי מאחר דאיתותב רבא הני תמרי דזיקא היכי אכלינן להו אמר ליה כיון דאיכא שקצים ורמשים דקא אכלי להו מעיקרא יאושי מיאש מנייהו,יתמי דלאו בני מחילה נינהו מאי אמר ליה באגא בארעא דיתמי לא מחזקינן,מוחזק ועומד מאי כרכתא מאי אמר ליה אסירן:,כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו: אמר רבה ואפילו בדבר שיש בו סימן אלמא קסבר רבה סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן רבא אמר לא שנו אלא בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן חייב להכריז אלמא קסבר רבא סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן,ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באנפי נפשה סימן העשוי לידרס רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן,תנן כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז ה"ד אי דלית בהו סימן ברה"י מאי מכריז אלא לאו דאית בהו סימן וקתני ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן תיובתא דרבא,אמר לך רבא לעולם דלית בהו סימן ודקא אמרת ברה"י מאי מכריז מכריז מקום ורבה אמר מקום לא הוי סימן דאיתמר מקום רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן,ת"ש כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז והאלומות בין ברה"ר ובין ברה"י נוטל ומכריז רבה היכי מתרץ לה ורבא היכי מתרץ לה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום,רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו משום | 22b. the produce b is not /b in the category of: “But b when /b water b is placed [ i khi yuttan /i ] /b upon the seed,” and the produce is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity., b What is the reason /b that if the produce dried, the fact that the owner is glad does not render it susceptible to ritual impurity? Is it b not due to /b the fact b that we do not say: Since the matter was revealed that he is amenable /b to the moisture b now, he was also amenable from the outset? /b The same should be true with regard to despair that is not conscious. The fact that when he becomes aware of his loss he despairs of its recovery does not indicate that he despaired from the outset, contrary to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects the proof: It b is different there, as /b although the phrase is vocalized to mean: “When it is placed,” b it is written: When one places [ i ki yitten /i ], /b from which it is derived that the produce is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity b only /b if the owner b places /b the liquid on the produce.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b in b the first clause /b of the i baraita /i , b too, /b the produce should not be rendered susceptible to contracting impurity, because the dew fell on the produce and was not placed there by the owner. The Gemara answers: b There, /b the explanation is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa raised a contradiction: /b The verse states: “But when water is placed [ i vekhi yuttan /i ] upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:38). The word “ i yuttan /i ” b is written /b in the defective form, as if it says b “ i ki yitten /i .” /b Accordingly, this would mean that one must actively place the water on the produce. Yet, b we read /b it, based on the tradition as to its correct pronunciation, as if it is written b “ i ki yuttan /i ,” /b which includes any situation where the produce becomes wet. b How so? /b How can the way the verse is written and the way it is read be reconciled?,Rav Pappa explains that b we require /b that the situation described by the words b “when water is placed [ i ki yuttan /i ]” /b be b similar to /b the situation described by the words: b When one places [ i dekhi yitten /i ]: Just as /b the term b places [ i yitten /i ] /b indicates b that /b it is b with the knowledge of /b the owner that the produce becomes wet, as he himself is placing the water, b so too, /b the term b “is placed [ i yuttan /i ]” /b means b that /b it is b with his knowledge /b that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself. Therefore, no proof may be cited with regard to the matter of despair, where there is no Torah derivation requiring awareness from the outset.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from that b which Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where /b is it derived b with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted /b for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, b as it is written: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it” /b (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return b that which is lost from him, /b the owner, b but is /b available to be b found by any person. Excluded /b from that obligation is b that which is lost from him and is not /b available to be b found by any person; /b it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it., b And the prohibition /b written in the verse against keeping an item that is lost only to its owner is b similar to the allowance /b to keep an item lost to all people that is inferred from the verse; b just as /b in the case of b the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, /b it is permitted for the finder to keep it, b so too /b in the case of b the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, /b it is b prohibited /b for the finder to keep it, until there is proof that the owner despaired of its recovery. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rava is /b indeed a conclusive b refutation. /b , b And /b although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the i halakha /i is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Abaye in /b the disputes represented by the mnemonic: b i Yod /i , i ayin /i , i lamed /i ; i kuf /i , i gimmel /i , i mem /i . /b , b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that /b the opinion of b Rava was conclusively refuted, /b and the i halakha /i is that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, if b those dates /b are blown off the tree b by the wind, how do we eat them? /b Perhaps their owner did not despair of their recovery. Rav Ashi b said to him: Since there are repugt creatures and creeping animals that eat /b the dates after they fall, the owner b despairs of their /b recovery b from the outset. /b Therefore, one who finds the dates may keep them.,Rav Aḥa asked: Perhaps the tree belonged to b minor /b orphans b who, /b because b they are not capable of relinquishing /b property, cannot despair of recovering the dates from the outset. Accordingly, b what /b is the justification for eating found dates? Rav Ashi b said to him: We do not presume a valley to /b be b land /b belonging b to orphans, /b and therefore that is not a concern.,Rav Aḥa asked: If the b presumptive status /b of the trees was b previously /b established as belonging to orphans, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? If the trees are surrounded by b fences /b that prevent repugt creatures and creeping animals from gaining access, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rav Ashi b said to him: /b The dates b are forbidden /b in those cases.,§ The mishna teaches that if one found b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him. Rabba says /b with regard to this ruling: b And /b this is the i halakha /i b even with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark. /b The Gemara comments: b Apparently, Rabba holds /b that the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not /b that of b a distinguishing mark. /b Since the owner of the lost item knows that the mark is prone to be trampled, he does not rely on it and he despairs of recovering the item. b Rava said: /b The Sages b taught /b this i halakha /i b only with regard to an item on which there is no distinguishing mark, but with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, /b the one who finds it is b obligated to proclaim /b his find. The Gemara comments: b Apparently, Rava holds /b that the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is /b that of b a distinguishing mark. /b , b And there are /b those b who teach /b the dispute with regard to b this i halakha /i independent /b of the mishna. With regard to the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark. /b ,The Gemara cites proof from that which b we learned /b in a i baraita /i : If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him; /b if he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b What are the circumstances? If /b it is a case b where there is no distinguishing mark /b on the bundles, when one finds them b in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? Rather, is it not /b a case b where there is a distinguishing mark /b on the bundles, and there is then a reason for him to proclaim his find. b And /b yet, b it is taught /b in the i baraita /i that if he finds the bundles b in a public area those /b bundles belong b to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. /b This is b a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion of b Rava. /b , b Rava /b could have b said to you: Actually, /b it is a case b where there is no distinguishing mark on /b the bundles. b And /b with regard to that b which you said: /b When one finds them b in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims /b that the owner should provide the b location /b where he lost the bundles and thereby recover his bundles. b And Rabba said: /b The b location, /b provided by the owner, b is not a distinguishing mark /b that would enable the return of an item to its owner. b As it was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disputed this matter: With regard to b location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him; /b if he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b And /b with regard to b the sheaves, /b i.e., large bundles, b whether /b he finds them b in a public area /b or b whether /b he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b How does Rabba explain /b the i baraita /i , b and how does Rava explain /b the i baraita /i ? b Rabba explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b with a distinguishing mark. And Rava explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b whose location /b is their distinguishing mark.,The Gemara elaborates. b Rabba explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b with a distinguishing mark: /b If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him due to /b the fact |
|
25. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 32a. עד שישמעו מפי התובע,רץ אחריהן איצטריכא ליה סלקא דעתך אמינא כיון דרץ אחריהן כמאן דאמר להו דמי קמ"ל,והא נמי תנינא שבועת העדות כיצד אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני שבועה כו' אמר אין לא אמר לא,אמר לאו דוקא,דאי לא תימא הכי גבי פקדון דקתני שבועת הפקדון כיצד אמר לו תן לי פקדון שיש לי בידך ה"נ אמר אין לא אמר לא הא (ויקרא ה, כא) וכחש בעמיתו כל דהו,אלא אמר לאו דוקא הכא נמי לאו דוקא,האי מאי אי אמרת בשלמא אמר דהכא דוקא תנא התם אטו הכא אלא אי אמרת לא אמר דהתם דוקא ולא אמר דהכא דוקא אמר אמר למה לי למיתנייה,דלמא אורחא דמילתא קא משמע לן,תניא כוותיה דשמואל ראוהו שבא אחריהן אמרו לו מה אתה בא אחרינו שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות פטורין ואם בפקדון חייבים:,השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים כו':,מנלן דאכפירה בב"ד הוא דמחייבי אחוץ לב"ד לא מחייבי,אמר אביי אמר קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו לא אמרתי לך אלא במקום שאילו מגיד זה מתחייב זה ממון,א"ל רב פפא לאביי אי הכי אימא שבועה גופא בב"ד אין ושלא בבית דין לא,לא ס"ד דתניא (ויקרא ה, ה) לאחת לחייב על כל אחת ואחת ואי ס"ד בב"ד מי מחייב על כל אחת ואחת והתנן השביע עליהן חמשה פעמים בפני ב"ד וכפרו אין חייבין אלא אחת אמר ר' שמעון מה טעם הואיל ואינם יכולין לחזור ולהודות אלא לאו שמע מינה שבועה חוץ לב"ד כפירה בב"ד:,כפרו שניהן כאחת חייבין: הא אי אפשר לצמצם,אמר רב חסדא הא מני ר' יוסי הגלילי היא דאמר אפשר לצמצם,רבי יוחנן אמר אפילו תימא רבנן כגון שכפרו שניהן בתוך כדי דיבור ותוך כדי דיבור כדיבור דמי,א"ל רב אחא מדיפתי לרבינא מכדי תוך כדי דיבור כמה הוי כדי שאילת תלמיד לרב (איכא דאמרי כדי שאילת הרב לתלמיד) עד דאמרי שבועה שאין אנו יודעין לך עדות טובא הוי א"ל כל אחד ואחד תוך דיבורו של חבירו:,בזה אחר זה הראשון חייב והשני פטור: מתני' דלא כי האי תנא דתניא משביע עד אחד פטור ורבי אלעזר ברבי שמעון מחייב,לימא בהא קמיפלגי דמר סבר עד אחד כי אתא לשבועה הוא דקא אתא ומר סבר עד אחד כי אתא לממונא קא אתא,ותיסברא האמר אביי הכל מודים בעד סוטה והכל מודים בעדי סוטה ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה הכל מודים בעד אחד והכל מודים בעד שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה,אלא דכ"ע עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה קא אתי והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר דבר הגורם לממון כממון דמי ומ"ס לאו כממון דמי,גופא אמר אביי הכל מודים בעד סוטה והכל מודים בעדי סוטה ומחלוקת בעדי סוטה הכל מודים בעד אחד והכל מודים בעד שכנגדו חשוד על השבועה,הכל מודים בעד סוטה שחייב בעד טומאה דרחמנא הימניה דכתיב (במדבר ה, יג) ועד אין בה כל שיש בה,והכל מודים בעדי סוטה שפטור בעדי קינוי דהוה גורם דגורם | 32a. b until they hear /b a demand to testify directly b from the mouth of the plaintiff. /b ,The Gemara answers: Mentioning the case of the plaintiff b pursuing them was necessary for /b Shmuel, as otherwise it could b enter your mind to say: Since /b the plaintiff b is pursuing them, /b it is b like /b the case of b one who says to them /b directly to testify. Therefore, Shmuel b teaches us /b that although the intent of the plaintiff is for them to testify, the witnesses are liable only if he tells them so explicitly.,The Gemara asks: b But this too, we learn /b in the mishna: Liability to bring a sliding-scale offering for taking a false b oath of testimony, how so? /b In a case where the plaintiff b said to /b two b witnesses: Come and testify /b on b my /b behalf, and they replied: On our b oath, etc., /b from which it can be inferred that if the plaintiff b said /b this to the witnesses, b yes, /b they are liable, and if he b did not say /b this to the witnesses, b no, /b they are not liable.,The Gemara rejects this: No proof may be cited from the mishna, as perhaps when the i tanna /i states: In a case where the plaintiff b said, /b he did b not /b mean that this is the i halakha /i only in a case where he b specifically /b verbalized his demand that they testify; rather, the same would be true even if he conveyed his intent in a non-verbal manner., b As, if you do not say so /b and assert that the language of the mishna is precise and one is liable only if the oath was in response to a verbal demand, then as for the mishna (36b), b which teaches with regard to a deposit: /b Liability to bring a guilt-offering for taking a false b oath on a deposit, how so? /b In a case where the owner b said to /b the bailee: b Give me /b the b deposit that belongs to me /b and is b in your possession, /b would you say there, b also, /b that if the owner b said /b this to the bailee, b yes, /b he is liable, and if he b did not say /b this to the bailee, b no, /b he is not liable? b But /b doesn’t the verse b “And deals falsely with his colleague /b in a matter of deposit” (Leviticus 5:21) indicate that the bailee is liable for any denial of the deposit b at all, /b unrelated to the nature of the claim raised by the owner of the item?, b Rather, /b it must be that when the i tanna /i says with regard to the oath on a deposit: In a case where the owner b said /b to the bailee, he did b not /b mean that this is the i halakha /i only in a case where he b specifically /b verbalized his demand. b Here too, /b with regard to the oath of testimony, the i tanna /i did b not /b mean that this is the i halakha /i only in a case where the plaintiff b specifically /b verbalized his demand.,The Gemara asks: b What is this /b comparison? b Granted, if you say that here, /b when the i tanna /i says in the mishna with regard to the oath of testimony: In a case where the plaintiff b said /b to two individuals, it is b specifically /b in a case where the plaintiff verbalized his demand, one could explain that the i tanna /i b taught there, /b with regard to the oath on a deposit: In a case where the owner said, b due to /b the fact that he employed that formulation b here /b in the mishna. i Tanna’im /i frequently employ uniform language in different cases, even though there are halakhic differences between them. b But if you say /b that b neither there /b with regard to the oath on a deposit is it b specifically /b in a case where the owner verbally b said, nor here /b with regard to the oath of testimony is it b specifically /b in a case where the plaintiff verbally b said, why do I /b need b to teach: Said, said, /b in both instances?,The Gemara answers: b Perhaps /b the i tanna /i b is teaching us the matter /b in b the manner in which /b it typically occurs, as both a plaintiff and the owner of a deposit typically articulate their claims verbally. It may still be that if the demand was conveyed non-verbally, the witness is liable. Since there is no proof from the mishna, the statement of Shmuel is necessary to teach that if the demand is not articulated verbally, the witness is not liable for taking a false oath.,The Gemara notes that b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Shmuel: /b In a case where the witnesses b saw that /b the plaintiff b was pursuing them, /b and b they said to him: /b For b what /b reason b are you pursuing us; /b on our b oath we do not know testimony on your /b behalf, b they are exempt. And if /b it is b with regard to /b an oath on b a deposit, /b in a case where the owner is pursuing the bailee and he denies that the deposit is in his possession, the bailees b are liable, /b as they are liable for any denial of the deposit at all, irrespective of the nature of the claim raised by the owner of the item.,§ The mishna teaches: If b he administered an oath to them five times /b and they came to court and admitted that they had knowledge of the incident and testified, they are exempt. But if they denied knowledge of the incident in court as well, they are liable for each and every one of the oaths administered to them outside the court.,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive b that it is /b specifically b for denial in court that they are liable, /b and b they are not liable for /b denial b outside court? /b , b Abaye said: /b It is derived as b the verse states /b with regard to the oath of testimony: b “If he does not utter it, he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1), from which it is derived: b I said /b this i halakha /i b to you only in a place where, were this /b witness b to utter /b his testimony, b that /b other individual b becomes liable /b to make b a monetary /b payment, i.e., in court. He is not liable for denial in a place where his testimony would not render one liable to pay., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: If so, say /b that it is not the denial but b the oath itself; /b if it is taken b in court, yes, /b he is liable, b and /b if it is b that /b which is b not /b taken b in court, no, /b he is not liable.,Abaye said to Rav Pappa: That should b not enter your mind, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that the verse: “And it will be when he is guilty b of any one /b of these” (Leviticus 5:5), serves b to render /b one b liable /b to bring an offering b for each and every /b instance when one repeatedly performs the transgressions for which one is liable to bring a sliding-scale offering. b And if it enters your mind /b that one is liable only for an oath taken b in court, is one liable for each and every /b oath? b But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: If b he administered an oath to them five times before the court, and they denied /b knowledge of any testimony relating to the incident, b they are liable /b for taking b only one /b false oath. b Rabbi Shimon said: What is the reason /b for this ruling? b Since /b once they denied that they had any knowledge of the matter b they can no /b longer b retract /b that denial b and admit /b that they have knowledge of the matter. Abaye explains: b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from it /b that one is liable for each and every b oath /b taken b outside court; /b but one is liable only if the b denial /b is b in court? /b ,§ The mishna teaches: If b both of /b the witnesses b denied /b knowledge of the incident b together, /b both of them b are liable. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b isn’t it b impossible /b for two events b to coincide precisely? /b By necessity, one denial must have preceded the other., b Rav Ḥisda said: /b In accordance with b whose /b opinion b is this /b mishna? b It is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who says: /b It is b possible /b for two events b to coincide precisely. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa said: Even /b if b you say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b the Rabbis /b who disagree with Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, the mishna can be interpreted in a case b where both of them denied /b knowledge of relevant testimony b within /b the time required b for speaking /b a short phrase, b and /b the halakhic status of a pause or retraction b within /b the time required b for speaking /b a short phrase b is like /b that of continuous b speech. /b Although the two statements did not coincide precisely, their halakhic status is as if they did., b Rav Aḥa of Difti said to Ravina: After all, how long is /b the duration of: b Within /b the time required b for speaking /b a short phrase? It is an interval b equivalent to /b the duration of b the /b three-word b greeting of a student to /b his b teacher: /b i Shalom alekha rabbi /i . b Some say /b that it is a briefer interval, b equivalent to /b the duration of b the /b two-word b greeting of a teacher to /b his b student: /b i Shalom alekha /i . According to either opinion, in the time that elapses b until /b the two of them b say: /b On my b oath we do not know /b any b testimony for you, it is /b an interval b greater /b than the time required to utter those words. How, then, can the mishna be interpreted as referring to a case where they stated their denials within the time required for speaking those words? Ravina b said to /b Rav Aḥa of Difti: The case in the mishna is one where b each and every /b potential witness will issue his denial b within /b the time required b for speaking, /b starting from the end of the statement b of the other. /b ,§ The mishna teaches: If they denied knowledge b one after the other, the first /b one who denied knowledge is b liable, and the second /b one is b exempt, /b as once the first witness denies knowledge of the incident, the second is an individual witness, whose testimony is not decisive, and he is exempt from the oath of testimony. The Gemara notes: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b this i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who administers an oath to one witness, /b the witness is b exempt /b from bringing an offering for taking a false oath of testimony; b and Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, deems /b the witness b liable /b to bring an offering. In his opinion, the second witness in the case in the mishna would be liable, not exempt.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that b they disagree about this: /b One b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds: When one witness comes /b to testify, b it is to /b render the one against whom he is testifying liable to take b an oath, /b and that is the reason b that he is coming, /b as one witness cannot render him liable to make a monetary payment. b And /b one b Sage, /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b holds: When one witness comes /b to testify, b it is to /b render the one against whom he is testifying liable to make b a monetary /b payment, and that is the reason that b he is coming. /b The i tanna’im /i disagree whether denial by one witness constitutes a denial with regard to monetary matters.,The Gemara rejects this: b And /b how can b you understand /b their dispute in that way? b Doesn’t Abaye say: All /b concede b with regard to a witness /b in the case b of a i sota /i /b that he is liable for taking a false oath of testimony; b and all concede with regard to witnesses /b in the case b of a i sota /i ; and /b there is b a dispute with regard to witnesses /b in the case b of a i sota /i . All concede with regard to one witness /b that he is not liable for taking a false oath of testimony because he cannot render another liable to make a monetary payment; b and all concede with regard to a witness /b testifying on behalf of the claimant b when his counterpart, /b the defendant, b is suspect about the oath. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Rather, all concede /b that b when one witness comes /b to testify, it is to render the one against whom he is testifying liable b to /b take b an oath, /b and that is the reason b he is coming. And here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage, /b Rabbi Elazar, son of Rabbi Shimon, b holds: A matter that causes ficial /b loss b is considered /b to have b monetary /b value. Although the testimony of one witness does not render one liable for monetary payment, occasionally the party against whom he testified will prefer to pay rather than take the oath that the witness rendered him liable to take. In those cases, the testimony of one witness does in fact cause money to be paid. b And /b one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds: /b A matter that causes ficial loss b is not considered /b to have b monetary /b value.,§ With regard to b the /b matter b itself, Abaye says: All concede with regard to a witness /b in the case b of a i sota /i /b that he is liable for taking a false oath of testimony; b and all concede with regard to witnesses /b in the case b of a i sota /i ; and /b there is b a dispute with regard to witnesses /b in the case b of a i sota /i . All concede with regard to one witness, and all concede with regard to a witness /b testifying on behalf of the claimant b when his counterpart is suspect about the oath. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b All concede with regard to a witness /b in the case b of a i sota /i that /b he is b liable /b for taking a false oath of testimony b in /b the case of b a witness of impurity. /b This is referring to a case where the husband issues a warning to his wife in the presence of two witnesses that she may not enter into seclusion with a certain man and witnesses testify that she entered into seclusion with him, and one witness testifies that she engaged in intercourse with that man, b as /b in that case b the Merciful One accorded credibility to /b the witness, b as it is written /b with regard to a i sota /i : b “And there is no witness against her” /b (Numbers 5:13), that she engaged in intercourse. From that verse it is derived that b any /b witness b that there is against her /b is sufficient to render her forbidden to her husband and enable him to divorce her without paying the sum stipulated in the marriage contract. Therefore, the witness who testified that she engaged in intercourse with that man is for all intents and purposes a witness to a monetary matter., b And all concede with regard to witnesses /b in the case b of a i sota /i that /b each witness is b exempt /b from liability due to a false oath of testimony. This is referring b to /b the case of b witnesses of warning, /b who testify that the jealous husband warned his wife not to enter into seclusion with a certain man, b as /b each witness b is /b the b cause of a cause /b of ficial loss, not a direct cause of that loss. In order to lose payment of her marriage contract, in addition to the witnesses of warning, witnesses of seclusion would also be required, after which either a witness would testify that she engaged in intercourse or she would be required to drink the bitter water of a i sota /i , either of which would confirm that she engaged in an adulterous relationship. |
|
| 26. Anon., 2 Enoch, 49.1-49.2 Tagged with subjects: •geonic period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140 |
