| 1. Septuagint, Exodus, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 5.1, 5.5-5.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 114, 129| 5.1. "וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי־תֶחֱטָא וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם־לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֺנוֹ׃", 5.1. "וְאֶת־הַשֵּׁנִי יַעֲשֶׂה עֹלָה כַּמִּשְׁפָּט וְכִפֶּר עָלָיו הַכֹּהֵן מֵחַטָּאתוֹ אֲשֶׁר־חָטָא וְנִסְלַח לוֹ׃", 5.5. "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׃", | 5.1. "And if any one sin, in that he heareth the voice of adjuration, he being a witness, whether he hath seen or known, if he do not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity;", 5.5. "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.", |
|
3. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 27.14 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 | 27.14. The talk of men given to swearing makes ones hair stand on end,and their quarrels make a man stop his ears. |
|
| 4. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 6.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 155 |
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 6.11-6.14, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 129, 138 |
6. Anon., Testament of Reuben, 1.6, 6.9 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 | 1.6. And behold I call to witness against you this day the God of heaven, that ye walk not in the sins of youth and fornication, wherein I was poured out, and defiled the bed of my father Jacob. 6.9. I adjure you by the God of heaven to do truth each one unto his neighbour and to entertain love each one for his brother. |
|
| 7. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 6.11-6.14, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 129, 138 |
8. New Testament, Matthew, 23.16-23.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151| 23.16. Οὐαὶ ὑμῖν, ὁδηγοὶ τυφλοὶ οἱ λέγοντες Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ ναῷ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ χρυσῷ τοῦ ναοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.17. μωροὶ καὶ τυφλοί, τίς γὰρ μείζων ἐστίν, ὁ χρυσὸς ἢ ὁ ναὸς ὁ ἁγιάσας τὸν χρυσόν; 23.18. καί Ὃς ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ, οὐδέν ἐστιν, ὃς δʼ ἂν ὀμόσῃ ἐν τῷ δώρῳ τῷ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ ὀφείλει· 23.19. τυφλοί, τί γὰρ μεῖζον, τὸ δῶρον ἢ τὸ θυσιαστήριον τὸ ἁγιάζον τὸ δῶρον; 23.20. ὁ οὖν ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ θυσιαστηρίῳ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν πᾶσι τοῖς ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ· 23.21. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ ναῷ ὀμνύει ἐν αὐτῷ καὶ ἐν τῷ κατοικοῦντι αὐτόν· 23.22. καὶ ὁ ὀμόσας ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ ὀμνύει ἐν τῷ θρόνῳ τοῦ θεοῦ καὶ ἐν τῷ καθημένῳ ἐπάνω αὐτοῦ. | 23.16. "Woe to you, you blind guides, who say, 'Whoever swears by the temple, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gold of the temple, he is obligated.' 23.17. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gold, or the temple that sanctifies the gold? 23.18. 'Whoever swears by the altar, it is nothing; but whoever swears by the gift that is on it, he is a obligated.' 23.19. You blind fools! For which is greater, the gift, or the altar that sanctifies the gift? 23.20. He therefore who swears by the altar, swears by it, and by everything on it. 23.21. He who swears by the temple, swears by it, and by him who is living in it. 23.22. He who swears by heaven, swears by the throne of God, and by him who sits on it. |
|
9. Mishnah, Horayot, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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, Sanhedrin, 7.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151| 7.5. "הַמְגַדֵּף אֵינוֹ חַיָּב עַד שֶׁיְּפָרֵשׁ הַשֵּׁם. אָמַר רַבִּי יְהוֹשֻׁעַ בֶּן קָרְחָה, בְּכָל יוֹם דָּנִין אֶת הָעֵדִים בְּכִנּוּי יַכֶּה יוֹסֵי אֶת יוֹסֵי. נִגְמַר הַדִּין, לֹא הוֹרְגִים בְּכִנּוּי, אֶלָּא מוֹצִיאִים כָּל אָדָם לַחוּץ וְשׁוֹאֲלִים אֶת הַגָּדוֹל שֶׁבָּהֶן וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ אֱמֹר מַה שֶּׁשָּׁמַעְתָּ בְּפֵרוּשׁ, וְהוּא אוֹמֵר, וְהַדַּיָּנִים עוֹמְדִין עַל רַגְלֵיהֶן וְקוֹרְעִין וְלֹא מְאַחִין. וְהַשֵּׁנִי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ, וְהַשְּׁלִישִׁי אוֹמֵר אַף אֲנִי כָּמוֹהוּ: \n", | 7.5. "The blasphemer is punished only if he utters [the divine] name. Rabbi Joshua b. Korcha said: “The whole day [of the trial] the witnesses are examined by means of a substitute for the divine name:, ‘may Yose smite Yose.” When the trial was finished, the accused was not executed on this evidence, but all persons were removed [from court], and the chief witness was told, ‘State literally what you heard.’ Thereupon he did so, [using the divine name]. The judges then arose and tore their garments, which were not to be resewn. The second witness stated: “I too have heard thus” [but not uttering the divine name], and the third says: “I too heard thus.”", |
|
12. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.2-4.3, 4.10-4.11, 4.13 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 114, 129, 151| 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", 4.10. "עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לָהֶם: \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", 4.13. "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אוֹסֶרְכֶם אָנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. בְּאל\"ף דל\"ת, בְּיו\"ד ה\"א, בְּשַׁדַּי, בִּצְבָאוֹת, בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד, וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַתּוֹרָה. אַל יַכְּךָ, וִיבָרֶכְךָ, וְיֵיטִיב לְ ךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \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].", 4.10. "[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them.", 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.", 4.13. "[If he said]: \"I adjure you\"; \"I command you\"; \"I bind you\"; they are liable. \"By heaven and earth!\", they are exempt. \"By Alef Daleth\"; \"By Yod He\"; \"By God Almighty\"; \"By The Lord of Hosts; \"By the Merciful and Gracious one\"; \"By the Long Suffering One\"; \"By the One Abounding in Kindness\"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] \"May God smite you\"; or \"Yea, may God smite you\"; this is the curse written in the Torah. \"May [God] not smite you\"; or \"May he bless you\"; Or \"May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]\": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].", |
|
13. Tosefta, Shevuot, 3.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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." | |
|
| 14. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 |
| 15. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 |
| 16. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 14 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 |
17. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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. |
|
18. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151| 56a. בכל יום דנין את העדים בכינוי יכה יוסי את יוסי,נגמר הדין לא הורגין בכינוי אלא מוציאין כל אדם לחוץ שואלין את הגדול שביניהן ואומר לו אמור מה ששמעת בפירוש והוא אומר והדיינין עומדין על רגליהן וקורעין ולא מאחין,והשני אומר אף אני כמוהו והשלישי אומר אף אני כמוהו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא עד שיברך שם בשם,מנהני מילי אמר שמואל דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם וגו' בנקבו שם יומת,ממאי דהאי נוקב לישנא דברוכי הוא דכתיב (במדבר כג, ח) מה אקב לא קבה אל ואזהרתיה מהכא (שמות כב, כז) אלהים לא תקלל,ואימא מיברז הוא דכתיב (מלכים ב יב, י) ויקב חור בדלתו ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים יב, ג) ואבדתם את שמם לא תעשון כן לה' אלהיכם,בעינא שם בשם וליכא,ואימא דמנח שני שמות אהדדי ובזע להו ההוא נוקב וחוזר ונוקב הוא ואימא דחייק שם אפומא דסכינא ובזע בה ההוא חורפא דסכינא הוא דקא בזע,אימא פרושי שמיה הוא דכתיב (במדבר א, יז) ויקח משה ואהרן את האנשים האלה אשר נקבו בשמות ואזהרתיה מהכא (דברים ו, יג) את ה' אלהיך תירא,חדא דבעינא שם בשם וליכא ועוד הויא ליה אזהרת עשה ואזהרת עשה לא שמה אזהרה,ואיבעית אימא אמר קרא (ויקרא כד, יא) ויקב ויקלל למימרא דנוקב קללה הוא,ודילמא עד דעבד תרוייהו לא סלקא דעתך דכתיב (ויקרא כד, יד) הוצא את המקלל ולא כתיב הוצא את הנוקב והמקלל שמע מינה חדא היא,תנו רבנן איש מה ת"ל איש איש לרבות את העובדי כוכבים שמוזהרין על ברכת השם כישראל ואינן נהרגין אלא בסייף שכל מיתה האמורה בבני נח אינה אלא בסייף,והא מהכא נפקא מהתם נפקא ה' זו ברכת השם,אמר ר' יצחק נפחא לא נצרכא אלא לרבותא הכינויין ואליבא דרבי מאיר,דתניא (ויקרא כד, טו) איש איש כי יקלל אלהיו ונשא חטאו מה תלמוד לומר והלא כבר נאמר (ויקרא כד, טז) ונוקב שם ה' מות יומת לפי שנאמר ונוקב שם מות יומת יכול לא יהא חייב אלא על שם המיוחד בלבד מניין לרבות כל הכינויין תלמוד לומר איש כי יקלל אלהיו מכל מקום דברי רבי מאיר,וחכמים אומרים על שם המיוחד במיתה ועל הכינויין באזהרה,ופליגא דרבי מיישא דאמר רבי מיישא בן נח שבירך את השם בכינויים לרבנן חייב,מאי טעמא דאמר קרא (ויקרא כד, טז) כגר כאזרח גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן בנקבו שם אבל עובד כוכבים אפילו בכינוי,ורבי מאיר האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח בסקילה אבל עובד כוכבים בסייף סלקא דעתך אמינא הואיל ואיתרבו איתרבו קמ"ל,ורבי יצחק נפחא אליבא דרבנן האי כגר כאזרח מאי עביד ליה גר ואזרח הוא דבעינן שם בשם אבל עובד כוכבים לא בעינן שם בשם,איש איש למה לי דיברה תורה כלשון בני אדם,תנו רבנן שבע מצות נצטוו בני נח דינין וברכת השם ע"ז גילוי עריות ושפיכות דמים וגזל ואבר מן החי | 56a. b On every day /b of a blasphemer’s trial, when the judges b judge the witnesses, /b i.e., interrogate the witnesses, they ask the witnesses to use b an appellation /b for the name of God, so that they do not utter a curse of God’s name. Specifically, the witnesses would say: b Let Yosei smite Yosei, /b as the name Yosei has four letters in Hebrew, as does the Tetragrammaton.,When b the judgment is over, /b and the court votes to deem the defendant guilty, b they do not sentence /b him b to death based on /b the testimony of the witnesses in which they used b an appellation /b for the name of God, without having ever heard the exact wording of the curse. b Rather, they remove all /b the b people /b who are not required to be there from the court, so that the curse is not heard publicly, and the judges b interrogate the eldest of /b the witnesses, b and say to him: Say what you heard explicitly. And he says /b exactly what he heard. b And the judges stand on their feet and make a tear /b in their garments, as an act of mourning for the desecration of the honor of God. b And they do not /b ever fully b stitch /b it back together again., b And the second /b witness b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did, but he does not repeat the curse explicitly. b And the third /b witness, in the event that there is one, b says: I too /b heard b as he /b did. In this manner, the repetition of the invective sentence is limited to what is absolutely necessary., strong GEMARA: /strong The Sage b taught /b in a i baraita /i : A blasphemer is not liable b unless he blesses, /b a euphemism for curses, the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, e.g., by saying: Let such and such a name strike such and such a name.,The Gemara asks: b From where is this matter /b derived? b Shmuel says: /b It is derived from that b which the verse states: “And he who blasphemes [ i venokev /i ] the name /b of the Lord shall be put to death; all the congregation shall stone him; the convert as well as the homeborn, b when he blasphemes [ i benokvo /i ] the name, he shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16). It is derived from the repetition of the phrase “blasphemes the name” that the reference is to cursing the name of God with the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b From where /b is it derived b that this /b word b i nokev /i is a term for blessing, /b i.e., cursing? The Gemara answers that it is derived from the statement of Balaam, who was sent by Balak to curse the Jewish people: b “How shall I curse [ i ekkov /i ] whom God has not cursed?” /b (Numbers 23:8). b And /b the b prohibition /b against cursing God is derived b from here: “You shall not curse God” /b (Exodus 22:27).,The Gemara asks: b But say /b that perhaps the meaning of i nokev /i b is /b not cursing, but rather b making a hole, as it is written: “And made a hole [ i vayyikkov /i ] in its lid” /b (II Kings 12:10). According to this, the word i nokev /i is referring to one who makes a hole and damages the written name of God. b And /b the b prohibition /b against doing so is derived b from here: “And you shall destroy their name /b out of that place. b You shall not do so to the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 12:3–4).,The Gemara answers: It is derived from the repetition of i nokev /i that for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to making a hole.,The Gemara challenges: b But say that /b such a transgression is possible, as one can b place two /b written b names /b of God, b one on top of the other, and tear /b through b them /b at once. The Gemara explains: b That /b would be defined as b making a hole and again making a hole, /b not making a hole in one name by means of another name. The Gemara asks: b But say that /b one can b etch /b the b name /b of God b on the point of a knife and cut /b through another name b with it. /b The Gemara answers: In b that /b case, b it is the point of the knife that is cutting, /b not the name of God.,The Gemara asks: b Say /b that i nokev /i means the b utterance of the /b ineffable b name of /b God. b As it is written: “And Moses and Aaron took these men that are pointed out [ i nikkevu /i ] by name” /b (Numbers 1:17). b And /b the b prohibition /b to do so is derived b from here: “You shall fear the Lord, your God” /b (Deuteronomy 6:13).,The Gemara answers: b One /b answer is b that /b for one to be liable, it is b necessary /b that his transgression involve the b name /b of God b with /b the b name /b of God, b and /b such a transgression is b not /b possible if the reference is to uttering the ineffable name of God. b Furthermore, /b the prohibition derived from the verse “You shall fear the Lord, your God” b is a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva, and a prohibition /b stated as b a positive mitzva is not considered a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara presents an alternative proof that i nokev /i is referring to cursing: b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the verse states: “And /b the son of the Israelite woman b blasphemed [ i vayyikkov /i ] /b the name b and cursed” /b (Leviticus 24:11). b That is to say that /b the meaning of b i nokev /i is /b to b curse. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps /b this verse does not prove that the meaning of i nokev /i is to curse; rather, it indicates that one is not liable to be executed b unless he does both, /b i.e., both i nokev /i and cursing God? The Gemara answers: This shall b not enter your mind, as it is written: “Bring forth the one who cursed… /b and stone him” (Leviticus 24:14), b and it is not written: Bring forth the i nokev /i and one who cursed. Conclude from it /b that b it is one /b act and not two.,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin” (Leviticus 24:15), that the verse could have stated: b One [ i ish /i ] /b who curses his God. b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone [ i ish ish /i ]”? /b It is b to include the gentiles, who are prohibited from blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God, just b like Jews /b are. b And they are executed /b for this transgression b by the sword alone, as all death /b penalties b stated with regard to the descendants of Noah are by the sword alone. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But is this /b i halakha /i b derived from here? /b Rather, b it is derived from there: /b “And the Lord God commanded the man” (Genesis 2:16), as is stated in a i baraita /i that will soon be quoted at length: b “The Lord,” this /b is referring to b the blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b of the name /b of God. This verse concerns Adam, the first man, and is therefore binding on all of humanity., b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa says: /b The verse “anyone who curses his God” b is necessary only to include /b gentiles who curse God using b the appellations /b for the name of God, rather than mentioning the ineffable name, b and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Why /b must b the verse state: “Anyone who curses his God shall bear his sin”? But isn’t it already stated: “And he who blasphemes the name of the Lord shall be put to death” /b (Leviticus 24:16)? Rather, b since it is stated: “And he who blasphemes the name /b of the Lord b shall be put to death,” /b one b might /b have thought that one b will be liable only for /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God. b From where /b is it derived that the verse b includes /b one who curses b any of the appellations /b as well? b The verse states: “Anyone who curses his God,” /b to indicate that one is liable to be executed b in any case. /b This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. /b , b And the Rabbis say: For /b cursing b the ineffable name /b of God, one is punished b by death, and for /b cursing b the appellations, /b one is liable to receive lashes b for /b violating b a prohibition. /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa, who holds that according to the Rabbis, gentiles are not liable for cursing appellations for the name of God, b disagrees with /b the opinion of b Rav Meyasha. As Rav Meyasha says: A descendant of Noah who blessed God by /b one of the b appellations is liable /b to be executed even b according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis. /b , b What is the reason? /b It is b because the verse states: “The convert as well as the homeborn, /b when he blasphemes the name, he shall be put to death” (Leviticus 24:16), from which it is derived that b it is /b only in the case of b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition: b “When he blasphemes the name,” /b i.e., he is liable to be executed only if he curses the ineffable name. b But a gentile /b is liable to be executed b even due to /b merely cursing b an appellation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rabbi Meir do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn”? /b What does he derive from it? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Meir derives that b a convert or a homeborn /b Jew is liable to be executed b by stoning /b for this transgression, b but a gentile /b is executed b by the sword. /b This exclusion is necessary as otherwise it might b enter your mind to say /b that b since /b gentiles b are included /b in the i halakhot /i of this verse, b they are included /b in all the i halakhot /i of blasphemy. Therefore the verse b teaches us /b that they are not stoned.,The Gemara asks: b And what does Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa do with this /b part of the verse: b “The convert as well as the homeborn,” according to /b the opinion b of the Rabbis, /b since Rav Yitzḥak Nappaḥa holds that the Rabbis do not deem either a Jew or a gentile liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: He derives that b it is /b specifically with regard to b a convert and a homeborn /b Jew b that we require /b the condition that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God; b but /b with regard to b a gentile, we do not require /b that he curse b a name /b of God b by a name /b of God in order for him to be liable.,The Gemara asks: b Why do I /b need the inclusive term b “anyone /b who curses his God,” according to the opinions that do not derive from it that a gentile is liable for cursing an appellation of God’s name? The Gemara answers: No i halakha /i is derived from it; it is not a superfluous term, as b the Torah spoke in the language of people. /b ,§ Since the i halakhot /i of the descendants of Noah have been mentioned, a full discussion of the Noahide mitzvot is presented. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The descendants of Noah, /b i.e., all of humanity, b were commanded /b to observe b seven mitzvot: /b The mitzva of establishing courts of b judgment; and /b the prohibition against b blessing, /b i.e., cursing, b the name /b of God; and the prohibition of b idol worship; /b and the prohibition against b forbidden sexual relations; and /b the prohibition of b bloodshed; and /b the prohibition of b robbery; and /b the prohibition against eating b a limb from a living /b animal. |
|
19. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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 |
|
20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 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 |
|
| 21. Anon., Life of Moses, 2.206 Tagged with subjects: •heaven, punishment at the hands of Found in books: Schiffman (1983) 151 |
