| 1. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 90 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 15.12, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 99, 189| 11.13. "הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃", 15.12. "לֹא יֶאֱהַב־לֵץ הוֹכֵחַ לוֹ אֶל־חֲכָמִים לֹא יֵלֵךְ׃", 20.19. "גּוֹלֶה־סּוֹד הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל וּלְפֹתֶה שְׂפָתָיו לֹא תִתְעָרָב׃", | 11.13. "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; But he that is of a faithful spirit concealeth a matter.", 15.12. "A scorner loveth not to be reproved; He will not go unto the wise.", 20.19. "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 6.5, 10.12, 11.13, 19.15, 22.14, 22.20, 22.28, 25.5-25.10, 26.13, 32.35 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 67, 71, 82, 90, 99| 6.5. "וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל־מְאֹדֶךָ׃", 10.12. "וְעַתָּה יִשְׂרָאֵל מָה יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ שֹׁאֵל מֵעִמָּךְ כִּי אִם־לְיִרְאָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בְּכָל־דְּרָכָיו וּלְאַהֲבָה אֹתוֹ וְלַעֲבֹד אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל־לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל־נַפְשֶׁךָ׃", 11.13. "וְהָיָה אִם־שָׁמֹעַ תִּשְׁמְעוּ אֶל־מִצְוֺתַי אֲשֶׁר אָנֹכִי מְצַוֶּה אֶתְכֶם הַיּוֹם לְאַהֲבָה אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם וּלְעָבְדוֹ בְּכָל־לְבַבְכֶם וּבְכָל־נַפְשְׁכֶם׃", 19.15. "לֹא־יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכָל־עָוֺן וּלְכָל־חַטָּאת בְּכָל־חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר׃", 22.14. "וְשָׂם לָהּ עֲלִילֹת דְּבָרִים וְהוֹצִיא עָלֶיהָ שֵׁם רָע וְאָמַר אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה הַזֹּאת לָקַחְתִּי וָאֶקְרַב אֵלֶיהָ וְלֹא־מָצָאתִי לָהּ בְּתוּלִים׃", 22.28. "כִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃", 25.5. "כִּי־יֵשְׁבוּ אַחִים יַחְדָּו וּמֵת אַחַד מֵהֶם וּבֵן אֵין־לוֹ לֹא־תִהְיֶה אֵשֶׁת־הַמֵּת הַחוּצָה לְאִישׁ זָר יְבָמָהּ יָבֹא עָלֶיהָ וּלְקָחָהּ לוֹ לְאִשָּׁה וְיִבְּמָהּ׃", 25.6. "וְהָיָה הַבְּכוֹר אֲשֶׁר תֵּלֵד יָקוּם עַל־שֵׁם אָחִיו הַמֵּת וְלֹא־יִמָּחֶה שְׁמוֹ מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל׃", 25.7. "וְאִם־לֹא יַחְפֹּץ הָאִישׁ לָקַחַת אֶת־יְבִמְתּוֹ וְעָלְתָה יְבִמְתּוֹ הַשַּׁעְרָה אֶל־הַזְּקֵנִים וְאָמְרָה מֵאֵין יְבָמִי לְהָקִים לְאָחִיו שֵׁם בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל לֹא אָבָה יַבְּמִי׃", 25.8. "וְקָרְאוּ־לוֹ זִקְנֵי־עִירוֹ וְדִבְּרוּ אֵלָיו וְעָמַד וְאָמַר לֹא חָפַצְתִּי לְקַחְתָּהּ׃", 25.9. "וְנִגְּשָׁה יְבִמְתּוֹ אֵלָיו לְעֵינֵי הַזְּקֵנִים וְחָלְצָה נַעֲלוֹ מֵעַל רַגְלוֹ וְיָרְקָה בְּפָנָיו וְעָנְתָה וְאָמְרָה כָּכָה יֵעָשֶׂה לָאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִבְנֶה אֶת־בֵּית אָחִיו", 26.13. "וְאָמַרְתָּ לִפְנֵי יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בִּעַרְתִּי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מִן־הַבַּיִת וְגַם נְתַתִּיו לַלֵּוִי וְלַגֵּר לַיָּתוֹם וְלָאַלְמָנָה כְּכָל־מִצְוָתְךָ אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָנִי לֹא־עָבַרְתִּי מִמִּצְוֺתֶיךָ וְלֹא שָׁכָחְתִּי׃", 32.35. "לִי נָקָם וְשִׁלֵּם לְעֵת תָּמוּט רַגְלָם כִּי קָרוֹב יוֹם אֵידָם וְחָשׁ עֲתִדֹת לָמוֹ׃", | 6.5. "And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might.", 10.12. "And now, Israel, what doth the LORD thy God require of thee, but to fear the LORD thy God, to walk in all His ways, and to love Him, and to serve the LORD thy God with all thy heart and with all thy soul;", 11.13. "And it shall come to pass, if ye shall hearken diligently unto My commandments which I command you this day, to love the LORD your God, and to serve Him with all your heart and with all your soul,", 19.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment", 22.14. "and lay wanton charges against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say: ‘I took this woman, and when I came nigh to her, I found not in her the tokens of virginity’;", 22.20. "But if this thing be true, that the tokens of virginity were not found in the damsel;", 22.28. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;", 25.5. "If brethren dwell together, and one of them die, and have no child, the wife of the dead shall not be married abroad unto one not of his kin; her husband’s brother shall go in unto her, and take her to him to wife, and perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto her.", 25.6. "And it shall be, that the first-born that she beareth shall succeed in the name of his brother that is dead, that his name be not blotted out of Israel.", 25.7. "And if the man like not to take his brother’s wife, then his brother’s wife shall go up to the gate unto the elders, and say: ‘My husband’s brother refuseth to raise up unto his brother a name in Israel; he will not perform the duty of a husband’s brother unto me.’", 25.8. "Then the elders of his city shall call him, and speak unto him; and if he stand, and say: ‘I like not to take her’;", 25.9. "then shall his brother’s wife draw nigh unto him in the presence of the elders, and loose his shoe from off his foot, and spit in his face; and she shall answer and say: ‘So shall it be done unto the man that doth not build up his brother’s house.’", 25.10. "And his name shall be called in Israel The house of him that had his shoe loosed.", 26.13. "then thou shalt say before the LORD thy God: ‘I have put away the hallowed things out of my house, and also have given them unto the Levite, and unto the stranger, to the fatherless, and to the widow, according to all Thy commandment which Thou hast commanded me; I have not transgressed any of Thy commandments, neither have I forgotten them.", 32.35. "Vengeance is Mine, and recompense, Against the time when their foot shall slip; For the day of their calamity is at hand, And the things that are to come upon them shall make haste.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Esther, 1.17, 3.3, 6.10 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67, 100| 1.17. "כִּי־יֵצֵא דְבַר־הַמַּלְכָּה עַל־כָּל־הַנָּשִׁים לְהַבְזוֹת בַּעְלֵיהֶן בְּעֵינֵיהֶן בְּאָמְרָם הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲחַשְׁוֵרוֹשׁ אָמַר לְהָבִיא אֶת־וַשְׁתִּי הַמַּלְכָּה לְפָנָיו וְלֹא־בָאָה׃", 3.3. "וַיֹּאמְרוּ עַבְדֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר־בְּשַׁעַר הַמֶּלֶךְ לְמָרְדֳּכָי מַדּוּעַ אַתָּה עוֹבֵר אֵת מִצְוַת הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", | 1.17. "For this deed of the queen will come abroad unto all women, to make their husbands contemptible in their eyes, when it will be said: The king Ahasuerus commanded Vashti the queen to be brought in before him, but she came not.", 3.3. "Then the king’s servants, that were in the king’s gate, said unto Mordecai: ‘Why transgressest thou the king’s commandment?’", 6.10. "Then the king said to Haman: ‘Make haste, and take the apparel and the horse, as thou hast said, and do even so to Mordecai the Jew, that sitteth at the king’s gate; let nothing fail of all that thou hast spoken.’", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 2.21 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49| 2.21. "וַתֹּאמֶר רוּת הַמּוֹאֲבִיָּה גַּם כִּי־אָמַר אֵלַי עִם־הַנְּעָרִים אֲשֶׁר־לִי תִּדְבָּקִין עַד אִם־כִּלּוּ אֵת כָּל־הַקָּצִיר אֲשֶׁר־לִי׃", | 2.21. "And Ruth the Moabitess said: ‘Yea, he said unto me: Thou shalt keep fast by my young men, until they have ended all my harvest.’", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 2.8, 5.11, 9.4, 18.22, 27.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 67, 99| 2.8. "וַתֹּאמֶר־לָהּ בַּת־פַּרְעֹה לֵכִי וַתֵּלֶךְ הָעַלְמָה וַתִּקְרָא אֶת־אֵם הַיָּלֶד׃", 5.11. "אַתֶּם לְכוּ קְחוּ לָכֶם תֶּבֶן מֵאֲשֶׁר תִּמְצָאוּ כִּי אֵין נִגְרָע מֵעֲבֹדַתְכֶם דָּבָר׃", 9.4. "וְהִפְלָה יְהוָה בֵּין מִקְנֵה יִשְׂרָאֵל וּבֵין מִקְנֵה מִצְרָיִם וְלֹא יָמוּת מִכָּל־לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל דָּבָר׃", 18.22. "וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת־הָעָם בְּכָל־עֵת וְהָיָה כָּל־הַדָּבָר הַגָּדֹל יָבִיאוּ אֵלֶיךָ וְכָל־הַדָּבָר הַקָּטֹן יִשְׁפְּטוּ־הֵם וְהָקֵל מֵעָלֶיךָ וְנָשְׂאוּ אִתָּךְ׃", | 2.8. "And Pharaoh’s daughter said to her: ‘Go.’ And the maiden went and called the child’s mother.", 5.11. "Go yourselves, get you straw where ye can find it; for nought of your work shall be diminished.’", 9.4. "And the LORD shall make a division between the cattle of Israel and the cattle of Egypt; and there shall nothing die of all that belongeth to the children of Israel.’", 18.22. "And let them judge the people at all seasons; and it shall be, that every great matter they shall bring unto thee, but every small matter they shall judge themselves; so shall they make it easier for thee and bear the burden with thee.", 27.20. "And thou shalt command the children of Israel, that they bring unto thee pure olive oil beaten for the light, to cause a lamp to burn continually.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.7-19.8, 48.11, 59.16, 88.16, 89.3, 119.9 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 82, 182| 19.7. "מִקְצֵה הַשָּׁמַיִם מוֹצָאוֹ וּתְקוּפָתוֹ עַל־קְצוֹתָם וְאֵין נִסְתָּר מֵחַמָּתוֹ׃", 19.8. "תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי׃", 48.11. "כְּשִׁמְךָ אֱלֹהִים כֵּן תְּהִלָּתְךָ עַל־קַצְוֵי־אֶרֶץ צֶדֶק מָלְאָה יְמִינֶךָ׃", 59.16. "הֵמָּה ינועון [יְנִיעוּן] לֶאֱכֹל אִם־לֹא יִשְׂבְּעוּ וַיָּלִינוּ׃", 88.16. "עָנִי אֲנִי וְגֹוֵעַ מִנֹּעַר נָשָׂאתִי אֵמֶיךָ אָפוּנָה׃", 89.3. "כִּי־אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה שָׁמַיִם תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם׃", 89.3. "וְשַׂמְתִּי לָעַד זַרְעוֹ וְכִסְאוֹ כִּימֵי שָׁמָיִם׃", 119.9. "לְדֹר וָדֹר אֱמוּנָתֶךָ כּוֹנַנְתָּ אֶרֶץ וַתַּעֲמֹד׃", 119.9. "בַּמֶּה יְזַכֶּה־נַּעַר אֶת־אָרְחוֹ לִשְׁמֹר כִּדְבָרֶךָ׃", | 19.7. "His going forth is from the end of the heaven, and his circuit unto the ends of it; and there is nothing hid from the heat thereof.", 19.8. "The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. .", 48.11. "As is Thy name, O God, So is Thy praise unto the ends of the earth; Thy right hand is full of righteousness.", 59.16. "They wander up and down to devour, and tarry all night if they have not their fill.", 88.16. "I am afflicted and at the point of death from my youth up; I have borne Thy terrors, I am distracted.", 89.3. "For I have said: 'For ever is mercy built; In the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness.", 119.9. "BETH. Wherewithal shall a young man keep his way pure? By taking heed thereto according to Thy word.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 4.12, 24.43 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49| 4.12. "כִּי תַעֲבֹד אֶת־הָאֲדָמָה לֹא־תֹסֵף תֵּת־כֹּחָהּ לָךְ נָע וָנָד תִּהְיֶה בָאָרֶץ׃", 24.43. "הִנֵּה אָנֹכִי נִצָּב עַל־עֵין הַמָּיִם וְהָיָה הָעַלְמָה הַיֹּצֵאת לִשְׁאֹב וְאָמַרְתִּי אֵלֶיהָ הַשְׁקִינִי־נָא מְעַט־מַיִם מִכַּדֵּךְ׃", | 4.12. "When thou tillest the ground, it shall not henceforth yield unto thee her strength; a fugitive and a wanderer shalt thou be in the earth.’", 24.43. "behold, I stand by the fountain of water; and let it come to pass, that the maiden that cometh forth to draw, to whom I shall say: Give me, I pray thee, a little water from thy pitcher to drink;", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 1.3, 5.13, 12.1, 17.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 67, 82, 189| 1.3. "מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כָּל־יֹצֵא צָבָא בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל תִּפְקְדוּ אֹתָם לְצִבְאֹתָם אַתָּה וְאַהֲרֹן׃", 1.3. "לִבְנֵי זְבוּלֻן תּוֹלְדֹתָם לְמִשְׁפְּחֹתָם לְבֵית אֲבֹתָם בְּמִסְפַּר שֵׁמֹת מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה כֹּל יֹצֵא צָבָא׃", 5.13. "וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃", 12.1. "וְהֶעָנָן סָר מֵעַל הָאֹהֶל וְהִנֵּה מִרְיָם מְצֹרַעַת כַּשָּׁלֶג וַיִּפֶן אַהֲרֹן אֶל־מִרְיָם וְהִנֵּה מְצֹרָעַת׃", 12.1. "וַתְּדַבֵּר מִרְיָם וְאַהֲרֹן בְּמֹשֶׁה עַל־אֹדוֹת הָאִשָּׁה הַכֻּשִׁית אֲשֶׁר לָקָח כִּי־אִשָּׁה כֻשִׁית לָקָח׃", 17.27. "וַיֹּאמְרוּ בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵאמֹר הֵן גָּוַעְנוּ אָבַדְנוּ כֻּלָּנוּ אָבָדְנוּ׃", | 1.3. "from twenty years old and upward, all that are able to go forth to war in Israel: ye shall number them by their hosts, even thou and Aaron.", 5.13. "and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;", 12.1. "And Miriam and Aaron spoke against Moses because of the Cushite woman whom he had married; for he had married a Cushite woman.", 17.27. "And the children of Israel spoke unto Moses, saying: ‘Behold, we perish, we are undone, we are all undone.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Job, 6.25, 15.15, 25.5, 37.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67, 99, 182| 6.25. "מַה־נִּמְרְצוּ אִמְרֵי־יֹשֶׁר וּמַה־יּוֹכִיחַ הוֹכֵחַ מִכֶּם׃", 15.15. "הֵן בקדשו [בִּקְדֹשָׁיו] לֹא יַאֲמִין וְשָׁמַיִם לֹא־זַכּוּ בְעֵינָיו׃", 25.5. "הֵן עַד־יָרֵחַ וְלֹא יַאֲהִיל וְכוֹכָבִים לֹא־זַכּוּ בְעֵינָיו׃", 37.3. "תַּחַת־כָּל־הַשָּׁמַיִם יִשְׁרֵהוּ וְאוֹרוֹ עַל־כַּנְפוֹת הָאָרֶץ׃", | 6.25. "How forcible are words of uprightness! But what doth your arguing argue?", 15.15. "Behold, He putteth no trust in His holy ones; Yea, the heavens are not clean in His sight.", 25.5. "Behold, even the moon hath no brightness, And the stars are not pure in His sight;", 37.3. "He sendeth it forth under the whole heaven, And His lightning unto the ends of the earth.", |
|
| 11. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 13.1-14.32, 19.16, 19.17, 19.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189 |
12. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 3.22 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 71| 3.22. "זִכְרוּ תּוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עַבְדִּי אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתִי אוֹתוֹ בְחֹרֵב עַל־כָּל־יִשְׂרָאֵל חֻקִּים וּמִשְׁפָּטִים׃", | 3.22. "Remember ye the law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, even statutes and ordices.", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Nahum, 1.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 90| 1.2. "אֵל קַנּוֹא וְנֹקֵם יְהוָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה וּבַעַל חֵמָה נֹקֵם יְהוָה לְצָרָיו וְנוֹטֵר הוּא לְאֹיְבָיו׃", | 1.2. "The LORD is a jealous and avenging God, The LORD avengeth and is full of wrath; The LORD taketh vengeance on His adversaries, And He reserveth wrath for His enemies.", |
|
14. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 30.17, 38.23, 42.5, 50.24 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 82| 30.17. "כִּי אַעֲלֶה אֲרֻכָה לָךְ וּמִמַּכּוֹתַיִךְ אֶרְפָּאֵךְ נְאֻם־יְהוָה כִּי נִדָּחָה קָרְאוּ לָךְ צִיּוֹן הִיא דֹּרֵשׁ אֵין לָהּ׃", 38.23. "וְאֶת־כָּל־נָשֶׁיךָ וְאֶת־בָּנֶיךָ מוֹצִאִים אֶל־הַכַּשְׂדִּים וְאַתָּה לֹא־תִמָּלֵט מִיָּדָם כִּי בְיַד מֶלֶךְ־בָּבֶל תִּתָּפֵשׂ וְאֶת־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ׃", 42.5. "וְהֵמָּה אָמְרוּ אֶל־יִרְמְיָהוּ יְהִי יְהוָה בָּנוּ לְעֵד אֱמֶת וְנֶאֱמָן אִם־לֹא כְּכָל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלָחֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלֵינוּ כֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה׃", 50.24. "יָקֹשְׁתִּי לָךְ וְגַם־נִלְכַּדְתְּ בָּבֶל וְאַתְּ לֹא יָדָעַתְּ נִמְצֵאת וְגַם־נִתְפַּשְׂתְּ כִּי בַיהוָה הִתְגָּרִית׃", | 30.17. "For I will restore health unto thee, And I will heal thee of thy wounds, saith the LORD; Because they have called thee an outcast: ‘She is Zion, there is none that careth for her.’", 38.23. "And they shall bring out all thy wives and thy children to the Chaldeans; and thou shalt not escape out of their hand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon; and thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.’", 42.5. "Then they said to Jeremiah: ‘The LORD be a true and faithful witness against us, if we do not even according to all the word wherewith the LORD thy God shall send thee to us.", 50.24. "I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, And thou wast not aware; Thou art found, and also caught, Because thou hast striven against the LORD.", |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 8.35, 11.15, 21.43 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67| 8.35. "לֹא־הָיָה דָבָר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־קָרָא יְהוֹשֻׁעַ נֶגֶד כָּל־קְהַל יִשְׂרָאֵל וְהַנָּשִׁים וְהַטַּף וְהַגֵּר הַהֹלֵךְ בְּקִרְבָּם׃", 11.15. "כַּאֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה עַבְדּוֹ כֵּן־צִוָּה מֹשֶׁה אֶת־יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכֵן עָשָׂה יְהוֹשֻׁעַ לֹא־הֵסִיר דָּבָר מִכֹּל אֲשֶׁר־צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־מֹשֶׁה׃", 21.43. "וַיִּתֵּן יְהוָה לְיִשְׂרָאֵל אֶת־כָּל־הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר נִשְׁבַּע לָתֵת לַאֲבוֹתָם וַיִּרָשׁוּהָ וַיֵּשְׁבוּ בָהּ׃", | 8.35. "There was not a word of all that Moses commanded, which Joshua read not before all the assembly of Israel, and the women, and the little ones, and the strangers that walked among them.", 11.15. "As the LORD commanded Moses His servant, so did Moses command Joshua; and so did Joshua; he left nothing undone of all that the LORD commanded Moses.", 21.43. "So the LORD gave unto Israel all the land which He swore to give unto their fathers; and they possessed it, and dwelt therein.", |
|
16. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 2.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 71| 2.3. "וַיָּבֹא בְנָיָהוּ אֶל־אֹהֶל יְהוָה וַיֹּאמֶר אֵלָיו כֹּה־אָמַר הַמֶּלֶךְ צֵא וַיֹּאמֶר לֹא כִּי פֹה אָמוּת וַיָּשֶׁב בְּנָיָהוּ אֶת־הַמֶּלֶךְ דָּבָר לֵאמֹר כֹּה־דִבֶּר יוֹאָב וְכֹה עָנָנִי׃", 2.3. "וְשָׁמַרְתָּ אֶת־מִשְׁמֶרֶת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לָלֶכֶת בִּדְרָכָיו לִשְׁמֹר חֻקֹּתָיו מִצְוֺתָיו וּמִשְׁפָּטָיו וְעֵדְוֺתָיו כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה לְמַעַן תַּשְׂכִּיל אֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר תַּעֲשֶׂה וְאֵת כָּל־אֲשֶׁר תִּפְנֶה שָׁם׃", | 2.3. "and keep the charge of the LORD thy God, to walk in His ways, to keep His statutes, and His commandments, and His ordices, and His testimonies, according to that which is written in the law of Moses, that thou mayest prosper in all that thou doest, and whithersoever thou turnest thyself;", |
|
17. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 8.2 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82| 8.2. "לְתוֹרָה וְלִתְעוּדָה אִם־לֹא יֹאמְרוּ כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ שָׁחַר׃", 8.2. "וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת־זְכַרְיָהוּ בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ׃", | 8.2. "and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.’", |
|
18. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 12.13, 16.49, 17.20, 19.4, 19.8, 21.28-21.29 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 82| 12.13. "וּפָרַשְׂתִּי אֶת־רִשְׁתִּי עָלָיו וְנִתְפַּשׂ בִּמְצוּדָתִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתוֹ בָבֶלָה אֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים וְאוֹתָהּ לֹא־יִרְאֶה וְשָׁם יָמוּת׃", 16.49. "הִנֵּה־זֶה הָיָה עֲוֺן סְדֹם אֲחוֹתֵךְ גָּאוֹן שִׂבְעַת־לֶחֶם וְשַׁלְוַת הַשְׁקֵט הָיָה לָהּ וְלִבְנוֹתֶיהָ וְיַד־עָנִי וְאֶבְיוֹן לֹא הֶחֱזִיקָה׃", 19.4. "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ וַיְבִאֻהוּ בַחַחִים אֶל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃", 19.8. "וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלָיו גּוֹיִם סָבִיב מִמְּדִינוֹת וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ עָלָיו רִשְׁתָּם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ׃", 21.28. "וְהָיָה לָהֶם כקסום־[כִּקְסָם־] שָׁוְא בְּעֵינֵיהֶם שְׁבֻעֵי שְׁבֻעוֹת לָהֶם וְהוּא־מַזְכִּיר עָוֺן לְהִתָּפֵשׂ׃", 21.29. "לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה יַעַן הַזְכַּרְכֶם עֲוֺנְכֶם בְּהִגָּלוֹת פִּשְׁעֵיכֶם לְהֵרָאוֹת חַטֹּאותֵיכֶם בְּכֹל עֲלִילוֹתֵיכֶם יַעַן הִזָּכֶרְכֶם בַּכַּף תִּתָּפֵשׂוּ׃", | 12.13. "My net also will I spread upon him, and he shall be taken in My snare; and I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there.", 16.49. "Behold, this was the iniquity of thy sister Sodom: pride, fulness of bread, and careless ease was in her and in her daughters; neither did she strengthen the hand of the poor and needy.", 17.20. "And I will spread My net upon him, and he shall be taken in My snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his treachery that he hath committed against Me.", 19.4. "Then the nations assembled against him, He was taken in their pit; And they brought him with hooks Unto the land of Egypt.", 19.8. "Then the nations cried out against him On every side from the provinces; And they spread their net over him, He was taken in their pit.", 21.28. "And it shall be unto them as a false divination in their sight, who have weeks upon weeks! but it bringeth iniquity to remembrance, that they may be taken.", 21.29. "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that your sins do appear in all your doings; because that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand.", |
|
19. Hebrew Bible, 1 Chronicles, 27.23 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67| 27.23. "וְלֹא־נָשָׂא דָוִיד מִסְפָּרָם לְמִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וּלְמָטָּה כִּי אָמַר יְהוָה לְהַרְבּוֹת אֶת־יִשְׂרָאֵל כְּכוֹכְבֵי הַשָּׁמָיִם׃", | 27.23. "But David took not the number of them from twenty years old and under; because the LORD had said He would increase Israel like to the stars of heaven.", |
|
20. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 4.7 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67| 4.7. "וְשַׁבְתִּי אֲנִי וָאֶרְאֶה הֶבֶל תַּחַת הַשָּׁמֶשׁ׃", | 4.7. "Then I returned and saw vanity under the sun.", |
|
21. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 15.12, 24.20 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67, 71| 15.12. "וַיָּבֹאוּ בַבְּרִית לִדְרוֹשׁ אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם בְּכָל־לְבָבָם וּבְכָל־נַפְשָׁם׃", | 15.12. "And they entered into the covet to seek the LORD, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and with all their soul;", 24.20. "And the spirit of God clothed Zechariah the son of Jehoiada the priest; and he stood above the people, and said unto them: ‘Thus saith God: Why transgress ye the commandments of the LORD, that ye cannot prosper? because ye have forsaken the LORD, He hath also forsaken you.’", |
|
22. Hebrew Bible, Ezra, 9.6-9.15 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 9.6. "וָאֹמְרָה אֱלֹהַי בֹּשְׁתִּי וְנִכְלַמְתִּי לְהָרִים אֱלֹהַי פָּנַי אֵלֶיךָ כִּי עֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ רָבוּ לְמַעְלָה רֹּאשׁ וְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ גָדְלָה עַד לַשָּׁמָיִם׃", 9.7. "מִימֵי אֲבֹתֵינוּ אֲנַחְנוּ בְּאַשְׁמָה גְדֹלָה עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה וּבַעֲוֺנֹתֵינוּ נִתַּנּוּ אֲנַחְנוּ מְלָכֵינוּ כֹהֲנֵינוּ בְּיַד מַלְכֵי הָאֲרָצוֹת בַּחֶרֶב בַּשְּׁבִי וּבַבִּזָּה וּבְבֹשֶׁת פָּנִים כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 9.8. "וְעַתָּה כִּמְעַט־רֶגַע הָיְתָה תְחִנָּה מֵאֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵינוּ לְהַשְׁאִיר לָנוּ פְּלֵיטָה וְלָתֶת־לָנוּ יָתֵד בִּמְקוֹם קָדְשׁוֹ לְהָאִיר עֵינֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְתִתֵּנוּ מִחְיָה מְעַט בְּעַבְדֻתֵנוּ׃", 9.9. "כִּי־עֲבָדִים אֲנַחְנוּ וּבְעַבְדֻתֵנוּ לֹא עֲזָבָנוּ אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַיַּט־עָלֵינוּ חֶסֶד לִפְנֵי מַלְכֵי פָרַס לָתֶת־לָנוּ מִחְיָה לְרוֹמֵם אֶת־בֵּית אֱלֹהֵינוּ וּלְהַעֲמִיד אֶת־חָרְבֹתָיו וְלָתֶת־לָנוּ גָדֵר בִּיהוּדָה וּבִירוּשָׁלִָם׃", 9.11. "אֲשֶׁר צִוִּיתָ בְּיַד עֲבָדֶיךָ הַנְּבִיאִים לֵאמֹר הָאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר אַתֶּם בָּאִים לְרִשְׁתָּהּ אֶרֶץ נִדָּה הִיא בְּנִדַּת עַמֵּי הָאֲרָצוֹת בְּתוֹעֲבֹתֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר מִלְאוּהָ מִפֶּה אֶל־פֶּה בְּטֻמְאָתָם׃", 9.12. "וְעַתָּה בְּנוֹתֵיכֶם אַל־תִּתְּנוּ לִבְנֵיהֶם וּבְנֹתֵיהֶם אַל־תִּשְׂאוּ לִבְנֵיכֶם וְלֹא־תִדְרְשׁוּ שְׁלֹמָם וְטוֹבָתָם עַד־עוֹלָם לְמַעַן תֶּחֶזְקוּ וַאֲכַלְתֶּם אֶת־טוּב הָאָרֶץ וְהוֹרַשְׁתֶּם לִבְנֵיכֶם עַד־עוֹלָם׃", 9.13. "וְאַחֲרֵי כָּל־הַבָּא עָלֵינוּ בְּמַעֲשֵׂינוּ הָרָעִים וּבְאַשְׁמָתֵנוּ הַגְּדֹלָה כִּי אַתָּה אֱלֹהֵינוּ חָשַׂכְתָּ לְמַטָּה מֵעֲוֺנֵנוּ וְנָתַתָּה לָּנוּ פְּלֵיטָה כָּזֹאת׃", 9.14. "הֲנָשׁוּב לְהָפֵר מִצְוֺתֶיךָ וּלְהִתְחַתֵּן בְּעַמֵּי הַתֹּעֵבוֹת הָאֵלֶּה הֲלוֹא תֶאֱנַף־בָּנוּ עַד־כַּלֵּה לְאֵין שְׁאֵרִית וּפְלֵיטָה׃", 9.15. "יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל צַדִּיק אַתָּה כִּי־נִשְׁאַרְנוּ פְלֵיטָה כְּהַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הִנְנוּ לְפָנֶיךָ בְּאַשְׁמָתֵינוּ כִּי אֵין לַעֲמוֹד לְפָנֶיךָ עַל־זֹאת׃", | 9.6. "and I said: ‘O my God, I am ashamed and blush to lift up my face to Thee, my God; for our iniquities are increased over our head, and our guiltiness is grown up unto the heavens.", 9.7. "Since the days of our fathers we have been exceeding guilty unto this day; and for our iniquities have we, our kings, and our priests, been delivered into the hand of the kings of the lands, to the sword, to captivity, and to spoiling, and to confusion of face, as it is this day.", 9.8. "And now for a little moment grace hath been shown from the LORD our God, to leave us a remt to escape, and to give us a nail in His holy place, that our God may lighten our eyes, and give us a little reviving in our bondage.", 9.9. "For we are bondmen; yet our God hath not forsaken us in our bondage, but hath extended mercy unto us in the sight of the kings of Persia, to give us a reviving, to set up the house of our God, and to repair the ruins thereof, and to give us a fence in Judah and in Jerusalem.", 9.10. "And now, O our God, what shall we say after this? for we have forsaken Thy commandments,", 9.11. "which Thou hast commanded by Thy servants the prophets, saying: The land, unto which ye go to possess it, is an unclean land through the uncleanness of the peoples of the lands, through their abominations, wherewith they have filled it from one end to another with their filthiness.", 9.12. "Now therefore give not your daughters unto their sons, neither take their daughters unto your sons, nor seek their peace or their prosperity for ever; that ye may be strong, and eat the good of the land, and leave it for an inheritance to your children for ever.", 9.13. "And after all that is come upon us for our evil deeds, and for our great guilt, seeing that Thou our God hast punished us less than our iniquities deserve, and hast given us such a remt,", 9.14. "shall we again break Thy commandments, and make marriages with the peoples that do these abominations? wouldest not Thou be angry with us till Thou hadst consumed us, so that there should be no remt, nor any to escape?", 9.15. "O LORD, the God of Israel, Thou art righteous; for we are left a remt that is escaped, as it is this day; behold, we are before Thee in our guiltiness; for none can stand before Thee because of this.’", |
|
23. Hebrew Bible, Zechariah, 14.13 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49| 14.13. "וְהָיָה בַּיּוֹם הַהוּא תִּהְיֶה מְהוּמַת־יְהוָה רַבָּה בָּהֶם וְהֶחֱזִיקוּ אִישׁ יַד רֵעֵהוּ וְעָלְתָה יָדוֹ עַל־יַד רֵעֵהוּ׃", | 14.13. "And it shall come to pass in that day, That a great tumult from the LORD shall be among them; And they shall lay hold every one on the hand of his neighbour, And his hand shall rise up against the hand of his neighbour.", |
|
| 24. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.6-1.8, 1.18, 2.18, 2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 71, 163, 182 |
| 25. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 66.8-66.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82 |
26. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 8.7, 15.12, 18.5, 35.2, 36.30 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49 | 8.7. Do not rejoice over any ones death;remember that we all must die. 15.12. Do not say, "It was he who led me astray";for he had no need of a sinful man. 18.5. Who can measure his majestic power?And who can fully recount his mercies? 35.2. He who returns a kindness offers fine flour,and he who gives alms sacrifices a thank offering. 35.2. Mercy is as welcome when he afflicts them as clouds of rain in the time of drought. |
|
| 27. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 2.2, 6.19, 6.21, 8.5, 9.2-9.8, 10.3, 10.13, 10.21, 11.5-11.6, 12.3-12.6, 13.1, 13.4-13.6, 14.3-14.6, 19.18, 19.34, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 71, 82, 99, 100, 182, 189 |
| 28. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.6-1.8, 1.18, 2.18, 2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 71, 163, 182 |
| 29. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 2.2, 6.19, 6.21, 8.5, 9.2-9.8, 10.3, 10.13, 10.21, 11.5-11.6, 12.3-12.6, 13.1, 13.4-13.6, 14.3-14.6, 19.18, 19.34, 20.4-20.8 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 71, 82, 99, 100, 182, 189 |
| 30. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.6-1.8, 1.18, 2.18, 2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49, 71, 163, 182 |
| 31. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 2.18-2.21, 3.4, 3.11, 4.6, 5.8, 5.13, 5.24, 6.1-6.2, 6.4-6.10, 6.17, 7.4, 7.15-7.17, 8.16-8.19, 8.21-8.24, 8.26, 9.1, 9.9, 9.17, 10.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67, 71, 99, 100, 163, 182, 189 |
| 32. Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll, 7.1, 13.1 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 100 |
33. Mishnah, Avot, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 71| 4.4. "רַבִּי לְוִיטָס אִישׁ יַבְנֶה אוֹמֵר, מְאֹד מְאֹד הֱוֵי שְׁפַל רוּחַ, שֶׁתִּקְוַת אֱנוֹשׁ רִמָּה. רַבִּי יוֹחָנָן בֶּן בְּרוֹקָא אוֹמֵר, כָּל הַמְחַלֵּל שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם בַּסֵּתֶר, נִפְרָעִין מִמֶּנּוּ בְגָלוּי. אֶחָד שׁוֹגֵג וְאֶחָד מֵזִיד בְּחִלּוּל הַשֵּׁם: \n", | 4.4. "Rabbi Levitas a man of Yavneh said: be exceeding humble spirit, for the end of man is the worm. Rabbi Yoha ben Berokah said: whoever profanes the name of heaven in secret, he shall be punished in the open. Unwittingly or wittingly, it is all one in profaning the name.", |
|
34. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 9.11-9.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 9.11. "הַגּוֹזֵל אֶת הַגֵּר וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, וּמֵת, הֲרֵי זֶה מְשַׁלֵּם קֶרֶן וָחֹמֶשׁ לַכֹּהֲנִים וְאָשָׁם לַמִּזְבֵּחַ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר ה) וְאִם אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו, הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַה' לַכֹּהֵן, מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר בּוֹ עָלָיו. הָיָה מַעֲלֶה אֶת הַכֶּסֶף וְאֶת הָאָשָׁם, וּמֵת, הַכֶּסֶף יִנָּתֵן לְבָנָיו, וְהָאָשָׁם יִרְעֶה עַד שֶׁיִּסְתָּאֵב, וְיִמָּכֵר וְיִפְּלוּ דָמָיו לִנְדָבָה: \n", 9.12. "נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וּמֵת, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה, יָצָא. אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה, אִם קַיָּם הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְאִם לֹא, יַחֲזִיר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר, שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְזֵלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ, יָצָא. הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְזֵלוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ, אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב: \n", | 9.11. "If a man stole from a convert and swore [falsely] to him, and the convert died, he must repay the value and the added fifth to the priests, and the Guilt-offering to the altar, as it says: “If the man has no kinsman to whom restitution can be made, the amount which is repaid shall go to the priest in addition to the ram of atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him” (Numbers 5:8). If he brought the money and the Guilt-offering and then died, the money shall be given to his sons, and the Guilt-offering shall be left to pasture until it suffers a blemish, when it shall be sold, and its value falls to the Temple treasury.", 9.12. "If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].", |
|
35. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82| 2.2. "הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן, מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ, וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים: \n", | 2.2. "One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?", |
|
36. Mishnah, Menachot, 8.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67| 8.5. "הָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן, אֵין לְמַעְלָה מִמֶּנּוּ. הַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבָּרִאשׁוֹן וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי וְהָרִאשׁוֹן שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבַּשֵּׁנִי וְהַשֵּׁנִי שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, שָׁוִין. הַשְּׁלִישִׁי שֶׁבַּשְּׁלִישִׁי, אֵין לְמַטָּה מִמֶּנּוּ. אַף הַמְּנָחוֹת הָיוּ בַדִּין שֶׁיִּטָּעֲנוּ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ. מָה אִם הַמְּנוֹרָה שֶׁאֵינָהּ לַאֲכִילָה, טְעוּנָה שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ, הַמְּנָחוֹת, שֶׁהֵן לַאֲכִילָה, אֵינוֹ דִין שֶׁיִּטָּעֲנוּ שֶׁמֶן זַיִת זַךְ. תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר (שמות כז), זָךְ כָּתִית לַמָּאוֹר, וְלֹא זַךְ כָּתִית לַמְּנָחוֹת: \n", | 8.5. "The first oil of the first crop, there is none better than it. The second oil of the first crop and the first oil of the second crop are equal. The third oil of the first crop, the second oil of the second crop and the first oil of the third crop are equal. The third oil of the second crop and the second oil of the third crop are equal. As to the third oil of the third crop, there is none worse than it. It would have been logical by the following argument that menahot should also require the purest olive oil: if the candlestick, whose [oil] is not for eating, requires pure olive oil, how much more should menahot, whose oil is for eating, require pure olive oil! But the text states, “Pure olive oil of beaten olives for lighting” (Exodus 27:20), but not “pure olive oil of beaten olives for menahot.”", |
|
37. Mishnah, Peah, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 49| 1.1. "אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם שִׁעוּר. הַפֵּאָה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים, וְהָרֵאָיוֹן, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה. אֵלּוּ דְבָרִים שֶׁאָדָם אוֹכֵל פֵּרוֹתֵיהֶן בָּעוֹלָם הַזֶּה וְהַקֶּרֶן קַיֶּמֶת לוֹ לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא. כִּבּוּד אָב וָאֵם, וּגְמִילוּת חֲסָדִים, וַהֲבָאַת שָׁלוֹם בֵּין אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ, וְתַלְמוּד תּוֹרָה כְּנֶגֶד כֻּלָּם:", | 1.1. "These are the things that have no definite quantity: The corners [of the field]. First-fruits; [The offerings brought] on appearing [at the Temple on the three pilgrimage festivals]. The performance of righteous deeds; And the study of the torah. The following are the things for which a man enjoys the fruits in this world while the principal remains for him in the world to come: Honoring one’s father and mother; The performance of righteous deeds; And the making of peace between a person and his friend; And the study of the torah is equal to them all.", |
|
38. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 3.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67| 3.2. "אָמַר לוֹ נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אַבָּא, נֶאֱמָן עָלַי אָבִיךָ, נֶאֱמָנִין עָלַי שְׁלֹשָׁה רוֹעֵי בָקָר, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. הָיָה חַיָּב לַחֲבֵרוֹ שְׁבוּעָה וְאָמַר לוֹ דּוֹר לִי בְחַיֵּי רֹאשְׁךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר אוֹמֵר, יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר בּוֹ: \n", | 3.2. "If one litigant said to the other, “I accept my father as trustworthy”, or “I accept your father as trustworthy”, or “I accept three herdsman as trustworthy”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.” If one must take an oath before his fellow, and his fellow said to him, “Vow to me by the life of your head”, Rabbi Meir says, “He may retract.” But the Sages say, “He cannot retract.”", |
|
39. Mishnah, Yoma, 3.8, 4.2, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 3.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ, וּפָרוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 4.2. "קָשַׁר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בְּרֹאשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ כְנֶגֶד בֵּית שִׁלּוּחוֹ, וְלַנִּשְׁחָט כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 6.2. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָווּ פָּשְׁעוּ חָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָּא בַּשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", | 3.8. "He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 4.2. "He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 6.2. "He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (Bashem)! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", |
|
40. New Testament, Romans, 12.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 90| 12.19. μὴ ἑαυτοὺς ἐκδικοῦντες, ἀγαπητοί, ἀλλὰ δότε τόπον τῇ ὀργῇ, γέγραπται γάρἘμοὶ ἐκδίκησις,ἐγὼἀνταποδώσω,λέγει Κύριος. | 12.19. Don't seek revenge yourselves, beloved, but give place to God's wrath. For it is written, "Vengeance belongs to me; I will repay, says the Lord." |
|
41. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 4.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 4.8. "חֲמִשָּׁה חֻמְשִׁין הֵן. הָאוֹכֵל תְּרוּמָה, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר, וּתְרוּמַת מַעֲשֵׂר שֶׁל דְּמַאי, וְהַחַלָּה, וְהַבִּכּוּרִים מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְהַפּוֹדֶה נֶטַע רְבָעִי וּמַעֲשֵׂר שֵׁנִי שֶׁלּוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. הַפּוֹדֶה אֶת הֶקְדֵּשׁוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. הַנֶּהֱנֶה בְשָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה מִן הַהֶקְדֵּשׁ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ. וְהַגּוֹזֵל אֶת חֲבֵרוֹ שָׁוֶה פְרוּטָה וְנִשְׁבַּע לוֹ, מוֹסִיף חֹמֶשׁ: \n", | 4.8. "There are five cases in which one must add a fifth:One who eats terumah, or the terumah taken from the tithe, or the terumah from a tithe taken from doubtfully tithed produce, or dough offering, or first fruits, must add a fifth [to the value of the principle when he makes restitution]. One that redeems [the fruit of] a fourth year plant, or his second tithe, must add a fifth. One that redeems that which he dedicated [to the Temple] must add a fifth. One that derives a perutah’s worth of benefit from that which belongs to the sanctuary must add a fifth [when he makes restitution]. One who steals that which is worth a perutah from his fellow must add a fifth [when he makes restitution].", |
|
42. Tosefta, Bava Qamma, 10.9 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 10.9. "דרש רבי יוסי הגלילי בגוזל את הגר והיה עולה לירושלים ומעותיו ואשמו בידו ומצאו וזקפו עליו במלוה הביא את אשמו ואח\"כ מת הגר יצא לא הספיק להביא את אשמו עד שמת הגר הרי זה צריך להביא אשם והמעות זכה בהן וחכמים אומרים לא עשה כלום עד שיתנם לו ויחזור ליטלם ממנו. דרש ר' עקיבה כשבא מזפרן בגזל את הגר ונשבע לו והיה עולה לירושלים ומעותיו ואשמו בידו ומת בדרך הכסף ינתן לבניו ואשם ירעה עד שיסתאב וימכר ויפלו דמיו לנדבה שנא' (במדבר ה׳:ח׳) מלבד איל הכפורים אשר יכפר בו עליו מי שצריך כפרה יצא זה שאין צריך כפרה נתן את הכסף לאנשי משמר ומת אין היורשין יכולין להוציא מידם שנא' (שם) איש אשר יתן לכהן לו יהיה נתן הכסף ליהויריב ואשם לידעיה יחזיר הכסף אחר האשם דברי רבי יהודה וחכ\"א אשם אחר הכסף אמר רבי אם כדברי רבי יהודה יקריבו בני יהויריב את האשם לא נתכפר לו אלא אם כן קיים אשם יחזיר הכסף מבני ידעיה אצל בני יהויריב ויקריבו בני יהויריב את האשם ויתכפר לו עבר משמרו של יהויריב יחזיר האשם מבני יהויריב אצל בני ידעיה ויקריבו בני ידעיה את האשם ויתכפר לו הביא אשמו ולא הביא גזלו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא גזילו אלא תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה הביא אשמו ולא הביא מעילתו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא מעילתו אלא תעובר צורתו ויצא לבית השריפה. מצורע שהביא חטאתו קודם לאשמו לא יהא ממרס בדמו עד שיביא אשמו אלא תעובר צורתו ותצא לבית השריפה.", | |
|
43. Tosefta, Demai, 2.1-2.2, 2.10, 2.13 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82, 99| 2.1. "אורז במקומו מותר שבתחילת אנטכיא ר' אליעזר בר' יוסי אומר אורז [שבתחילת] אנטכיא מותר הוא עד בורו.", 2.1. "הבא לקבל עליו אפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל עליו אבל חכם היושב בישיבה אין צריך לקבל עליו שכבר קבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף ת\"ח אין צריך לקבל עליו ולא עוד אלא אף אחרים מקבלין בפניו חבורה אין בניו ועבדיו צריכין לקבל בפני חבורה אלא מקבלין בפניו חבורה ר\"ש בן גמליאל אומר אינו דומה חבר שקלקל לבן חבר שקלקל.", 2.2. "המקבל עליו ארבעה דברים מקבלין אותו להיות חבר שלא ליתן תרומות ומעשרות לעם הארץ ושלא יעשה טהרות אצל עם הארץ ושיהא אוכל חולין בטהרה.", 2.13. "לא יאמר אדם חבר לעם הארץ הולך ככר זו ותן לפלוני חבר שאין משלחין טהרות ביד עם הארץ חבר שאמר לו עם הארץ הולך ככר זו והולך לפלוני ע\"ה לא יתן לו שאין מוסרין טהרות לעם הארץ.", | |
|
| 44. Tosefta, Maaser Sheni, 4.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
45. Tosefta, Menachot, 10.3 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 10.3. "כל קרבנות צבור אין בהם סמיכה חוץ מפר הבא על כל המצות ושעירי עבודת כוכבים שהן טעונים סמיכה דברי ר' יהודה ר\"ש אומר שעירי עבודת כוכבים אין טעונין סמיכה מה היה מביא תחתיהן שעיר המשתלח אמר לו ר\"ש והלא אין סמיכה אלא בבעלים. שעיר המשתלח סומכין עליו אהרן ובניו כאחד אמר לו רבי יהודה אף הן מתכפרין בו. כלל אמר רבי שמעון כל הבא על עברות מצוה ידועה ודמו נכנס לפנים טעון סמיכה כל שאין בא על עברות מצוה ידועה ואין דמו נכנס לפנים אין טעון סמיכה היורש ואחד עשר שבמעשר הרי אלו ממירין טעונין סמיכה ונסכים דברי ר\"מ רבי יהודה אומר היורש אינו ממיר ואחד עשר שבמעשר אינו ממיר מפני שהיא תמורה ואין תמורה עושה תמורה אמר לו ר' יהודה אילו היה תמורה היה קרב אלא זבח היה ונסכים היו בפני עצמן כיצד סומך זבח עומד בצפון ופניו במערב סומך במערב ופניו במערב מניח שתי ידיו על גבי קרניו של זבח ולא היה מניח ידיו על גבי זבח ולא היה מניח ידיו זו על גבי זו ולא היה דבר חוצץ בין ידים לקרנות מתודה עליו עון עבירה על חטאת עון חטאת על אשם עון אשמה על עולה עון לקט שכחה ופאה שאין להם וידוי דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי אמר לו רבי עקיבה על מה עולה מכפרת על דברים שיש בהן עונש הרי זה עונש אמור על לא תעשה שלהן אמורה על מה עולה מכפרת על מצות עשה ועל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה. סמיכה נוהגת בכהנים ולוים וישראלים וגרים ועבדים משוחררין חללין נתינין וממזרין סריס אדם סריס חמה פצוע דכה וכרות שפכה אין נוהגת לא בעובדי כוכבים ולא בנשים ולא בעבדים ולא בקטנים.", | |
|
| 46. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 99 |
| 47. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 48. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 223 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 49. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 3-4, 7, 2 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
| 50. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189 |
| 51. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131 |
52. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 54b. ש"מ חומשו כמותו ש"מ,אמר רבא גבי גזל כתיב (ויקרא ה, טז) וחמישיתיו יוסף עליו ותנן נתן לו את הקרן ונשבע לו על החומש הרי זה מוסיף חומש על חומש עד שיתמעט הקרן פחות משוה פרוטה,גבי תרומה כתיב (ויקרא כב, יד) איש כי יאכל קדש בשגגה ויסף חמישיתו עליו ותנן האוכל תרומה בשוגג משלם קרן וחומש אחד האוכל ואחד השותה ואחד הסך אחד תרומה טהורה ואחד תרומה טמאה משלם חומשה וחומשא דחומשא ואילו גבי מעשר לא מכתב כתיב ולא מיתנא תנא ולא איבעויי איבעיא לן,גבי הקדש כתיב (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך ותנן הפודה את הקדשו מוסיף חומש חומשא תנן חומשא דחומשא לא תנן מאי גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף גבי קדש נמי הא כתיב ויסף,או דלמא גבי תרומה כתיב ויסף אי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישיתו הוה ליה חמישיתיו גבי הקדש כתיב ויסף חמישית אע"ג דכי שקלת ליה לוי"ו דויסף ושדית ליה על חמישית סוף סוף הוה ליה חמישיתו,ותיפוק ליה דהוה ליה הקדש שני ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי אהקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש על הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר ליה רב פפי לרבינא הכי אמר רבא חומש כתחילת הקדש דמי,מאי הוי עלה אמר רב טביומי משמיה דאביי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ויסף חמישית כסף ערכך מקיש חומשו לכסף ערכו מה כסף ערכו מוסיף חומש אף כסף חומשו נמי מוסיף חומש,גופא א"ר יהושע בן לוי על הקדש ראשון מוסיף חומש ועל הקדש שני אין מוסיף חומש אמר רבא מ"ט דרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר קרא (ויקרא כז, טו) ואם המקדיש יגאל את ביתו המקדיש ולא המתפיס,תני תנא קמיה דרבי אלעזר (ויקרא כז, כז) ואם בבהמה הטמאה ופדה בערכך מה בהמה טמאה מיוחדת שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים ומועלין בה אף כל שתחילתה הקדש וכולה לשמים מועלין בה,אמר ליה ר' אלעזר לתנא בשלמא כולה לשמים למעוטי קדשים קלים כיון דאית להו לבעלים בגוייהו לית בהו מעילה אלא תחילת הקדש למעוטי מאי תחילת הקדש הוא דאית ביה מעילה סוף הקדש לית ביה מעילה דלמא לענין חומש קאמרת וכרבי יהושע בן לוי אמר ליה אין הכי קאמינא,אמר ליה רב אשי לרבינא בהמה טמאה בתחילת הקדש איתא | 54b. b Learn from it /b that the legal status of b its one-fifth /b payment is b like /b that of the principal b itself, /b in that it must be paid from non-sacred property. The Gemara affirms: b Learn from it /b that it is so.,§ b Rava said: With regard to robbery, it is written: /b “And he shall restore the robbed item that he robbed… b and he shall add its one-fifth payments to it” /b (Leviticus 5:23–24), b and we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bava Kamma /i 103a): If the robber b gave /b the robbery victim b the principal and took /b a false b oath to him concerning the /b additional b one-fifth /b payment, asserting that he had already paid it, then the additional one-fifth is considered a new principal obligation. b This /b robber b adds /b an additional b one-fifth /b payment b apart from /b the additional b one-fifth /b payment about which he had taken a false oath. If he then takes a false oath concerning the second one-fifth payment, he is assessed an additional one-fifth payment for that oath, b until the principal, /b i.e., the additional one-fifth payment about which he has most recently taken the false oath, b is reduced to less than the value of one i peruta /i . /b ,Rava continues: b With regard to i teruma /i /b too, b it is written: “If a man eats that which is sacred unwittingly, then he shall add its one-fifth payment to it” /b (Leviticus 22:14), b and as we learned /b in a mishna ( i Terumot /i 6:1): b One who partakes of i teruma /i unwittingly pays /b the b principal and /b an additional b one-fifth. /b This is the i halakha /i b whether /b it concerns b one who partakes of /b i teruma /i , b or one who drinks /b it, b or one who applies /b oil to himself; or b whether /b it is b ritually pure i teruma /i or ritually impure i teruma /i . He pays its one-fifth /b payment, b and /b if he partook of that one-fifth, he pays b one-fifth of its one-fifth. /b Rava concludes: b While with regard to /b second b tithe, /b it b is neither written /b in the Torah, b nor taught /b in b a mishna, nor raised as a dilemma before us /b by the i amora’im /i .,The Gemara pursues a similar line of inquiry: b With regard to consecrated /b property b it is written: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation /b unto it, and it shall be his” (Leviticus 27:15), b and we learned /b in a mishna (55b): b One who redeems his /b own b consecrated /b property that he consecrated himself b adds one-fifth /b to the sum of the redemption. b We learned one-fifth; we did not learn one-fifth of the one-fifth. What /b is the i halakha /i ? The Gemara elaborates: b With regard to i teruma /i it is written: “Then he shall add,” /b and b with regard to consecrated /b property b too, isn’t it written: “Then he shall add”? /b Apparently, in a case of consecrated property one also pays one-fifth of the one-fifth., b Or perhaps /b we should learn the i halakha /i as follows: b With regard to i teruma /i it is written: “Then he shall add [ i veyasaf /i ],” /b and the i halakha /i of one-fifth of the one-fifth is derived in this manner: b If you take the /b letter b i vav /i of /b the word b i veyasaf /i , and cast it to /b the end of the word b i ḥamishito /i , /b its one-fifth payment, b it /b then b becomes /b the plural b i ḥamishitav /i , /b its one-fifths payments, as it is written in the case of robbery, indicating that one pays one-fifth of one-fifth. b With regard to consecrated /b property, b it is written: “Then he shall add [ i veyasaf /i ] one-fifth [ i ḥamishit /i ].” Even when you take the i vav /i of i veyasaf /i and cast it to /b the end of the word b i ḥamishit /i , ultimately it is /b only b i ḥamishito /i , /b in the singular, indicating payment of only a single one-fifth. What is the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara suggests: b And why not derive /b the i halakha /i of consecrated property from the fact b that it is /b tantamount to b a second consecration. /b When one redeems consecrated property with another item, although that item is thereby consecrated, not all the i halakhot /i of consecrated property apply to it. b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For /b redemption of b first consecration one adds one-fifth; for /b redemption of b second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rav Pappi said to Ravina /b that b this /b is what b Rava said: /b The legal status of the additional b one-fifth is like /b that b of initial consecration, /b not like that of second consecration.,The Gemara asks: b What /b halakhic conclusion b was /b reached b about /b this dilemma? b Rav Tavyumei said in the name of Abaye /b that b the verse states /b with regard to one who redeems a house that he consecrated: b “Then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation /b unto it” (Leviticus 27:15). The Torah b juxtaposes its /b payment of b one-fifth to the money of its valuation, /b i.e., the consecrated house: b Just as /b when redeeming b the money of its valuation one adds one-fifth, so too, /b when redeeming b the money of its one-fifth, one adds one-fifth as well. /b ,§ The Gemara analyzes b the /b matter b itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: For /b redemption of b first consecration one adds one-fifth; for /b redemption of b second consecration one does not add one-fifth. Rava said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? /b It is as b the verse states: “And if he who consecrated it will redeem his house, /b then he shall add one-fifth of the money of your valuation unto it” (Leviticus 27:15), from which it may be inferred that when b he who consecrates /b the house redeems it, he adds one-fifth, b but /b this is b not /b so with regard to b one who associates /b an item with an existing sanctity, as in this case, where the sanctity of the one-fifth is derived from its association with the sanctity of the house.,The Gemara relates that b the i tanna /i /b who recited i mishnayot /i and i baraitot /i in the study hall b taught /b a i baraita /i b before Rabbi Elazar. /b It is written: b “And if it is of a non-kosher animal, then he shall redeem it according to your valuation” /b (Leviticus 27:27). This verse teaches that b just as a non-kosher animal /b that was consecrated b is unique /b in b that it is /b an example of b initial consecration and it is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, /b as neither the owner nor anyone else may derive benefit from it after its consecration, b and one /b violates the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property b by /b using b it /b after it was consecrated, b so too, /b with regard to b any /b item that both undergoes b initial consecration and is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, one /b violates the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property b by /b using b it /b after it was consecrated., b Rabbi Elazar said to the i tanna /i : Granted, /b the statement: b It is /b devoted b entirely to Heaven, /b serves b to exclude offerings of lesser sanctity, /b e.g., peace-offerings. b Since the owners have /b a share b in them, /b as they may partake of those offerings, b they are not subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property. b But what /b does the mention of b initial consecration /b in the i baraita /i serve b to exclude? /b Is it that b initial consecration is subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property and b ultimate consecration is not subject to /b the prohibition against b misuse /b of consecrated property? Even the property consecrated last in a series of redemptions is full-fledged consecrated property. b Perhaps /b it is with regard b to /b the b matter of /b the payment of b one-fifth /b that b you are saying /b this, b and /b it is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi? /b The i tanna /i b said to him: Yes, that is /b what b I am saying. /b ,Apropos that i baraita /i , b Rav Ashi said to Ravina: /b Is it so that b a non-kosher animal is /b subject b to initial consecration /b |
|
53. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 109a. בחייו ובמותו אם מת לא ירשנו ויחזיר לבניו או לאחיו ואם אין לו לוה ובעלי חוב באים ונפרעים:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב יוסף אפילו לארנקי של צדקה אמר רב פפא וצריך שיאמר זה גזל אבי,אמאי נמחליה לנפשיה מי לא תנן מחל לו על הקרן ולא מחל לו על החומש אלמא בר מחילה הוא,אמר רבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא רבי יוסי הגלילי הא רבי עקיבא,דתניא (במדבר ה, ח) ואם אין לאיש גואל להשיב האשם וכי יש אדם בישראל שאין לו גואלים אלא בגזל הגר הכתוב מדבר,הרי שגזל הגר ונשבע לו ושמע שמת הגר והיה מעלה כספו ואשמו לירושלים ופגע באותו הגר וזקפו עליו במלוה ומת זכה הלה במה שבידו דברי רבי יוסי הגלילי ר' עקיבא אומר אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילו מתחת ידו,לרבי יוסי הגלילי לא שנא לנפשיה ל"ש לאחרים מצי מחיל ולרבי עקיבא ל"ש לאחרים ולא שנא לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל,ולר' יוסי הוא הדין דאפי' לא זקפו במלוה והאי דקתני זקפו עליו במלוה להודיעך כחו דרבי עקיבא דאפילו זקפן עליו במלוה אין לו תקנה עד שיוציא גזילה מתחת ידו,מתקיף לה רב ששת אי הכי לרבי יוסי הגלילי לשמעינן לנפשיה וכל שכן לאחרים לרבי עקיבא לשמעינן לאחרים דלא מצי מחיל וכ"ש לנפשיה דלא מצי מחיל,אלא אמר רב ששת הא והא רבי יוסי הגלילי כי קאמר רבי יוסי הגלילי דמצי מחיל לאחרים אבל לנפשיה לא מצי מחיל אלא אמאי זכה הלה במה שבידו משום דזקפן עליו במלוה,רבא אמר הא והא רבי עקיבא כי אמר רבי עקיבא דלא מצי מחיל לנפשיה אבל לאחרים מצי מחיל | 109a. The mishna continues: If the father stated in his vow that his son may not derive benefit from his property b in his life and in his death, /b then even b if /b the father then b dies /b the son b does not inherit /b from b him, /b as the prohibition is still in effect. b And /b instead of taking his inheritance, b he returns /b his portion in the estate b to his sons or to his brothers. And if he does not have /b sufficient funds to subsist without his inheritance, he b borrows /b money in the amount of the value of his share in the inheritance b and /b the b creditors come and are repaid /b from his share., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the i halakha /i written in the mishna that one who robs his father pays the principal and the additional one-fifth payment to the father’s heirs, b Rav Yosef says: /b One may b even /b put this money b in a charity purse /b if he so chooses. b Rav Pappa says: And /b when giving the money b he must say: This /b is what was b robbed /b from b my father. /b ,§ The Gemara questions the mishna’s ruling that one who robs his father must return the stolen item to others even if he is the sole heir. b Why /b must he do this? b Let him forgive /b the debt b to himself; /b as the heir, to whom payment is due, he should be able to forgive it. b Didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (103a) that in the case of a robber who took a false oath claiming to be innocent and later admitted his liability: If the owner b forgave him concerning the principal, but did not forgive him concerning the /b additional b one-fifth /b payment, he need not pursue him to repay the remaining debt. b Apparently, /b even the principal b is subject to forgiveness, /b so why doesn’t he forgive the obligation to himself?, b Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b This is b not difficult. That /b mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, /b who says that this obligation can be forgiven, while b this /b mishna, ruling that a son who robbed his father and is his sole heir cannot forgive the obligation to himself, is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b who holds that this obligation cannot be forgiven.,Rabbi Yoḥa explains: b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 10:16) that the verse states with regard to one who steals from one who then died: b “But if the man has no kinsman /b to whom b restitution may be made for the guilt, /b the restitution for guilt that is made shall be the Lord’s, even the priest’s” (Numbers 5:8). The i baraita /i asks: b But is there /b any b Jewish person who has no kinsmen? /b Since every Jew descends from Jacob our forefather, all Jews have relatives to inherit from them. b Rather, /b it must be that b the verse is speaking of robbery of a convert /b who never married or had children as a Jew, and in any case is no longer legally related to his gentile family; he has no heirs. In this situation the Torah instructs one who robbed from a now-deceased convert to return the stolen item to a priest.,The i baraita /i continues: In the case of one b who robbed a convert and took /b a false b oath to him /b saying that he did not rob him, b and /b then b heard that the convert died; and he was bringing his money, /b for the principal and the additional one-fifth payment, b and his guilt-offering up to Jerusalem /b to pay his debt to the priests and sacrifice his offering, b and he encountered that same convert, /b who in fact had not died; b and, /b instead of having the robber pay the money right away the convert b established it as a loan for /b the robber, b and /b then the convert b died, /b leaving his property ownerless, as he had no heirs; b this /b robber b acquires /b all b that /b is b in his possession, /b as it is now a loan, not money to pay back the theft; this is b the statement of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. Rabbi Akiva says: /b The robber b has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession. /b ,Rabbi Yoḥa explains their respective opinions. b According to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, /b there b is no difference /b if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item b to himself, /b such as in this case of a convert who died or in the case of the mishna where a son robbed his father who then died, and there b is no difference /b if he forgives the return of a stolen item b to others. /b In either case, he b can forgive /b payment. b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b there b is no difference /b if the one to whom payment is due forgives the return of a stolen item b to others /b and there b is no difference /b if he forgives the return of a stolen item b to himself. /b In either case, he b cannot forgive /b payment.,Rabbi Yoḥa continues his analysis: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei /b HaGelili, b the same is true, /b i.e., the i halakha /i would also be, b that /b no liability would remain in the case of the convert b even had he not established /b the robbery debt b as a loan, /b as the robber could forgive the obligation to himself once the convert died. b And /b the fact b that /b the i baraita /i b teaches /b its i halakha /i in a case where he b established it as a loan for /b the robber b is to convey to you the far-reaching nature of /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva: That even /b if he b established it as a loan for him, /b in which case it could be considered as though the robber had returned the stolen item and now has a standard loan debt, nevertheless, the robber b has no remedy until he will remove his stolen item from his possession, /b so as to not benefit from his act of robbery., b Rav Sheshet objects to this /b interpretation of the i baraita /i : b If so, /b then b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, let /b the mishna on 103a, which indicates that one can forgive the principal payment of a robbery, b teach us /b instead that the robbery victim can forgive the obligation b to himself, and /b it would be understood that b all the more so /b one can forgive the obligation b to others. /b And b according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, /b which Rabbi Yoḥa explains to be the opinion stated in the mishna here, b let it teach us that one cannot forgive /b the obligation b to others, and /b it would be understood b all the more so /b with regard to the robber, b that /b he b cannot forgive /b the obligation b to himself. /b , b Rather, Rav Sheshet said: That /b mishna b and this /b mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei HaGelili. When Rabbi Yosei HaGelili is saying that one can forgive /b the return of a stolen item, he meant specifically forgiving the obligation b to others, but /b he b cannot forgive /b the obligation b to himself. /b The Gemara asks: b But /b if that is the i halakha /i , b why did this /b one who robbed a convert who subsequently died b acquire /b all b that /b is b in his possession? Because /b the convert b established it as a loan for him, /b and henceforth it is no longer considered stolen property, but a standard loan debt.,The Gemara offers a different explanation. b Rava said: That /b mishna b and this /b mishna are both in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. When Rabbi Akiva says that /b he b cannot forgive /b the return of a stolen item he meant specifically forgiving the obligation b to himself, /b as in the case of the convert, b but /b he b can forgive /b the obligation b to others. /b |
|
54. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 87b. אתא ר' חייא הדר לרישא עייל בר קפרא הדר לרישא אתא ר"ש ברבי הדר לרישא אתא ר' חנינא (בר) חמא אמר כולי האי נהדר וניזיל לא הדר איקפיד ר' חנינא אזל רב לגביה תליסר מעלי יומי דכפורי ולא איפייס,והיכי עביד הכי והאמר ר' יוסי בר חנינא כל המבקש מטו מחבירו אל יבקש ממנו יותר משלש פעמים רב שאני ור' חנינא היכי עביד הכי והאמר רבא כל המעביר על מדותיו מעבירין לו על כל פשעיו,אלא ר' חנינא חלמא חזי ליה לרב דזקפוהו בדיקלא וגמירי דכל דזקפוהו בדיקלא רישא הוי אמר שמע מינה בעי למעבד רשותא ולא איפייס כי היכי דליזיל ולגמר אורייתא בבבל,ת"ר מצות וידוי ערב יוה"כ עם חשכה אבל אמרו חכמים יתודה קודם שיאכל וישתה שמא תטרף דעתו בסעודה ואע"פ שהתודה קודם שאכל ושתה מתודה לאחר שיאכל וישתה שמא אירע דבר קלקלה בסעודה ואף על פי שהתודה ערבית יתודה שחרית שחרית יתודה במוסף במוסף יתודה במנחה במנחה יתודה בנעילה,והיכן אומרו יחיד אחר תפלתו ושליח צבור אומרו באמצע מאי אמר אמר רב אתה יודע רזי עולם ושמואל אמר ממעמקי הלב ולוי אמר ובתורתך כתוב לאמר ר' יוחנן אמר רבון העולמים,ר' יהודה אמר כי עונותינו רבו מלמנות וחטאתינו עצמו מספר רב המנונא אמר אלהי עד שלא נוצרתי איני כדאי עכשיו שנוצרתי כאילו לא נוצרתי עפר אני בחיי ק"ו במיתתי הרי אני לפניך ככלי מלא בושה וכלימה יהי רצון מלפניך שלא אחטא ומה שחטאתי מרוק ברחמיך אבל לא ע"י יסורין והיינו וידויא דרבא כולה שתא ודרב המנונא זוטא ביומא דכפורי,אמר מר זוטרא לא אמרן אלא דלא אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו אבל אמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו תו לא צריך דאמר בר המדודי הוה קאימנא קמיה דשמואל והוה יתיב וכי מטא שליחא דצבורא ואמר אבל אנחנו חטאנו קם מיקם אמר שמע מינה עיקר וידוי האי הוא,תנן התם בשלשה פרקים בשנה כהנים נושאין את כפיהן ארבעה פעמים ביום בשחרית במוסף במנחה ובנעילת שערים ואלו הן שלשה פרקים בתעניות ובמעמדות וביום הכפורים,מאי נעילת שערים רב אמר צלותא יתירתא ושמואל אמר מה אנו מה חיינו מיתיבי אור יוה"כ מתפלל שבע ומתודה בשחרית מתפלל שבע ומתודה במוסף מתפלל שבע ומתודה במנחה מתפלל שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה,תנאי היא דתניא יום הכפורים עם חשיכה מתפלל שבע ומתודה וחותם בוידוי דברי ר"מ וחכמים אומרים מתפלל שבע ואם רצה לחתום בוידוי חותם תיובתא דשמואל תיובתא,עולא בר רב נחית קמיה דרבא פתח באתה בחרתנו וסיים במה אנו מה חיינו ושבחיה רב הונא בריה דרב נתן אמר ויחיד אומרה אחר תפלתו,אמר רב תפלת נעילה פוטרת את של ערבית רב לטעמיה דאמר צלותא יתירא היא וכיון דצלי ליה תו לא צריך,ומי אמר רב הכי והאמר רב הלכה כדברי האומר תפלת ערבית רשות לדברי האומר חובה קאמר,מיתיבי אור יום הכפורים מתפלל שבע ומתודה שחרית שבע ומתודה מוסף שבע ומתודה בנעילה מתפלל שבע ומתודה ערבית מתפלל שבע מעין שמונה עשרה רבי חנינא בן גמליאל משום אבותיו מתפלל שמונה עשרה שלימות | 87b. b Rabbi Ḥiyya, /b Rav’s uncle and teacher, b came in, /b whereupon Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion and began to read it again. Afterward, b bar Kappara came in, /b and Rav b returned to the beginning /b of the portion out of respect for bar Kappara. Then b Rabbi Shimon, son of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b came in, /b and b he returned /b again b to the beginning /b of the portion. Then, b Rabbi Ḥanina bar Ḥama came in, /b and Rav b said /b to himself: b Shall I go back /b and read b so many times? He did not return /b but continued from where he was. b Rabbi Ḥanina was offended /b because Rav showed that he was less important than the others. b Rav went before /b Rabbi Ḥanina b on Yom Kippur eve /b every year for b thirteen /b years to appease him, b but he would not be appeased. /b ,The Gemara asks: b How could /b Rav b act this way? Didn’t Rabbi Yosei bar Ḥanina say: Anyone who requests forgiveness from another should not ask more than three times? /b The Gemara answers: b Rav is different, /b since he was very pious and forced himself to act beyond the letter of the law. The Gemara asks: b And how could Rabbi Ḥanina act this way /b and refuse to forgive Rav, though he asked many times? b Didn’t Rava say: /b With regard to b anyone who suppresses his honor /b and forgives someone for hurting him, God b pardons all his sins? /b ,The Gemara explains: b Rather, /b this is what happened: b Rabbi Ḥanina saw in a dream /b that b Rav was being hung on a palm tree, and /b he b learned /b as a tradition that b anyone /b about whom there is a dream in b which he was being hung on a palm tree will become the head /b of a yeshiva. b He said: Learn from this that /b providence has decreed that b he must eventually become the head /b of the yeshiva. Therefore, b I will not be appeased, so that he will have to go and study Torah in Babylonia. /b He was conscious of the principle that one kingdom cannot overlap with another, and he knew that once Rav was appointed leader, he, Rabbi Ḥanina, would have to abdicate his own position or die. Therefore, he delayed being appeased, so that Rav would go to Babylonia and be appointed there as head of the yeshiva. In this way, the dream would be fulfilled, as Rav would indeed be appointed as head of a yeshiva, but since he would be in Babylonia, Rabbi Ḥanina would not lose his own position.,§ b The Sages taught: /b The main b mitzva of confession /b is on b Yom Kippur eve when darkness /b falls. b But the Sages said: /b One should also b confess /b on Yom Kippur eve b before he eats and drinks /b at his last meal before the fast b lest he become confused at the meal, /b due to the abundance of food and drink, and be unable to confess afterward. b And although one confessed before he ate and drank, he confesses /b again b after he eats and drinks, /b as b perhaps he committed some sin during the meal /b itself. b And although one confessed /b during b the evening prayer /b on the night of Yom Kippur, b he /b should b confess /b again during b the morning prayer. /b Likewise, although one confessed during the b morning prayer, he /b should still b confess during /b the b additional prayer. /b Similarly, although one confessed b during /b the b additional prayer, he /b should also b confess during /b the b afternoon prayer; /b and although one confessed b during /b the b afternoon prayer, he /b should b confess /b again b during /b the b closing prayer [ i ne’ila /i ]. /b , b And where /b in the Yom Kippur prayers b does one say /b the confession? b An individual /b says it b after his /b i Amida /i b prayer, and the prayer leader says it in the middle /b of the i Amida /i prayer. The Gemara asks: b What does one say; /b what is the liturgy of the confession? b Rav said: /b One says the prayer that begins: b You know the mysteries of the universe, /b in accordance with the standard liturgy. b And Shmuel said /b that the prayer begins with: b From the depths of the heart. And Levi said /b that it begins: b And in your Torah it is written, saying, /b and one then recites the forgiveness achieved by Yom Kippur as stated in the Torah. b Rabbi Yoḥa said /b that it begins: b Master of the Universe. /b , b Rabbi Yehuda said /b that one says: b For our iniquities are too many to count and our sins are too great to number. Rav Hamnuna said: /b This is the liturgy of the confession: b My God, before I was formed I was unworthy. Now that I have been formed, it is as if I had not been formed. I am dust while alive, how much more so when I am dead. See, I am before You like a vessel filled with shame and disgrace. May it be Your will that I may sin no more, and as for /b the sins b I have committed before You, erase /b them b in Your compassion, but not by suffering. /b The Gemara comments: b This is the confession that Rava /b used b all year /b long; b and /b it was the confession b that Rav Hamnuna Zuta /b used b on Yom Kippur. /b , b Mar Zutra said: We said only /b that one must follow all these versions b when he did not say /b the words: b But we have sinned. However, /b if b he said /b the words: b But we have sinned, he need not /b say b anything further /b because that is the essential part of the confession. b As bar Hamdudei said: I was standing before Shmuel and he was sitting; and when the prayer leader reached /b the words: b But we have sinned, /b Shmuel b stood. /b Bar Hamdudei b said: Learn from here that this is the main /b part of b the confession, /b and Shmuel stood up to emphasize the significance of these words.,§ b We learned /b in a mishna b there, /b in tractate i Ta’anit /i : b At three times in the year, priests raise their hands /b to recite the priestly benediction b four times in /b a single b day: In /b the b morning prayer, in /b the b additional prayer, in /b the b afternoon prayer, and at /b the b closing [ i ne’ila /i ] of the gates. And these are /b the b three times /b in the year: b During /b communal b fasts /b for lack of rain, on which the i ne’ila /i prayer is recited; b and during /b non-priestly b watches [ i ma’amadot /i ], /b when the Israelite members of the guard parallel to the priestly watch come and read the account of Creation (see i Ta’anit /i 26a); b and on Yom Kippur. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the closing of the gates, /b i.e., the i ne /i ’ i ila /i prayer? b Rav said: /b It is b an added prayer /b of i Amida /i . b And Shmuel said: /b It is not a full prayer but only a confession that begins with the words: b What are we, what are our lives? /b The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i , as it was taught: On b the night of Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i prayer b and confesses; during /b the b morning prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b additional prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; during /b the b afternoon prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses; /b and b during /b the b i ne’ila /i prayer, one prays seven /b blessings b and confesses. /b This concurs with Rav’s opinion that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer., b This is /b a dispute between b i tanna’im /i /b They all agree that i ne’ila /i is an added prayer but disagree about the obligation to confess at the i ne’ila /i prayer, b as it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : At the end of b Yom Kippur, as darkness /b falls, b one prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i b and confesses and ends with the confession; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He prays seven /b blessings of the i Amida /i , b and if he wishes to end /b his prayer b with a confession, he ends /b it in this way. The Gemara says: If so, b this is a refutation of /b the opinion of b Shmuel, /b since all agree that i ne’ila /i is a complete prayer. The Gemara concludes: Indeed, it is b a /b conclusive b refutation. /b ,The Gemara relates: b Ulla bar Rav went down /b to lead the i ne’ila /i prayer b before Rava, /b who was in the synagogue. b He opened /b the prayer b with: You have chosen us, and he concluded with: What are we, what are our lives? And /b Rava b praised him. Rav Huna, son of Rav Natan, said: And an individual says it after his /b i Amida /i b prayer. /b The individual says the confession after his i Amida /i prayer, not within the i Amida /i prayer as the prayer leader does., b Rav said: The i ne’ila /i prayer exempts /b one from b the evening prayer. /b Since one recited an added prayer after the afternoon prayer, when darkness fell, it serves as the evening prayer. The Gemara comments that b Rav /b conforms b to his /b line of b reasoning /b above, b as he said: It is an added prayer, and since he has prayed it he needs no further /b prayer in the evening.,The Gemara is surprised at this: b And did Rav /b actually b say this? Didn’t Rav say: /b The b i halakha /i is in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the b evening prayer is optional? /b If it is optional, why would Rav use the term exempt? One is exempt even if he does not pray the closing prayer. The Gemara answers: b He said this in accordance with the statement of the one who says /b that the evening prayer b is mandatory. /b Even according to the opinion that maintains that the evening prayer is mandatory, if one recites i ne’ila /i , he has fulfilled his obligation to recite the evening prayer.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from that which we learned in a i baraita /i : During the b evening /b after b Yom Kippur, one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b morning prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b during the b additional prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; during i ne’ila /i one prays seven /b blessings in the i Amida /i b and confesses; /b and during b the evening prayer, /b one prays b seven /b blessings b in /b an b abridged /b version of the b eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer. One recites the first three blessings, the final three, and a middle blessing that includes an abbreviated form of the other weekday blessings. b Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel /b says b in the name of his ancestors: One prays /b the b full eighteen /b blessings of the weekday i Amida /i prayer as usual, |
|
55. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189| 46a. רב פפא אמר מאי בעל לוקה דקתני התם ממון וקרי ליה לממון מלקות אין והא תנן האומר חצי ערכי עלי נותן חצי ערכו רבי יוסי בר' יהודה אומר לוקה ונותן ערך שלם לוקה אמאי אמר רב פפא לוקה בערך שלם,מאי טעמא גזירה חצי ערכו אטו ערך חציו וערך חציו הוי ליה אבר שהנשמה תלויה בו,ת"ר (דברים כב, יט) וענשו אותו זה ממון (דברים כב, יח) ויסרו זה מלקות,בשלמא וענשו זה ממון דכתיב וענשו אותו מאה כסף ונתנו לאבי הנערה אלא ויסרו זה מלקות מנלן,א"ר אבהו למדנו יסרו מיסרו ויסרו מבן ובן מבן (דברים כה, ב) והיה אם בן הכות הרשע,אזהרה למוציא שם רע מנלן ר' אלעזר אמר (ויקרא יט, טז) מלא תלך רכיל רבי נתן אומר (דברים כג, י) מונשמרת מכל דבר רע,ורבי אלעזר מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא מיבעי ליה לכדר' פנחס בן יאיר ונשמרת מכל דבר רע מכאן אמר ר' פנחס בן יאיר אל יהרהר אדם ביום ויבא לידי טומאה בלילה,ור' נתן מאי טעמא לא אמר מהאי ההוא אזהרה לב"ד שלא יהא רך לזה וקשה לזה,לא אמר לעדים בואו והעידוני והן מעידים אותו מאליהן הוא אינו לוקה ואינו נותן מאה סלעים היא וזוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,היא וזוממיה סלקא דעתך אלא או היא או זוממיה מקדימין לבית הסקילה,טעמא דלא אמר להו הא אמר להו אע"ג דלא אגרינהו לאפוקי מדר' יהודה דתניא רבי יהודה אומר אינו חייב עד שישכור עדים,מ"ט דר' יהודה אמר ר' אבהו אתיא שימה שימה כתיב הכא (דברים כב, יד) ושם לה עלילות דברים וכתיב התם (שמות כב, כד) לא תשימון עליו נשך מה להלן ממון אף כאן ממון,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק וכן תני רב יוסף צידוני בי רבי שמעון בן יוחאי אתיא שימה שימה,בעי רבי ירמיה שכרן בקרקע מהו בפחות משוה פרוטה מהו שניהם בפרוטה מהו,בעי רב אשי הוציא שם רע על הנישואין הראשונים מהו על נשואי אחיו מהו,פשוט מיהא חדא דתני ר' יונה (דברים כב, טז) את בתי נתתי לאיש הזה לזה ולא ליבם,מאי רבנן ומאי ר' אליעזר בן יעקב דתניא כיצד הוצאת שם רע בא לבית דין ואמר פלוני לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה,אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו יש לה כתובה מנה בת סקילה היא הכי קאמר אם יש עדים שזינתה תחתיו בסקילה זינתה מעיקרא יש לה כתובה מנה,נמצא ששם רע אינו שם רע הוא לוקה ונותן מאה סלע בין בעל ובין לא בעל רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר לא נאמרו דברים הללו אלא כשבעל בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב (דברים כב, יג) ובא אליה ואקרב אליה,אלא לרבנן מאי ובא אליה ואקרב אליה ובא אליה בעלילות ואקרב אליה בדברים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים אלא לרבנן מאי לא מצאתי לבתך בתולים לא מצאתי לבתך כשרי בתולים,בשלמא לרבי אליעזר בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ואלה בתולי בתי אלא לרבנן מאי ואלה בתולי בתי ואלה כשרי בתולי בתי,בשלמא לר"א בן יעקב היינו דכתיב ופרשו השמלה אלא לרבנן מאי ופרשו השמלה,אמר רבי אבהו פרשו מה ששם לה כדתניא ופרשו השמלה מלמד שבאין עדים של זה ועדים של זה ובוררין את הדבר כשמלה חדשה רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר דברים ככתבן שמלה ממש,שלח רבי יצחק בר רב יעקב בר גיורי משמיה דרבי יוחנן אע"ג שלא מצינו בכל התורה כולה שחלק הכתוב בין ביאה כדרכה לביאה שלא כדרכה למכות ולעונשין אבל מוציא שם רע חלק אינו חייב עד שיבעול שלא כדרכה ויוציא שם רע כדרכה,כמאן אי כרבנן אף על גב דלא בעל אי כר' אליעזר בן יעקב | 46a. b Rav Pappa said: What /b of the statement b that is taught there, /b in the i baraita /i , that it is only if b he had intercourse /b with her that he is b flogged? /b It is referring to the b money /b of the fine. The Gemara asks: b And /b does one b call monetary /b payment b flogging? /b The Gemara answers: b Yes, and we learned /b in a i baraita /i : b One who says: Half my valuation is upon me, he gives half his valuation, /b in accordance with the sum fixed by the Torah according to sex and age (see Leviticus 27:2–3). b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: He is flogged and gives /b his b full valuation. /b The Sages inquired: b Why is he flogged? /b What transgression did he commit? b Rav Pappa said: He is flogged by /b having to pay b a full valuation. /b This proves that monetary payment can be referred to as flogging.,The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b of Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda? It is a rabbinic b decree /b in the case of one who vows to donate b half of his valuation, due to /b a case where one vowed the b valuation of half of himself. And /b one who vows to donate the b valuation of half of himself has /b effectively vowed to donate the valuation of b a limb upon which /b his b life depends, /b e.g., his head or heart, in which case it is as though he vowed to donate his entire valuation. Consequently, even one who vows to donate half of his valuation must donate his entire valuation.,§ The Gemara continues to discuss the i halakhot /i of the defamer. b The Sages taught /b the following i baraita /i , based upon the following verses: “And the Elders of that city shall take the man and chastise him. And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman” (Deuteronomy 22:18–19). b “And they shall fine [ i ve’anshu /i ] him”; this /b is referring to b money. “And chastise /b him”; b this /b is referring to b flogging. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, /b with regard to the phrase b “and they fine [ i ve’anshu /i ] him,” /b although the word i ve’anshu /i can refer to any punishment, in b this /b case it is referring to b money, as it is written: And they shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver, and give them to the father of the young woman. However, /b with regard to the statement of the i baraita /i that: b “And chastise /b him”; b this /b is referring to b flogging, from where do we /b derive this?, b Rabbi Abbahu said: We learned /b the meaning of the word b chastise /b in the case of a defamer by verbal analogy b from /b the word b chastise /b stated in the verse “if a man have a stubborn and rebellious son [ i ben /i ], that will not listen to the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and though they chastise him, will not listen to them” (Deuteronomy 21:18). b And /b the implication of the word b chastise /b in that verse is derived b from /b the word b son /b that appears in the same verse. b And /b the implication of the word b son [ i ben /i ] /b with regard to a rebellious son is derived b from /b the word b i bin /i /b in the verse b “Then it shall be if the wicked man deserve [ i bin /i ] to be flogged” /b (Deuteronomy 25:2).,The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive the b warning, /b i.e., the prohibition that serves as the source for the flogging b for a defamer? Rabbi Elazar says /b that the prohibition is derived b from /b the verse b “You shall not go up and down as talebearer” /b (Leviticus 19:16). b Rabbi Natan says /b that it is derived b from: “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing [ i davar ra /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 23:10), which is expounded to mean i dibbur ra /i , evil speech.,The Gemara asks: b And what is the reason /b that b Rabbi Elazar did not state /b that it is derived from b this /b verse quoted by Rabbi Natan? The Gemara answers: b He requires that /b verse b for /b the statement of b Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair, /b as it was taught: b “Then you shall keep yourself from every evil thing”; from here Rabbi Pineḥas ben Yair said: A person should not think /b impure thoughts b by day and /b thereby b come by night to /b the b impurity /b of an emission.,The Gemara asks the reverse question: b And what is the reason /b that b Rabbi Natan did not state /b that it is derived b from that /b verse cited by Rabbi Elazar? The Gemara answers: Rabbi Natan explains b that /b verse, which includes the term talebearer [ i rakhil /i ], as b a warning to the court that it should not be soft to [ i rakh la /i ] this /b litigant b and harsh to that /b one, but it must treat both sides as equals.,§ The Gemara cites another statement that deals with a defamer: If the husband b did not say to witnesses: Come and testify for me /b that my wife committed adultery, b but they testify /b for b him of their own accord /b and are subsequently discovered to be liars, the husband b is not flogged and does not give /b the b one hundred i sela /i , /b as he did not harm her. b She and her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Does it enter your mind /b to say that b she and her conspiring witnesses /b are stoned? If she is liable to be stoned, they are not conspiring witnesses, and conversely, if they are conspiring witnesses, they are stoned and she is exempt. b Rather, /b this must mean: b Either she or her conspiring witnesses are brought early to the place of stoning. /b If they were telling the truth, she is stoned. If they conspired and offered false testimony, they are liable to be stoned.,The Gemara infers from the i baraita /i that the b reason /b the husband is not flogged or fined is b that /b the husband b did not tell them /b to testify, b but /b if b he told them /b to testify, b although he did not hire them /b but merely persuaded them to testify that his wife had committed adultery as a betrothed woman, he is flogged and must pay the fine. This serves b to exclude /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Yehuda says: /b The husband b is liable /b to the punishments of a defamer b only if he hired witnesses. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b of b Rabbi Yehuda? /b Nowhere does the Torah explicitly state that the husband hired false witnesses. The Gemara answers that b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b It is b derived /b by a verbal analogy between the term b placing, /b written with regard to a defamer, and the term b placing, /b written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest. b It is written here, /b with regard to a defamer: b “And he place wanton charges against her” /b (Deuteronomy 22:14), b and it is written there: “Neither shall you place upon him interest” /b (Exodus 22:24). b Just as below, /b with regard to interest, the verse is referring to b money, so too here, /b in the case of a defamer, it is referring to b money, /b thereby indicating that the husband paid money in order to substantiate his false accusation., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: Rav Yosef Tzidoni likewise taught in the school of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: /b It is b derived /b from the verbal analogy between the term b placing, /b written with regard to a defamer, and the term b placing, /b written with regard to the prohibition against charging interest., b Rabbi Yirmeya raised a dilemma: /b According to the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, if the husband b hired /b the false witnesses b with land /b instead of money, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he hired them b with less than the value of a i peruta /i , what is /b the i halakha /i ? If he hired b both /b witnesses b with a i peruta /i , what is /b the i halakha /i ? Since this i halakha /i is derived from the case of interest, perhaps, like the prohibition against charging interest, it applies only with regard to money, rather than land, and only with money that is greater than the value of a i peruta /i .,Similarly, b Rav Ashi raised a dilemma /b concerning a defamer: If b he defamed /b his wife b with regard to /b their b first marriage, what is /b the i halakha /i ? In other words, if a man married a woman, divorced her, remarried her, and subsequently defamed her by claiming that she had committed adultery during the period of betrothal before their first marriage, what is the i halakha /i ? Similarly, if he performed levirate marriage and then defamed her b with regard to his brother’s marriage /b to her, b what is /b the i halakha /i ?,The Gemara comments: b Resolve at least one /b of these dilemmas, b as Rabbi Yona taught /b that the verse “And the father of the young woman shall say to the Elders: b I gave my daughter to this man” /b (Deuteronomy 22:16) serves to emphasize: I gave him b to this /b man b and not to the i yavam /i , /b i.e., the brother of the original husband. Consequently, if one defames his i yevama /i with regard to her original marriage to his brother, the unique i halakhot /i of defamation do not apply.,§ In the course of the previous discussion, the Gemara mentioned a dispute between the Rabbis and Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. The Gemara asks: b What /b is the opinion of b the Rabbis and what /b is the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b referred to above (45b)? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b How /b does the case of b defamation /b proceed? It involves a situation where the husband b came to the court and said /b to the father: b So-and-so, I have not found /b indications of b your daughter’s virginity. If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, i.e., while betrothed to him, b she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars. /b ,The Gemara interrupts its citation of the i baraita /i , as this last statement is very surprising: b If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, does b she have a marriage contract of one hundred dinars? She is /b punished b by stoning. /b The Gemara explains that b this is what /b the i tanna /i b said: If there are witnesses /b who testify b that she committed adultery under his /b authority, she is liable b to /b receive the punishment of b stoning. /b However, if b she engaged in licentious sexual relations at the outset, /b before her betrothal, when she was still a single woman, she is merely guilty of deceiving her husband with regard to her virginity, and therefore b she has a marriage contract of one hundred dinars, /b which is the standard marriage contract of a non-virgin.,The Gemara resumes its quotation of the i baraita /i : If it was b discovered that the bad name is not a bad name, /b i.e., the husband’s accusation was false, b he is flogged and gives /b her father b one hundred i sela /i , whether he had intercourse with her /b or b whether he had not had intercourse with her. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: These matters were stated only /b in a case b where he had intercourse /b with his wife before defaming her. The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: /b “If a man take a wife b and go in unto her” /b (Deuteronomy 22:13), and: b “And when I came near to her, /b I did not find in her the tokens of virginity” (Deuteronomy 22:14), as both expressions refer to sexual intercourse., b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of the phrases b “and go in unto her,” /b and b “and when I came near to her,” /b if the couple never engaged in intercourse? The Gemara explains that, according to the Rabbis, b “and go in unto her” /b is referring b to /b the b wanton charges /b the husband leveled against his wife; b “and when I came near to her” /b means that he came near b with words, /b not intercourse.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written: “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17), as Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov claims that the husband had relations with her and discovered that she was not a virgin. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of b “I did not find in your daughter the tokens of virginity,” /b if they did not have intercourse? The Gemara answers: The Rabbis explain that he means: b I did not find for your daughter the fitness of virginity, /b i.e., I have discovered that she was unfaithful.,The Gemara asks further: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is as it is written /b that the father replies: b “And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17). He presents a cloth that proves she was a virgin, in opposition to the husband’s claim. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, what is /b the meaning of b “And these are the tokens of my daughter’s virginity”? /b The Rabbis answer that the father means: b And these are the /b proofs of the b fitness of my daughter’s virginity, /b i.e., he either brings witnesses to counter the testimony of the husband’s witnesses or provides some other proof that his daughter was a virgin at the time of her marriage.,The Gemara poses yet another question on the same lines: b Granted, according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, this is at it is written: “And they shall spread the garment” /b (Deuteronomy 22:17). The father brings the sheet on which the couple had intercourse and shows that it is stained with blood. b However, according to /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who claim that a husband can defame his wife even if they have not engaged in intercourse, b what is /b the meaning of the phrase b “And they shall spread the garment [ i hasimla /i ]”? /b , b Rabbi Abbahu said /b that the Rabbis interpret this expression as follows: b They shall spread, /b i.e., examine, b that which he placed against her [ i sam la /i ]. /b In other words, they cross-examine the witnesses who testified against her, b as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b “And they shall spread the garment”; /b this b teaches that the witnesses of this /b husband b come /b forward, b and /b likewise b the witnesses of that /b father come forward, b and /b the court b clarifies the matter like a new garment. Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: The matters /b are b as they are written, /b i.e., the verse refers to b an actual cloth. /b ,§ b Rabbi Yitzḥak bar Rav Ya’akov bar Giyyorei sent /b a message from Eretz Yisrael to Babylonia b in the name of Rabbi Yoḥa: Although we have not found in the entire Torah that /b any b verse distinguishes between sexual intercourse in a typical manner and sexual intercourse in an atypical manner, /b i.e., anal intercourse, b with regard to flogging or /b any other b punishment. However, /b in the case of the b defamer, /b the Torah b does distinguish /b in this manner, as the husband b is obligated /b to pay the fine b only /b if b he had intercourse /b with his wife, even it was b in an atypical manner, and /b he b defames /b her by claiming that she had previously had intercourse b in a typical manner /b with someone else.,The Gemara asks: In b accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling of Rabbi Yoḥa? b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b the husband should be liable b even if he did not have intercourse /b with his wife. b If /b it is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b |
|
56. Babylonian Talmud, Menachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 67 | 86b. strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara asks: How can the mishna state that the second grade of the first harvest and the first grade of the second harvest are of b equal /b quality? b But didn’t you say /b that the b first /b grade of each harvest is fit b for /b kindling b the Candelabrum and the rest /b are fit only b for /b use in b meal offerings? /b It would appear then that the first grade in any harvest is actually superior to the second grade of other harvests. To resolve this, b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: What /b does the mishna mean when it states that b they are /b of b equal /b quality? It means that b they are equal with regard to meal offerings, /b and there is no reason to choose one over the other.,§ The mishna teaches: b Also /b with regard to b all the meal offerings, it was logical /b that they should require refined olive oil. To dispel this notion, the verse states: “Refined pounded olive oil for illumination” (Leviticus 24:2). b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse cited in the mishna: The word b “refined” /b means b nothing other than clean /b oil, which flows by itself from the olives without applying any pressure. b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the word b “pounded” /b means b nothing other than /b olives b crushed /b with a mortar, but not with a millstone.,One b might /b have thought that b refined, pounded /b oil b is unfit for meal offerings, /b since the verse specifies that this oil is to be used for illumination. To dispel this notion, b the verse states /b with regard to the meal offering brought with the daily offering: b “And a tenth of fine flour, thoroughly mixed with /b a quarter of a i hin /i of b pounded oil” /b (Exodus 29:40). This indicates that pounded oil is fit to be used in meal offerings. b If so, what /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b that the refined pounded oil is b “for illumination”? Rather, /b the Torah requires the use of refined pounded oil only for the Candelabrum, b due to the sparing [ i haḥisakhon /i ] /b of money, as the highest-quality oil is very expensive.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the reason for being b sparing? Rabbi Elazar says: /b The intention is that b the Torah spared the money of the Jewish people /b and did not require that the highest-quality oil be used for the meal offerings.,§ The Gemara discusses the Candelabrum and other aspects of the Temple. The verse states: b “Command the children of Israel, and they shall take for yourself refined pounded olive oil /b for illumination, to kindle the lamps continually” (Leviticus 24:2). b Rabbi Shmuel bar Naḥmani says: /b God tells the Jewish people that the oil should be taken b “for yourself,” /b to indicate that it is for their benefit b and not for My /b benefit, as b I do not need its light. /b ,Similarly, with regard to the b Table /b of the shewbread, located b in the north /b of the Sanctuary, b and /b the b Candelabrum, /b located b in the south /b of the Sanctuary, b Rabbi Zerika says /b that b Rabbi Elazar says: /b God said to the Jewish people: b I do not require /b the Table b for eating, nor do I require /b the Candelabrum b for its illumination. /b In evidence of this, the Candelabrum was not positioned close to the Table, as is done by one who sets a table with food in order to eat there.,With regard the Temple built by King Solomon, the verse states: b “And he made for the House, windows narrow and broad” /b (I Kings 6:4). The Sages b taught /b in a i baraita /i : Typically, windows are constructed to widen toward the inside in order that the light from the outside would be dispersed throughout the room. For the Temple, God said: Make the windows b narrow within and broad without, /b as b I do not require its illumination. /b On the contrary, the light of the Temple is to be radiated outward.,God instructed Aaron to kindle the Candelabrum: b “Outside the Curtain of the testimony in the Tent of Meeting” /b (Leviticus 24:3). The dividing curtain is referred to here as: The Curtain of the testimony, to indicate that the illumination of the Candelabrum b is testimony to all of humanity that the Divine Presence rests among the Jewish people. /b , b And if you /b question this and b say: /b How is this testimony; perhaps the Candelabrum is lit for illumination? To this God would respond: Do b I need its light? But isn’t /b it so that for b all forty years that /b the b Jewish people walked in the wilderness /b of Sinai until they entered Eretz Yisrael, b they walked exclusively by His light, /b i.e., from the pillar of fire that guided them at night. If God provides light for others, he certainly does not need it Himself. b Rather, /b evidently, the illumination of the Candelabrum b is testimony to all of humanity that the Divine Presence rests among the Jewish people. /b , b What /b provides b its testimony? Rava says: /b The testimony b is /b provided by b the westernmost lamp /b of the Candelabrum, b in which they place /b a quantity of b oil equivalent /b to that placed in b the other /b lamps, b and /b nevertheless it continues to burn longer than any of the other lamps. It burns so long that every evening, b from it /b the priest b would kindle /b the Candelabrum, i.e., he lit that westernmost lamp first, b and /b the following morning, b with it he would conclude /b the preparation of the lamps for the following evening’s lighting, because it remained alight longer than any of the other lamps. This perpetual miracle was testimony to God’s continuous presence among His people., strong MISHNA: /strong b From where would they bring the wine /b for libations? b Keduḥim and Attulin /b are the b primary /b sources b for wine. Secondary to them /b is b Beit Rima and Beit Lavan, /b located b in the mountain, and /b the b village of Signa, /b located b in the valley. All the regions were valid /b sources for wine; b but /b it was b from here, /b i.e., the aforementioned locations, that b they would bring /b the wine., b One may not bring /b libations of wine that come b from a fertilized vineyard, or from an irrigated vineyard, or from /b a vineyard in b which /b grain b was sown between /b the vines. b But if one did bring /b a libation from such wine, it is b valid. One may not bring /b libations from b sweet wine made from sun-dried grapes [ i hilyasteyon /i ], but if one did bring /b a libation from such wine, it is b valid. One may not bring /b wine b aged /b for one year; this is b the statement of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b but the Rabbis deem it valid. One may not bring /b libations from b sweet /b wine, b nor /b from wine produced from b smoked /b grapes, b nor /b libations b from boiled /b wine, b and if one did bring /b a libation from such wine, it is b not valid. And one may not bring /b wine produced from b grapes suspended /b on stakes or trees; b rather, /b one brings it b from grapes at foot /b height, i.e., that rest on the ground, which are superior-quality grapes, and from b vineyards that are cultivated, /b i.e., where one hoes beneath the vines twice a year., b And /b when producing wine for libations, b one should not collect /b the wine b into large barrels, /b as it causes the wine to spoil; b rather, /b it should be placed b in small casks. And one does not fill up /b the cask b until its mouth; /b rather, one leaves some empty space b so that its fragrance will /b collect there and b diffuse /b when the lid is opened., b One should not bring /b libations b from /b wine that rests at the b mouth of /b the cask b due to /b |
|
57. Babylonian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 71| 66a. שורך נרבע והלה שותק נאמן ותנא תונא ושנעבדה בו עבירה ושהמית על פי עד אחד או ע"פ הבעלים נאמן האי ע"פ עד אחד היכי דמי אי דקא מודו בעלים היינו ע"פ הבעלים אלא לאו דשתיק,וצריכא דאי אשמעינן הך קמייתא אי לאו דקים ליה בנפשיה דעבד חולין בעזרה לא הוה מייתי,אבל נטמאו טהרותיך מימר אמרינן האי דשתיק דסבר חזי ליה בימי טומאתו,ואי אשמעינן הא משום דקא מפסיד ליה בימי טהרתו אבל שורו נרבע מימר אמר כל השוורים לאו לגבי מזבח קיימי צריכא,איבעיא להו אשתו זינתה בעד אחד ושותק מהו אמר אביי נאמן רבא אמר אינו נאמן הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,אמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דההוא סמיא דהוה מסדר מתנייתא קמיה דמר שמואל יומא חד נגה ליה ולא הוה קאתי שדר שליחא אבתריה אדאזיל שליח בחדא אורחא אתא איהו בחדא כי אתא שליח אמר אשתו זינתה אתא לקמיה דמר שמואל א"ל אי מהימן לך זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפיק,מאי לאו אי מהימן עלך דלאו גזלנא הוא ורבא אי מהימן לך כבי תרי זיל אפקה ואי לא לא תפקה,ואמר אביי מנא אמינא לה דתניא מעשה בינאי המלך שהלך לכוחלית שבמדבר וכיבש שם ששים כרכים ובחזרתו היה שמח שמחה גדולה וקרא לכל חכמי ישראל אמר להם אבותינו היו אוכלים מלוחים בזמן שהיו עסוקים בבנין בית המקדש אף אנו נאכל מלוחים זכר לאבותינו והעלו מלוחים על שולחנות של זהב ואכלו,והיה שם אחד איש לץ לב רע ובליעל ואלעזר בן פועירה שמו ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך לבם של פרושים עליך ומה אעשה הקם להם בציץ שבין עיניך הקים להם בציץ שבין עיניו,היה שם זקן אחד ויהודה בן גדידיה שמו ויאמר יהודה בן גדידיה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך רב לך כתר מלכות הנח כתר כהונה לזרעו של אהרן שהיו אומרים אמו נשבית במודיעים ויבוקש הדבר ולא נמצא ויבדלו חכמי ישראל בזעם,ויאמר אלעזר בן פועירה לינאי המלך ינאי המלך הדיוט שבישראל כך הוא דינו ואתה מלך וכהן גדול כך הוא דינך ומה אעשה אם אתה שומע לעצתי רומסם ותורה מה תהא עליה הרי כרוכה ומונחת בקרן זוית כל הרוצה ללמוד יבוא וילמוד,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק מיד נזרקה בו אפיקורסות דהוה ליה למימר תינח תורה שבכתב תורה שבעל פה מאי מיד ותוצץ הרעה על ידי אלעזר בן פועירה ויהרגו כל חכמי ישראל והיה העולם משתומם עד שבא שמעון בן שטח והחזיר את התורה ליושנה,היכי דמי אילימא דבי תרי אמרי אישתבאי ובי תרי אמרי לא אישתבאי מאי חזית דסמכת אהני סמוך אהני,אלא בעד אחד וטעמא דקא מכחשי ליה בי תרי הא לאו הכי מהימן,ורבא לעולם תרי ותרי וכדאמר רב אחא בר רב מניומי בעדי הזמה הכא נמי בעדי הזמה,ואיבעית אימא כדרבי יצחק דאמר רבי יצחק שפחה הכניסו תחתיה,אמר רבא | 66a. b Your ox was used /b by a man b for an act of bestiality /b and is therefore unfit for an offering, b and the other, /b the owner of the ox, b is silent, /b the witness is b deemed credible. And the i tanna /i /b of the mishna also b taught /b ( i Bekhorot /i 41a): b And /b with regard to an animal b that was used for a transgression /b or b that killed, /b if this is attested to b by one witness or by the owner, /b he is b deemed credible. /b The Gemara clarifies this case: b What are the circumstances /b of b this /b case of the mishna, where the knowledge is established b by one witness? If the owner admits /b to the claim, b this is /b the same as: b By the owner. Rather, is it not /b referring to a case b where /b the owner remains b silent? /b ,The Gemara comments: b And /b each of these statements of Abaye is b necessary. As, had he taught us /b only b that first /b case, where the witness said someone ate forbidden fat, one might have said that he is deemed credible for the following reason: b Were it not /b for the fact b that he himself /b was b convinced that he had committed /b a transgression, b he would not /b commit the transgression of b bringing a non-sacred /b animal b to /b the Temple b courtyard /b on the basis of the testimony of one witness. Consequently, his silence is evidently an admission., b But /b if the witness said: b Your ritually pure /b foods b were rendered ritually impure, /b and the accused was silent, b we would say: /b The reason b that /b he is b silent /b and refrains from denying the claim is b that he thinks /b he is not suffering any significant loss, as the food b is fit for him /b to eat b on his days of ritual impurity, /b because he is not required to destroy ritually impure foods., b And had /b Abaye b taught us /b only the case of: Your ritually pure food was rendered ritually impure, one might have said that the reason b this /b witness is deemed credible is b that he causes him a loss on his days of ritual impurity, /b and therefore his silence is tantamount to a confession. b But /b in the case of: b His ox was used /b by a man b for an act of bestiality, /b the owner of the ox b can say /b with regard to his animal: b Not all the oxen stand /b ready to be sacrificed b as /b an offering on the b altar. /b Perhaps one would think that the owner does not bother denying the claim because he merely forfeits the possibility of sacrificing his ox as an offering, which he considers an inconsequential matter. It is only if there were two witnesses to the act that the animal is put to death, whereas here there was only one witness. It is therefore b necessary /b for Abaye to specify all these cases.,§ b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages: If a husband is told b by one witness /b that b his wife committed adultery, and /b the husband remains b silent, what is /b the i halakha /i ? b Abaye said: /b The witness is b deemed credible. Rava said: He is not deemed credible. /b Why not? Because b it is a matter involving forbidden relations, and there is no matter /b of testimony b for forbidden sexual relations /b that can be attested to by b fewer than two /b witnesses., b Abaye said: From where do I say /b this claim of mine? It happened b that /b there was b a certain blind man who would review i mishnayot /i before Mar Shmuel. One day /b the blind man b was late for him and was not arriving. /b Mar Shmuel b sent a messenger after him /b to assist him. b While /b the b messenger was going /b to the blind man’s house b by one way, /b the blind man b arrived /b at the house of study b by a different /b route, and therefore the messenger missed him and reached his house. b When /b the b messenger came /b back, b he said /b that he had been to the blind man’s house and saw that b his wife committed adultery. /b The blind man b came before Mar Shmuel /b to inquire whether he must pay heed to this testimony. Mar Shmuel b said to him: If /b this messenger b is trusted by you, go /b and b divorce her, but if not, do not divorce /b her.,Abaye comments: b What, is it not /b correct to say that this means that b if he is trusted by you that he is not a thief /b but is a valid witness, you must rely on him? This would prove that a single witness can testify in a case of this kind. b And Rava /b explains that Mar Shmuel meant: b If /b he b is trusted by you like two /b witnesses, b go /b and b divorce her, but if not, do not divorce /b her. Consequently, Rava maintains that this episode affords no proof., b And Abaye said: From where do I say /b this claim of mine? b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b An incident /b occurred b with King Yannai, who went to /b the region of b Koḥalit in the desert and conquered sixty cities there. And upon his return he rejoiced /b with b a great happiness /b over his victory. b And he /b subsequently b summoned all the Sages of the Jewish people /b and b said to them: Our ancestors /b in their poverty b would eat salty foods when they were busy with the building of the Temple; we too shall eat salty foods in memory of our ancestors. And they brought salty food on tables of gold, and ate. /b , b And there was one /b person b present, a scoffer, /b a man of b an evil heart and a scoundrel called Elazar ben Po’ira. And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the hearts of the Pharisees, /b the Sages, b are against you. /b In other words, they harbor secret resentment against you and do not like you. The king replied: b And what shall I do /b to clarify this matter? Elazar responded: b Have them stand by /b wearing b the frontplate between your eyes. /b Since the frontplate bears the Divine Name, they should stand in its honor. Yannai, who was a member of the priestly Hasmonean family, also served as High Priest, who wears the frontplate. b He had /b the Pharisees b stand by /b wearing b the frontplate between his eyes. /b ,Now b there was a certain elder present called Yehuda ben Gedidya, and Yehuda ben Gedidya said to King Yannai: King Yannai, the crown of the monarchy suffices for you, /b i.e., you should be satisfied that you are king. b Leave the crown of the priesthood for the descendants of Aaron. /b The Gemara explains this last comment: b As they would say /b that Yannai’s b mother was taken captive in Modi’in, /b and she was therefore disqualified from marrying into the priesthood, which meant that Yannai was a i ḥalal /i . b And the matter was investigated and was not discovered, /b i.e., they sought witnesses for that event but none were found. b And the Sages of Israel were expelled in /b the king’s b rage, /b due to this rumor., b And Elazar ben Po’ira said to King Yannai: King Yannai, such is the judgment of a common person in Israel. /b In other words, merely expelling a slanderer is appropriate if the subject of the slander is a commoner. b But you are a king and a High Priest. /b Is b this your judgment /b as well? Yannai replied: b And what should I do? /b Elazar responded: b If you listen to my advice, crush them. /b Yannai countered: b But what will become of the Torah? /b He retorted: b Behold, /b it b is wrapped and placed in the corner. Anyone who wishes to study can come and study. /b We have no need for the Sages.,The Gemara interjects: b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: Immediately, heresy was injected into /b Yannai, b as he should have said /b to Elazar ben Po’ira: This b works out well /b with regard to b the Written Torah, /b as it can be studied by all on their own, but b what /b will become of b the Oral Torah? /b The Oral Torah is transmitted only by the Sages. The i baraita /i continues: b Immediately, the evil /b arose and b caught fire through Elazar ben Po’ira, and all the Sages of the Jewish people were killed. And the world was desolate /b of Torah b until Shimon ben Shataḥ came and restored the Torah to its former /b glory. This completes the i baraita /i .,Abaye asks: b What are the circumstances /b of this case? How did those who conducted the investigation refute the rumor that Yannai’s mother had been taken captive? b If we say that two /b witnesses b said /b that b she was taken captive, and two /b others b said /b that b she was not taken captive, what did you see that you rely on these /b who said that she was not taken captive? Instead, b rely on these /b who said that she was taken captive. In such a scenario, one cannot say definitively that the matter was investigated and found to be false., b Rather, /b it must be referring b to one witness /b who testified she was taken captive, and two testified that she was not taken captive. b And the reason /b that the lone witness is not deemed credible is only b that he is contradicted by the /b other b two, /b from which it may be inferred that b if not for that /b fact, b he would be deemed credible. /b This supports Abaye’s claim that an uncontested lone witness is deemed credible in a case of this kind., b And Rava /b could reply that this incident affords no proof, for the following reason: b Actually, /b one can say that there were b two /b witnesses who testified that she was captured b and two /b who testified that she was not, b and /b the case was decided b in accordance with that /b which b Rav Aḥa bar Rav Minyumi says /b in a different context, that it is referring b to conspiring witnesses. /b The second pair of witnesses did not contradict the testimony of the first pair but established them as liars by stating that the first pair were not there to witness the event. This serves to disqualify the testimony of the first pair altogether. b Here too, /b it is referring b to /b witnesses who rendered the first set b conspiring witnesses. /b , b And if you wish, say /b that this is b in accordance with /b the version of the story stated b by Rabbi Yitzḥak, as Rabbi Yitzḥak says: They replaced /b Yannai’s mother b with a maidservant. /b The first witnesses saw that Yannai’s mother was about to be taken captive, but the second pair revealed that she had actually been replaced with a maidservant, thereby negating the testimony of the first set., b Rava says: /b |
|
58. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189| 30a. וכל לישני דבי דינא ולא הוה כתב בה במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי,סבר רבינא למימר היינו דריש לקיש א"ל רב נתן בר אמי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כל כי האי גוונא חיישינן לב"ד טועין,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אי כתב בה בי דינא תו לא צריך,ודילמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו ב"ד חצוף דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנא אשי,ודילמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו דכתיב בו (ואמרנא ליה לרבנא אשי) ואמר לן רבנא אשי,ת"ר אמר להן אחד אני ראיתי אביכם שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן בבית לא אמר כלום בשדה דבריו קיימין,כללו של דבר כל שבידו ליטלן דבריו קיימין אין בידו ליטלן לא אמר כלום,הרי שראו את אביהן שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן אם כמוסר דבריו קיימין אם כמערים לא אמר כלום,הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:,שנים אומרים זכאי כו': מיכתב היכי כתבי,ר' יוחנן אמר זכאי ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין (ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין) רבי (אליעזר) אמר מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לשלומי איהו מנתא בהדייהו דלמאן דאמר זכאי משלם ולמאן דאמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלם,ולמ"ד זכאי משלם לימא להו אי לדידי צייתיתון אתון נמי לא שלמיתון,אלא איכא בינייהו לשלומי אינהו מנתא דידיה למ"ד זכאי משלמי למ"ד פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלמי,ולמאן דאמר זכאי משלמי ולימרו ליה אי לאו את בהדן לא הוה סליק דינא מידי,אלא איכא בינייהו משום (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך רבי יוחנן אמר זכאי משום לא תלך רכיל,ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני פלוני מחייבין משום דמיחזי כשיקרא,ור' אלעזר אית ליה דמר ואית ליה דמר הלכך כתבי הכי מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני:,גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין כו': למאן אילימא לבעלי דינין התם קיימי אלא לעדים,כמאן דלא כרבי נתן דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד רבי נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין את דבריו,לא לעולם לבעלי דינין ורבי נחמיה היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כך היה מנהגן של נקיי הדעת שבירושלים מכניסין לבעלי דינין ושומעין דבריהן ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם ומוציאין אותן לחוץ ונושאין ונותנין בדבר (גמרו את הדבר מכניסין אותן כו'),והתניא גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים ההיא דלא כרבי נתן,גופא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא,איבעית אימא סברא אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי ומנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קמסהיד האי ואידך אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי,ואיבעית אימא קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע,ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד,זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחד,ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון חד למימר עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד ואידך והוא עד או ראה או ידע מ"מ:,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בב"ד עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא,אב"א סברא מר סבר עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי לממונא לא אתי,ואידך אטו כי אתו בהדי הדדי בחד פומא קא מסהדי אלא מצרפינן להו הכא נמי ליצרפינהו,ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו | 30a. b and all of the formulations /b of an enactment b of the court /b were written in it. But only two were signed on it, b and /b the following statement b was not written in it: We were /b convened b in a session of three /b judges, b and one /b of the judges b is no /b longer here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly., b Ravina thought to say /b that b this is /b a case in which the principle b of Reish Lakish, /b that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. b Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This /b is what b we say in the name of Rava: /b In b any cases like this, we are concerned for /b the possibility of b an erroneous court /b that thinks that two constitute a court., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written in /b the document: We, the members of b the court, /b convened, it is b unnecessary /b for the deed to b further /b state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: /b With regard to b two /b judges b who /b convened a tribunal and b judged, their verdict is /b a binding b verdict; but /b because they contravened the rabbinic ordice mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, b they are called an impudent court. /b The Gemara answers: It was a document b in which it was written: /b We, the members of b the court of Rabbana Ashi, /b convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, /b that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document b in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. /b Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where b one said to /b the children of another: b I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, /b and the money was found where he said, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was b in the house, /b the witness has b said nothing. /b His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was b in the field, his statement stands, /b i.e., is accepted., b The principle of the matter /b is as follows: In b any /b case b where it is in /b the b power of /b the witness b to take /b the money, b his statement stands; /b if b it is not in his power to take /b the money, b he has said nothing. /b ,In a case b where /b the children themselves b saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and /b the father b said: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, if /b he said so b as one who relays /b information to his own children, b his statement stands. /b But b if /b he said so b as one who employs artifice, /b i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, b he has said nothing, /b and they may spend the money.,In a case b where /b one b was distressed about money that his father left him /b as an inheritance, because he could not find it, b and the master of the dream, /b i.e., someone in his dream, b came and said to him: It is such and such /b an amount of money and b it is in such and such a place, /b but the money b is second tithe, /b and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and b this was /b an actual b incident /b that was brought before the Sages, b and they said /b that he can spend the money, as b matters /b appearing in b dreams do not make a difference /b in determining the practical i halakha /i .,§ The mishna teaches that if b two /b judges b say /b the defendant is b exempt /b and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, b how do they write /b the verdict?, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b They write that he is b exempt, /b without mentioning the dispute. b Reish Lakish says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable; /b they must mention that there was a dispute. b Rabbi Eliezer says /b that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: b From the statement of /b the judges b so-and-so was deemed exempt, /b to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the difference b between /b these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference b between them /b is b with regard to /b whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must b pay /b his b portion /b of restitution b along with /b the judges of the majority. b As according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b the minority judge b pays /b as well, b and according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, he does not pay. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b does he pay? Let him say to /b the other judges: b If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either. /b Why should I have to pay for your mistake?, b Rather, /b he does not pay, and the practical difference b between /b the opinions is b with regard to /b whether or not b those /b other judges must b pay his portion /b of the restitution. b According to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, they pay /b the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But b according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, they do not pay /b the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b do they pay /b his portion? b Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all, /b as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment., b Rather, /b the difference b between /b the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is b due to /b the prohibition of: b “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” /b (Leviticus 19:16). b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that they write that he is b exempt due to /b the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: b “You shall not go as a talebearer.” /b , b Reish Lakish says /b they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, because /b otherwise the document would b have the appearance of falsehood, /b as not all the judges deemed him exempt., b And Rabbi Elazar accepts /b the opinion b of /b this b Sage, /b Rabbi Yoḥa, b and accepts /b the opinion b of /b that b Sage, /b Reish Lakish. b Therefore, this /b is what b they write: From the statement of /b the judges, b so-and-so was deemed exempt. /b This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.,§ The mishna teaches that after the judges b finished the matter /b and reached a decision, b they would bring /b them b in. /b The Gemara asks: b Whom /b would they bring in? b If we say /b they would bring in b the litigants, /b this cannot be, as b they were there /b the whole time; they never left the room. b Rather, /b they would bring in b the witnesses. /b ,If so, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna? It is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan; as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.,The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: b No, actually /b it can be explained that the judges would bring in b the litigants; and it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: /b When they would judge, b they /b would b bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and /b then b they /b would b bring in the witnesses and hear their statements /b in the presence of the litigants, b and /b then b they /b would b take them /b all b outside /b of the courtroom b and discuss the matter /b in their absence. Once b they finished the matter they /b would b bring them, /b i.e., the litigants, b in, /b to hear their verdict.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i explicitly: When b they finished the matter they /b would b bring in the witnesses? /b The Gemara answers: b That /b i baraita /i is certainly b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan. /b ,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself: The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, and if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning: /b The first i tanna /i holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, b about the one hundred dinars /b of debt b that this /b one b is testifying, that /b one b is not testifying, and /b about b the one hundred dinars that that /b one b is testifying, this one is not testifying. /b There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since b both /b witnesses b are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, /b the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, as it is written: /b “And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, b and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, /b if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara explains: b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); b by inference, from that /b which b is stated /b in the verse: b A witness shall not rise up /b against a man, even without the word “one,” b do I not know that it is /b referring to b one /b witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, b what /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b explicitly: b “One /b witness”?, b This established a paradigm, /b a basis for the principle that in b every place /b in the Torah b where /b the word b “witness” is stated, /b it means that b there are two /b witnesses, b unless the verse specifies for you /b that it is referring to only b one /b witness., b And /b according to the first i tanna /i , b the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, /b i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” b to say /b that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: b “And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,” /b that b in any case /b where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.,The i baraita /i cited above teaches: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b and b if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b as one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b when one witness comes /b to testify, b he comes to /b render the defendant liable to take b an oath. /b This is the i halakha /i when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. b He does not come to /b render the defendant liable to pay b money, /b because for this two witnesses are necessary., b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Natan, responds: b Is that to say /b that b when they come together, /b they render the defendant ficially liable because b they testify with one mouth? /b Obviously they testify one after the other. b Rather, /b clearly it is the judges who b combine /b their two testimonies into one. b Here too, /b when the witnesses come to court at different times, b let /b the judges b combine /b their testimonies., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1), |
|
59. Babylonian Talmud, Bekhorot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 99| 30b. חשוד על המעשר ומאן חכמים ר' יהודה וחד אמר החשוד על המעשר חשוד על השביעית ומאן חכמים ר' מאיר,דתניא עם הארץ שקיבל עליו דברי חבירות ונחשד לדבר אחד נחשד לכל התורה כולה דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים אינו נחשד אלא לאותו דבר בלבד,הגר שקיבל עליו דברי תורה אפי' נחשד לדבר אחד הוי חשוד לכל התורה כולה והרי הוא כישראל משומד נפקא מינה דאי קדיש קידושיו קידושין,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו עובד כוכבים שבא לקבל דברי תורה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו ר' יוסי בר' יהודה אומר אפי' דקדוק אחד מדברי סופרים,וכן בן לוי שבא לקבל דברי לויה וכהן שבא לקבל דברי כהונה חוץ מדבר אחד אין מקבלין אותו שנאמר (ויקרא ז, לג) המקריב את דם השלמים וגו' העבודה המסורה לבני אהרן כל כהן שאינו מודה בה אין לו חלק בכהונה,ת"ר הבא לקבל דברי חבירות אם ראינוהו שנוהג בצינעה בתוך ביתו מקבלין אותו ואחר כך מלמדין אותו ואם לאו מלמדין אותו ואחר כך מקבלין אותו ר"ש בן יוחי אומר בין כך ובין כך מקבלין אותו והוא למד כדרכו והולך:,ת"ר מקבלין לכנפים ואח"כ מקבלין לטהרות ואם אמר איני מקבל אלא לכנפים מקבלין אותו קיבל לטהרות ולא קיבל לכנפים אף לטהרות לא קיבל:,ת"ר עד כמה מקבלין אותו בית שמאי אומרים למשקין שלשים יום לכסות שנים עשר חודש ובית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשנים עשר חודש,אם כן הוה ליה מקולי בית שמאי ומחומרי בית הלל אלא בית הלל אומרים אחד זה ואחד זה לשלשים:,(סימן חב"ר תלמי"ד תכל"ת מכ"ם חז"ר גבא"י בעצמ"ו),תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ובניו ובני ביתו אינן צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים רבן שמעון בן גמליאל אומר אף בניו ובני ביתו צריכין לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים לפי שאינו דומה חבר שקיבל לבן חבר שקיבל:,תנו רבנן הבא לקבל דברי חבירות צריך לקבל בפני ג' חבירים ואפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים זקן ויושב בישיבה אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים שכבר קיבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף תלמיד חכם אינו צריך לקבל בפני שלשה חבירים ולא עוד אלא שאחרים מקבלין לפניו,אמר רבי יוחנן בימי בנו של רבי חנינא בן אנטיגנוס נשנית משנה זו רבי יהודה ור' יוסי איסתפק להו מילתא בטהרות שדרו רבנן לגבי בנו של ר' חנינא בן אנטיגנוס אזילו אמרו ליה לעיין בה אשכחוה דקא טעין טהרות אותיב רבנן מדידיה לגבייהו וקאי איהו לעיוני בה,אתו אמרי ליה לר' יהודה ור' יוסי אמר להו ר' יהודה אביו של זה ביזה תלמידי חכמים אף הוא מבזה תלמידי חכמים,אמר לו ר' יוסי כבוד זקן יהא מונח במקומו אלא מיום שחרב בית המקדש נהגו כהנים סילסול בעצמן שאין מוסרין את הטהרות לכל אדם:,תנו רבנן חבר שמת אשתו ובניו ובני ביתו הרי הן בחזקתן עד שיחשדו וכן חצר שמוכרין בה תכלת הרי היא בחזקתה עד שתיפסל:,תנו רבנן אשת עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן בתו של עם הארץ שנשאת לחבר וכן עבדו של עם הארץ שנמכר לחבר כולן צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה אבל אשת חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן בתו של חבר שנשאת לעם הארץ וכן עבדו של חבר שנמכר לעם הארץ אין צריכין לקבל דברי חבירות בתחלה,ר"מ אומר אף הן צריכין לקבל עליהן דברי חבירות לכתחלה ר"ש בן אלעזר אומר משום ר"מ מעשה באשה אחת שנשאת לחבר והיתה קומעת לו תפילין על ידו נשאת לעם הארץ והיתה קושרת לו קשרי מוכס על ידו: | 30b. is b suspect with regard to tithe. And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Yehuda, /b as in his locale they treated the prohibition of produce of the Sabbatical Year stringently. b And /b the other b one says: One who is suspect with regard to tithe is suspect with regard to /b produce of the b Sabbatical /b Year. b And who /b are the Sages referred to here as b the Rabbis? /b It is b Rabbi Meir. /b , b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b an i am ha’aretz /i , /b i.e., one who is unreliable with regard to ritual impurity and tithes, b who accepts upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, /b i.e., that he will be stringent in all matters observed by i ḥaverim /i , including i teruma /i , tithes, and i ḥalla /i , and also undertake to eat only food that is ritually pure, and the Sages accepted him as trustworthy b but /b subsequently he b was suspected with regard to one matter /b in which others saw him act improperly, b he is suspected with regard to the entire Torah. /b This is the b statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: He is suspected only with regard to that particular matter. /b ,It is also taught in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , i Demai /i 2:4): With regard to b a convert who accepted upon himself /b upon his conversion b matters of Torah, /b i.e., all of the mitzvot, b even if he is suspect with regard to one matter /b alone, b he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, and he is /b considered b like a Jewish transgressor [ i meshummad /i ], /b who habitually transgresses the mitzvot. The Gemara explains that the practical b difference /b resulting from the fact that he is considered like a Jewish transgressor is b that if he betroths /b a woman, b his betrothal is /b a valid b betrothal, /b and they are married. Although he is suspect with regard to the entire Torah, he does not return to his prior gentile status., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b the commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status except for one matter, /b which he does not wish to observe, b he is not accepted, /b and he is not trustworthy even with regard to those matters that he does wish to accept upon himself. Likewise, in the case of b a gentile who comes to /b convert and takes upon himself to b accept the words of Torah except for one matter, he is not accepted /b as a convert. b Rabbi Yosei, son of Rabbi Yehuda, says: Even /b if he refuses to accept b one detail of rabbinic law, /b he is not accepted.,The i baraita /i continues: b And similarly, /b in the case of b a Levite who comes to accept the matters of a Levite, or a priest who comes to accept the matters of priesthood, except for one matter, he is not accepted. As it is stated: /b “He among the sons of Aaron, b that sacrifices the blood of the peace offerings, /b and the fat, shall have the right thigh for a portion” (Leviticus 7:33). This means that with regard to b the /b Temple b service, which is handed /b over b to the sons of Aaron, any priest who does not admit to it /b in its entirety b has no share in the priesthood. /b ,The Gemara continues on a similar topic. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b one who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status, if we have seen that he practices /b such matters b in private, within his home, he is accepted, and afterward he is taught /b the precise details of being a i ḥaver /i . b But if /b we have b not /b seen him act as a i ḥaver /i in his home, b he is taught /b first b and afterward accepted. Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai says: Whether /b in b this /b case b or that /b case, b he is /b first b accepted, and he /b then b continues to learn in /b the b usual manner, /b i.e., as a i ḥaver /i he learns from others how to behave., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : An i am ha’aretz /i who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b is accepted /b first b with regard to hands, /b i.e., he is presumed to be stringent concerning the ritual purity of his hands by making sure to wash his hands before handling pure items, b and afterward he is accepted /b as trustworthy b for purity /b in general. b And if he says: I /b wish to b accept /b purity b only with regard to hands, he is accepted /b for this. If he wishes to b accept /b upon himself the stringencies of a i ḥaver /i b with regard to ritual purity but he does not accept /b upon himself the stringencies b with regard to hands, /b i.e., to wash his hands, which is a simple act, b he is not accepted even for purity /b in general., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Until when is he accepted, /b i.e., how much time must elapse before he is considered trustworthy as a i ḥaver /i ? b Beit Shammai say: With regard to liquids, thirty days. With regard to /b impurity of b clothing, /b about which i ḥaverim /i would be careful as well, b twelve months. And Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids, b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for twelve months /b before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If so, this is /b one b of /b the rare cases of b the leniencies of Beit Shammai and of the stringencies of Beit Hillel, /b and yet it is not included in tractate i Eduyyot /i , which lists all of the cases where Beit Shammai are more lenient than Beit Hillel. b Rather, /b the text of the i baraita /i must be emended so that it reads: b Beit Hillel say: Both /b with regard to b this, /b liquids b and that, /b clothing, he must maintain the practice b for thirty /b days before he is fully accepted as a i ḥaver /i .,§ The Gemara provides b a mnemonic /b to remember the topics from here until the end of the chapter: b i Ḥaver /i ; student; sky-blue dye [ i tekhelet /i ]; tax; return; /b tax b collector; by himself. /b , b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . But his children and /b the b members of his household are not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i separately b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel says: Even his children and /b the b members of his household must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , because a i ḥaver /i , who accepted it /b himself in the presence of three others, b is not comparable to the son of a i ḥaver /i , /b who b accepted /b that status only due to his father but did not accept it himself explicitly, and their accepting the status not in the presence of three people is insufficient., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who comes to accept upon himself /b a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status must accept /b it b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , and even a Torah scholar /b who wishes to become a i ḥaver /i b must accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i . /b But b an elder who sits /b and studies Torah b in a yeshiva is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , as he already accepted it upon himself from the moment he sat /b and dedicated himself to study Torah in yeshiva. b Abba Shaul says: Even a Torah scholar is not required to accept /b the status of i ḥaver /i b in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i ; and not only /b does he have the status of i ḥaver /i without an explicit declaration in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b but others /b can b accept /b that they wish to become a i ḥaver /i b in his presence. /b , b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This mishna, /b i.e., the ruling that a Torah scholar must declare his intent to become a i ḥaver /i in the presence of three i ḥaverim /i , b was taught in the days of the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus. /b At that time, b Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei were uncertain about /b a certain b matter of ritual purity. The Sages sent /b a delegation of their students b to the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus /b and told them to b go /b and b tell him to examine /b this matter. The students b found him while he was carrying /b items that were ritually b pure. /b The son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus b seated Sages from his own /b yeshiva b next to /b the students who came to ask the question, because he did not trust these students to keep his items pure. b And he stood and examined /b the matter.,The students returned and b came and told Rabbi Yehuda and Rabbi Yosei /b that the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus had treated them as though they had the status of i amei ha’aretz /i . b Rabbi Yehuda said to them /b in anger: b This one’s father, /b i.e., Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degraded Torah scholars /b by not trusting them with matters of ritual purity. And b he too, /b the son of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Antigonus, b degrades Torah scholars. /b , b Rabbi Yosei said to him: Let the honor of the elder, /b i.e., both the father and son, b be left in its place. /b He did not act in this manner to degrade Torah scholars. b Rather, from the day the Temple was destroyed, the priests were accustomed to act with a higher standard for themselves, /b and they decided b that they will not pass ritually pure /b items b to any /b other b person. /b Therefore, the son of Rabbi Ḥanina, as a priest, acted appropriately., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of b a i ḥaver /i that died, his wife and children and members of his household retain their presumptive /b status b until they are suspected /b of engaging in inappropriate deeds. b And similarly, /b in the case of b a courtyard in which one sells sky-blue dye, it retains its presumptive /b status as a place in which fit sky-blue dye is sold b until it is disqualified /b due to the merchant’s unscrupulous behavior., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The /b former b wife an i am ha’aretz /i who /b later b marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the daughter of an i am ha’aretz /i who marries a i ḥaver /i , and likewise the slave of an i am ha’aretz /i who is sold to a i ḥaver /i , must all accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status. But /b with regard to b the /b former b wife of a i ḥaver /i who /b later b marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the daughter of a i ḥaver /i who marries an i am ha’aretz /i , and likewise the slave of a i ḥaver /i who was sold to an i am ha’aretz /i , /b these people b need not accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i , /b as each of them is already accustomed to behave as a i ḥaver /i .,The i baraita /i continues: b Rabbi Meir says: They too must accept /b upon themselves a commitment to observe b the matters /b associated with b i ḥaver /i status i ab initio /i . And similarly, Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar would /b illustrate this point and b say in the name of Rabbi Meir: /b There was b an incident involving a certain woman who married a i ḥaver /i and would tie [ i koma’at /i ] for him phylacteries on his hand, /b and she later b married a tax collector and would tie for him tax seals on his hand, /b which shows that her new husband had a great influence on her level of piety. |
|
60. Babylonian Talmud, Berachot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 131| 34b. כהן גדול בסוף כל ברכה וברכה והמלך תחלת כל ברכה וברכה וסוף כל ברכה וברכה,אמר רבי יצחק בר נחמני לדידי מפרשא לי מיניה דריב"ל הדיוט כמו שאמרנו כהן גדול תחלת כל ברכה וברכה המלך כיון שכרע שוב אינו זוקף שנאמר (מלכים א ח, נד) ויהי ככלות שלמה להתפלל וגו' קם מלפני מזבח ה' מכרוע על ברכיו:,ת"ר קידה על אפים שנאמר (מלכים א א, לא) ותקד בת שבע אפים ארץ כריעה על ברכים שנאמר מכרוע על ברכיו השתחואה זו פשוט ידים ורגלים שנאמר (בראשית לז, י) הבא נבא אני ואמך ואחיך להשתחות לך ארצה,אמר רב חייא בריה דרב הונא חזינא להו לאביי ורבא דמצלו אצלויי,תני חדא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה משובח ותניא אידך הרי זה מגונה,לא קשיא הא בתחלה הא לבסוף,רבא כרע בהודאה תחלה וסוף אמרי ליה רבנן אמאי קא עביד מר הכי אמר להו חזינא לרב נחמן דכרע וחזינא ליה לרב ששת דקא עבד הכי,והתניא הכורע בהודאה הרי זה מגונה,ההיא בהודאה שבהלל,והתניא הכורע בהודאה ובהודאה של הלל הרי זה מגונה,כי תניא ההיא בהודאה דברכת המזון:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big המתפלל וטעה סימן רע לו ואם שליח צבור הוא סימן רע לשולחיו מפני ששלוחו של אדם כמותו אמרו עליו על ר' חנינא בן דוסא שהיה מתפלל על החולים ואומר זה חי וזה מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע אמר להם אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אהייא,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,איכא דמתני לה אברייתא המתפלל צריך שיכוין את לבו בכולן ואם אינו יכול לכוין בכולן יכוין את לבו באחת,א"ר חייא אמר רב ספרא משום חד דבי רבי באבות,אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא וכו': מנא הני מילי א"ר יהושע בן לוי דאמר קרא (ישעיהו נז, יט) בורא ניב שפתים שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב אמר ה' ורפאתיו,א"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא למשיא בתו לתלמיד חכם ולעושה פרקמטיא לת"ח ולמהנה ת"ח מנכסיו אבל תלמידי חכמים עצמן (ישעיהו סד, ג) עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך יעשה למחכה לו,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לימות המשיח אבל לעולם הבא עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דשמואל דאמר שמואל אין בין העוה"ז לימות המשיח אלא שעבוד מלכיות בלבד שנאמר (דברים טו, יא) כי לא יחדל אביון מקרב הארץ,וא"ר חייא בר אבא א"ר יוחנן כל הנביאים כולן לא נתנבאו אלא לבעלי תשובה אבל צדיקים גמורים עין לא ראתה אלהים זולתך,ופליגא דר' אבהו דא"ר אבהו מקום שבעלי תשובה עומדין צדיקים גמורים אינם עומדין שנאמר (ישעיהו נז, יט) שלום שלום לרחוק ולקרוב לרחוק ברישא והדר לקרוב,ורבי יוחנן אמר לך מאי רחוק שהיה רחוק מדבר עבירה מעיקרא ומאי קרוב שהיה קרוב לדבר עבירה ונתרחק ממנו השתא,מאי עין לא ראתה אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי זה יין המשומר בענביו מששת ימי בראשית רבי שמואל בר נחמני אמר זה עדן שלא שלטה בו עין כל בריה,שמא תאמר אדם הראשון היכן היה בגן,ושמא תאמר הוא גן הוא עדן תלמוד לומר (בראשית ב, י) ונהר יוצא מעדן להשקות את הגן גן לחוד ועדן לחוד:,ת"ר מעשה שחלה בנו של ר"ג שגר שני ת"ח אצל רבי חנינא בן דוסא לבקש עליו רחמים כיון שראה אותם עלה לעלייה ובקש עליו רחמים בירידתו אמר להם לכו שחלצתו חמה אמרו לו וכי נביא אתה אמר להן לא נביא אנכי ולא בן נביא אנכי אלא כך מקובלני אם שגורה תפלתי בפי יודע אני שהוא מקובל ואם לאו יודע אני שהוא מטורף ישבו וכתבו וכוונו אותה שעה וכשבאו אצל ר"ג אמר להן העבודה לא חסרתם ולא הותרתם אלא כך היה מעשה באותה שעה חלצתו חמה ושאל לנו מים לשתות,ושוב מעשה ברבי חנינא בן דוסא שהלך ללמוד תורה אצל ר' יוחנן בן זכאי וחלה בנו של ריב"ז אמר לו חנינא בני בקש עליו רחמים ויחיה הניח ראשו בין ברכיו ובקש עליו רחמים וחיה אמר רבי יוחנן בן זכאי אלמלי הטיח בן זכאי את ראשו בין ברכיו כל היום כולו לא היו משגיחים עליו אמרה לו אשתו וכי חנינא גדול ממך אמר לה לאו אלא הוא דומה כעבד לפני המלך ואני דומה כשר לפני המלך:,ואמר רבי חייא בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן אל יתפלל אדם אלא בבית שיש שם חלונות שנאמר (דניאל ו, יא) וכוין פתיחן ליה בעליתיה (לקבל) [נגד],ירושלם אמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמצלי בבקתא,ואמר רב כהנא חציף עלי מאן דמפרש חטאיה שנאמר (תהלים לב, א) אשרי נשוי פשע כסוי חטאה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך אין עומדין /strong /big br br | |
|
| 61. Anon., Midrash On Song of Songs, 7.9 Tagged with subjects: •hebrew, tannaitic Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 71 |
