1. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 19.12, 19.14, 20.9, 24.15 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 139, 152| 19.12. וְלֹא־תִשָּׁבְעוּ בִשְׁמִי לַשָּׁקֶר וְחִלַּלְתָּ אֶת־שֵׁם אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 19.14. לֹא־תְקַלֵּל חֵרֵשׁ וְלִפְנֵי עִוֵּר לֹא תִתֵּן מִכְשֹׁל וְיָרֵאתָ מֵּאֱלֹהֶיךָ אֲנִי יְהוָה׃ 20.9. כִּי־אִישׁ אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יְקַלֵּל אֶת־אָבִיו וְאֶת־אִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ קִלֵּל דָּמָיו בּוֹ׃ 24.15. וְאֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל תְּדַבֵּר לֵאמֹר אִישׁ אִישׁ כִּי־יְקַלֵּל אֱלֹהָיו וְנָשָׂא חֶטְאוֹ׃ | 19.12. And ye shall not swear by My name falsely, so that thou profane the name of thy God: I am the LORD. 19.14. Thou shalt not curse the deaf, nor put a stumbling-block before the blind, but thou shalt fear thy God: I am the LORD. 20.9. For whatsoever man there be that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death; he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. 24.15. And thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel, saying: Whosoever curseth his God shall bear his sin. |
|
2. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 21.17, 22.27 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152| 21.17. וּמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ מוֹת יוּמָת׃ 22.27. אֱלֹהִים לֹא תְקַלֵּל וְנָשִׂיא בְעַמְּךָ לֹא תָאֹר׃ | 21.17. And he that curseth his father or his mother, shall surely be put to death. 22.27. Thou shalt not revile God, nor curse a ruler of thy people. |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 3.11 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152| 3.11. אֶת־הַכֹּל עָשָׂה יָפֶה בְעִתּוֹ גַּם אֶת־הָעֹלָם נָתַן בְּלִבָּם מִבְּלִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יִמְצָא הָאָדָם אֶת־הַמַּעֲשֶׂה אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה הָאֱלֹהִים מֵרֹאשׁ וְעַד־סוֹף׃ | 3.11. He hath made every thing beautiful in its time; also He hath set the world in their heart, yet so that man cannot find out the work that God hath done from the beginning even to the end. |
|
| 4. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 23.7-23.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 139 |
| 5. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 138, 139 |
| 6. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 15.1-15.5 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 138, 139 |
7. New Testament, Matthew, 5.33-5.37 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 140| 5.33. Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 5.34. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μν̀ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ· 5.35. μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως· 5.36. μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 5.37. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. | 5.33. "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,' 5.34. but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 5.35. nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 5.36. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black. 5.37. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. |
|
8. New Testament, James, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 140| 5.12. Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τό Ναί ναὶ καὶ τό Οὔ οὔ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. | 5.12. But above all things, my brothers, don't swear, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your "yes" be "yes," and your "no," "no;" so that you don't fall into hypocrisy. |
|
9. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 6.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 139| 6.4. בֵּית הַסְּקִילָה הָיָה גָבוֹהַּ שְׁתֵּי קוֹמוֹת. אֶחָד מִן הָעֵדִים דּוֹחֲפוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. נֶהְפַּךְ עַל לִבּוֹ, הוֹפְכוֹ עַל מָתְנָיו. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, הַשֵּׁנִי נוֹטֵל אֶת הָאֶבֶן וְנוֹתְנָהּ עַל לִבּוֹ. אִם מֵת בָּהּ, יָצָא. וְאִם לָאו, רְגִימָתוֹ בְכָל יִשְׂרָאֵל, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) יַד הָעֵדִים תִּהְיֶה בּוֹ בָרִאשֹׁנָה לַהֲמִיתוֹ וְיַד כָּל הָעָם בָּאַחֲרֹנָה. כָּל הַנִּסְקָלִין נִתְלִין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵינוֹ נִתְלֶה אֶלָּא הַמְגַדֵּף וְהָעוֹבֵד עֲבוֹדָה זָרָה. הָאִישׁ תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ פָּנָיו כְּלַפֵּי הָעָם, וְהָאִשָּׁה פָּנֶיהָ כְלַפֵּי הָעֵץ, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, הָאִישׁ נִתְלֶה וְאֵין הָאִשָּׁה נִתְלֵית. אָמַר לָהֶן רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר, וַהֲלֹא שִׁמְעוֹן בֶּן שָׁטָח תָּלָה נָשִׁים בְּאַשְׁקְלוֹן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, שְׁמֹנִים נָשִׁים תָּלָה, וְאֵין דָּנִין שְׁנַיִם בְּיוֹם אֶחָד. כֵּיצַד תּוֹלִין אוֹתוֹ, מְשַׁקְּעִין אֶת הַקּוֹרָה בָאָרֶץ וְהָעֵץ יוֹצֵא מִמֶּנָּה, וּמַקִּיף שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו זוֹ עַל גַּבֵּי זוֹ וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, הַקּוֹרָה מֻטָּה עַל הַכֹּתֶל, וְתוֹלֶה אוֹתוֹ כְּדֶרֶךְ שֶׁהַטַּבָּחִין עוֹשִׂין. וּמַתִּירִין אוֹתוֹ מִיָּד. וְאִם לָן, עוֹבֵר עָלָיו בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) לֹא תָלִין נִבְלָתוֹ עַל הָעֵץ כִּי קָבוֹר תִּקְבְּרֶנּוּ כִּי קִלְלַת אֱלֹהִים תָּלוּי וְגוֹ'. כְּלוֹמַר, מִפְּנֵי מָה זֶה תָלוּי, מִפְּנֵי שֶׁבֵּרַךְ אֶת הַשֵּׁם, וְנִמְצָא שֵׁם שָׁמַיִם מִתְחַלֵּל: | 6.4. The place of stoning was twice a man's height. One of the witnesses pushed him by the hips, [so that] he was overturned on his heart. He was then turned on his back. If that caused his death, he had fulfilled [his duty]; but if not, the second witness took a stone and threw it on his chest. If he died thereby, he had done [his duty]; but if not, he [the criminal] was stoned by all Israel, for it is says: “The hand of the witnesses shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people” (Deut. 17:7). All who are stoned are [afterwards] hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: “Only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged.” A man is hanged with his face towards the spectators, but a woman with her face towards the gallows, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the sages say: a man is hanged, but not a woman. Rabbi Eliezer said to them: “But did not Shimon ben Shetah hang women at ashkelon?” They said: “[On that occasion] he hanged eighty women, even though two must not be tried on the same day. How is he hanged? The post is sunk into the ground with a [cross-] piece branching off [at the top] and he brings his hands together one over the other and hangs him up [thereby]. R. Jose said: the post is leaned against the wall, and he hangs him up the way butchers do. He is immediately let down. If he is left [hanging] over night, a negative command is thereby transgressed, for it says, “You shall not let his corpse remain all night upon the tree, but you must bury him the same day because a hanged body is a curse against god” (Deut. 21:23). As if to say why was he hanged? because he cursed the name [of god]; and so the name of Heaven [God] is profaned. |
|
10. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 140| 4.3. אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: | 4.3. A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam. |
|
11. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.2-7.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 140| 7.2. אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו ואם אמר [נשבע אני] אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה. 7.4. ברכת הלל ושמע ותפלה נאמרין בכל לשון רבי אומר אומר אני שאין שמע נאמר אלא בלשון הקדש שנאמר (דברים ו׳:ו׳) והיו הדברים האלה וגו'. | |
|
| 12. Palestinian Talmud, Gittin, 4.3 (45c) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 13. Palestinian Talmud, Shevuot, 3.10 (3.12, 35a) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 14. Palestinian Talmud, Yoma, 3.7 (40d) (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 15. Babylonian Talmud, Temurah, 3a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 16. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, 21a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 17. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, 14b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 138 |
18. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, 16a (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152| 16a. משום דהוי לאו שאין בו מעשה וכל לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו ר"ל אומר אינו לוקה משום דהוי התראת ספק וכל התראת ספק לא שמה התראה,ותרוייהו אליבא דרבי יהודה דתניא (שמות יב, י) ולא תותירו ממנו עד בקר והנותר ממנו עד בקר וגו' בא הכתוב ליתן עשה אחר לא תעשה לומר שאין לוקין עליו דברי רבי יהודה ר' יוחנן דייק הכי טעמא דבא הכתוב הא לא בא הכתוב לוקה אלמא התראת ספק שמה התראה,ור"ל דייק הכי טעמא דבא הכתוב הא לא בא הכתוב לוקה אלמא לאו שאין בו מעשה לוקין עליו,ור"ש בן לקיש נמי הא ודאי התראת ספק הוא,סבר לה כאידך תנא דר' יהודה דתניא הכה זה וחזר והכה זה קילל זה וחזר וקילל זה הכה שניהם בבת אחת או קילל שניהם בבת אחת חייב רבי יהודה אומר בבת אחת חייב בזה אחר זה פטור,ורבי יוחנן נמי הא ודאי לאו שאין בו מעשה הוא,סבר לה כי הא דאמר רב אידי בר אבין אמר רב עמרם א"ר יצחק א"ר יוחנן ר' יהודה אומר משום רבי יוסי הגלילי כל לא תעשה שבתורה לאו שיש בו מעשה לוקין עליו לאו שאין בו מעשה אין לוקין עליו חוץ מן הנשבע ומימר והמקלל את חבירו בשם,קשיא דרבי יהודה אדרבי יהודה,אי לר"ש בן לקיש תרי תנאי אליבא דרבי יהודה אי לרבי יוחנן לא קשיא הא דידיה הא דרביה,תנן התם הנוטל אם על הבנים רבי יהודה אומר לוקה ואינו משלח וחכ"א משלח ואינו לוקה זה הכלל כל מצות לא תעשה שיש בה קום עשה אין חייבין עליה א"ר יוחנן אין לנו אלא זאת ועוד אחרת,א"ל ר' אלעזר היכא א"ל לכי תשכח נפק דק ואשכח דתניא אונס שגירש אם ישראל הוא מחזיר ואינו לוקה ואם כהן הוא לוקה ואינו מחזיר,הניחא למאן דתני קיימו ולא קיימו,אלא למאן דתני ביטלו ולא ביטלו בשלמא גבי שילוח הקן משכחת לה אלא אונס ביטלו ולא ביטלו היכי משכחת לה,אי דקטלה קם ליה בדרבה מיניה אמר רב שימי מחוזנאה כגון שקיבל לה קידושין מאחר אמר רב אי שוויתיה שליח איהי קא מבטלא ליה אי לא שוויתיה שליח כל כמיניה ולא כלום היא,אלא אמר רב שימי מנהרדעא כגון שהדירה ברבים הניחא למ"ד נדר שהודר ברבים אין לו הפרה אלא למ"ד יש לו הפרה מאי איכא למימר דמדירה לה על דעת רבים דאמר אמימר הלכתא נדר שהודר ברבים יש לו הפרה על דעת רבים אין לו הפרה,ותו ליכא והא איכא (סימן גז"ל משכ"ן ופא"ה) גזל דרחמנא אמר (ויקרא יט, יג) לא תגזול (ויקרא ה, כג) והשיב את הגזלה משכון דרחמנא אמר (דברים כד, י) לא תבא אל ביתו לעבוט עבוטו השב תשיב לו העבוט כבא השמש,ומשכחת לה בקיימו ולא קיימו וביטלו ולא ביטלו התם כיון דחייב בתשלומין אין לוקה ומשלם,מתקיף לה רבי זירא הא איכא משכונו של גר ומת הגר | 16a. because it is a prohibition that does not involve an action. He violates the oath by failing to perform an action, rather than by performing an action, and the principle is: With regard to any prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation. Reish Lakish says: He is not flogged, because the forewarning in this case is an uncertain forewarning. One cannot properly forewarn him before he takes the oath, because as long as time remains in the day he can still eat the loaf at a later time and fulfill the oath; and any uncertain forewarning is not characterized as forewarning.,The Gemara adds: And both Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish hold in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: It is stated with regard to the Paschal offering: “And you shall let nothing of it remain until the morning, and that which remains of it until the morning you shall burn in fire” (Exodus 12:10). The verse comes to position the positive mitzva of burning the leftover flesh after the prohibition against leaving over the flesh, to say that one is not flogged for its violation; this is the statement of Rabbi Yehuda. Rabbi Yoḥa inferred this from the statement of Rabbi Yehuda: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning, as he can be forewarned not to leave over the flesh of the offering, even though he would not be flogged were he to burn it.,And Reish Lakish inferred this: The reason he is not flogged is that the verse comes and positions the mitzva after the prohibition; but if the verse had not come and positioned the mitzva after the prohibition, he would have been flogged. Apparently, one is flogged even for violating a prohibition that does not involve an action, as he violates the prohibition without performing an action.,The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish too, this is certainly a case of uncertain forewarning; why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that uncertain forewarning is characterized as forewarning?,The Gemara answers: He holds in accordance with the opinion of the other tanna in the name of Rabbi Yehuda, as it is taught in a baraita: If a woman was divorced and remarried soon after, and a son was born seven months after her remarriage and nine months after her divorce, it is unclear whether he is the son of the first husband or of the second husband. In that case, if this son struck this husband of his mother, and then struck that husband, or if he cursed this husband and then cursed that one, and likewise if he struck both of them simultaneously or cursed both of them simultaneously, he is liable for striking or cursing his father. Rabbi Yehuda says: If he cursed or struck both of them simultaneously he is liable, but if he cursed or struck them one after the other, even if he was forewarned prior to cursing or striking each one, he is exempt. Apparently, Rabbi Yehuda is of the opinion that one is not flogged after uncertain forewarning; since in this case it is impossible to determine which of them is the father, inevitably the forewarning is uncertain.,The Gemara asks: And according to Rabbi Yoḥa too, this is certainly a case of a prohibition that does not involve an action. Why, then, does he not conclude based on Rabbi Yehuda’s statement that one is flogged for violating a prohibition of that kind?,The Gemara answers: Rabbi Yoḥa holds in accordance with that which was cited in his name, as Rav Idi bar Avin says that Rav Amram says that Rabbi Yitzḥak says that Rabbi Yoḥa says that Rabbi Yehuda says in the name of Rabbi Yosei HaGelili: With regard to any prohibition in the Torah, if it is a prohibition that involves an action, one is flogged for its violation; if it is a prohibition that does not involve an action, one is not flogged for its violation, except for one who takes a false oath, one who substitutes a non-sacred animal for a sacrificial animal, saying: This animal is substituted for that one, and one who curses another invoking the name of God. In those three instances, the perpetrator is flogged even though he performed no action.,The Gemara asks: Although the difficulties that were raised with regard to the opinions of Rabbi Yoḥa and Reish Lakish were answered, the apparent contradiction from one statement of Rabbi Yehuda to another statement of Rabbi Yehuda is difficult. The Gemara cited contradictory statements of Rabbi Yehuda with regard to lashes both in the case of a prohibition that does not involve an action and in the case of uncertain forewarning.,The Gemara answers: If it is according to Rabbi Shimon ben Lakish, the contradiction may be resolved with the explanation that the two sources reflect the opinions of two tanna’im, who disagree in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehuda. If it is according to Rabbi Yoḥa, the contradiction is not difficult, as this baraita reflects his opinion, that one is flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action, and that baraita reflects the opinion of his teacher, Rabbi Yosei HaGelili, who holds that one is not flogged for violating a prohibition that involves an action.,§ We learned in a mishna there (17a): With regard to one who takes the mother bird with her fledglings, thereby violating the Torah prohibition: “You shall not take the mother with her fledglings; you shall send the mother, and the fledglings you may take for yourself” (Deuteronomy 22:6–7), Rabbi Yehuda says: He is flogged for taking the mother bird, and he does not send the mother, and the Rabbis say: He sends the mother and is not flogged, as this is the principle: With regard to any prohibition that entails a command to arise and perform a mitzva, one is not liable to receive lashes for its violation. Rabbi Yoḥa says: We have only this mitzva and another where one would be flogged if not for the relevant mitzva.,Rabbi Elazar said to Rabbi Yoḥa: Which is that other mitzva? Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: You will know when you discover it yourself. Rabbi Elazar went out, examined the matter, and discovered the answer, as it is taught in a baraita: With regard to a rapist who divorced the woman he raped, if he is a non-priest, he remarries her, and he is not flogged for violating the prohibition: “He may not send her away all his days” (Deuteronomy 22:29). And if he is a priest, he is flogged for violating the prohibition, and he does not remarry her.,The Gemara states: This works out well according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged for violating a prohibition that entails fulfillment of a positive mitzva is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if he does not fulfill the mitzva immediately when he is instructed to do so, he is flogged when he fails to do so.,But according to the one who teaches that the criterion for determining whether one is flogged in that case is whether he nullified the mitzva or did not nullify the mitzva, and one is flogged only if he performed an action that renders it impossible to fulfill the mitzva, granted, with regard to the sending away of the mother bird from the nest, you can find a situation where he nullifies the mitzva, e.g., if he killed the mother bird. But in the case of a rapist, if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it, how can you find a situation where the man is flogged because he nullified any possibility of remarrying her?,If he cannot remarry her because he killed her, he will be executed, not flogged, based on the principle: He receives the greater punishment. Rav Shimi of Meḥoza said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he received, on her behalf, the money for betrothal from another, thereby ensuring that his own remarriage to her is no longer an option. Rav said: That is not a viable solution; if his ex-wife designated him as an agent to receive the money of betrothal on her behalf, it is she who nullifies the possibility of fulfilling the mitzva for him, as a woman is betrothed only with her consent, and he is not liable at all. If she did not designate him as an agent, is it in his power to accept betrothal on behalf of a woman who did not designate him to do so? His action is nothing, and the betrothal does not take effect.,Rather, Rav Shimi of Neharde’a said: He nullifies the possibility of remarriage in a case where he vowed in public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, and it is consequently prohibited for him to marry her. The Gemara asks: This works out well according to the one who says that a vow that was taken in public has no nullification; he is flogged, since by taking that vow he has rendered remarriage impossible. But according to the one who says that even a vow taken in public has the possibility of nullification, what can be said? He can nullify the vow and remarry her. The Gemara answers: The reference is to a case where he vows on the basis of the consent of the public that it is prohibited for him to derive benefit from her, as Ameimar says that the halakha is: A vow that was taken in public has the possibility of nullification; a vow that was taken on the basis of the consent of the public has no nullification.,The Gemara questions Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement: And are there no more prohibitions that entail fulfillment of a positive mitzva for which one is flogged? But aren’t there others? Before stating its challenges, the Gemara provides a mnemonic for the cases that it will cite: Robbery, collateral, and pe’a. The Gemara elaborates: Isn’t there the case of robbery, where the Merciful One states: “You shall not rob” (Leviticus 19:13), and also states: “And he shall return the stolen item” (Leviticus 5:23)? Isn’t there the case of collateral, where the Merciful One states: “You shall not come into his house to fetch his pledge” (Deuteronomy 24:10), and He then states: “You shall return to him the pledge when the sun sets” (Deuteronomy 24:13)?,The Gemara continues: And you find that one is liable to receive lashes in those cases both if the criterion is whether he fulfilled the mitzva or did not fulfill the mitzva, and if the criterion is whether he nullified the mitzva or he did not nullify it. According to the first criterion, he is flogged if he fails to return the stolen item or the collateral; according to the second criterion, he is flogged if he destroys the stolen item or the collateral. The Gemara answers: There, in both those cases, he is not flogged, since he is liable to remit monetary payment for the stolen item or the collateral, as the principle is: One is not both flogged and liable to pay restitution for one transgression.,Rabbi Zeira objects to this: But isn’t there a case where he is not liable to pay, e.g., if he appropriated the collateral of a convert and the convert died with no heirs. In that case, there is no payment, and nevertheless, he is not flogged. |
|
| 19. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, 34b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 20. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, 32b (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 152 |
| 21. Anon., 2 Enoch, 49.1-49.2 Tagged with subjects: •oath, avoidance of Found in books: Schiffman, Testimony and the Penal Code (1983) 140 |
