| 1. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 9.17-9.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79 |
| 2. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 9.17-9.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79 |
| 3. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 12.7-12.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79 |
4. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 1.9. "הָיוּ שְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וּשְׁנַיִם רוֹאִין אוֹתוֹ מֵחַלּוֹן זֶה וְאֶחָד מַתְרֶה בוֹ בָּאֶמְצַע, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמִּקְצָתָן רוֹאִין אֵלּוּ אֶת אֵלּוּ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ עֵדוּת אַחַת. וְאִם לָאו, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שְׁתֵּי עֵדֻיּוֹת. לְפִיכָךְ אִם נִמְצֵאת אַחַת מֵהֶן זוֹמֶמֶת, הוּא וָהֵן נֶהֱרָגִין וְהַשְּׁנִיָּה פְּטוּרָה. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי אוֹמֵר, לְעוֹלָם אֵין נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדָיו מַתְרִין בּוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים יז) עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים. דָּבָר אַחֵר, עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים, שֶׁלֹּא תְהֵא סַנְהֶדְרִין שׁוֹמַעַת מִפִּי הַתֻּרְגְּמָן: \n", | 1.9. "If two persons see him [the transgressor] from one window and two other persons see him from another window and one standing in the middle warns him, then, if some on one side and some on the other side can see one another, they constitute together one body of evidence, but if they cannot [see one another], they are two bodies of evidence. Consequently, if one of these is found to be a perjurer, both [the transgressor] and those two witnesses are put to death, while other group of witnesses is exempt. Rabbi Yose says: “He is never put to death unless two witnesses had warned him, as it says, “by the mouth of two witnesses..” (Deut. 17:6). Another interpretation: “By the mouth of two witnesses”: that the Sanhedrin shall not hear the evidence from the mouth of an interpreter.", |
|
| 5. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 23.8 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 226 |
6. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 6b. big strongמתני׳ /strong /big היו שנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ושנים רואין אותו מחלון זה ואחד מתרה בו באמצע בזמן שמקצתן רואין אלו את אלו הרי אלו עדות אחת ואם לאו הרי אלו שתי עדיות לפיכך אם נמצאת אחת מהן זוממת הוא והן נהרגין והשניה פטורה,רבי יוסי אומר לעולם אין נהרגין עד שיהו שני עדיו מתרין בו שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים דבר אחר על פי שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רב זוטרא בר טוביא אמר רב מנין לעדות מיוחדת שהיא פסולה שנאמר (דברים יז, ו) לא יומת על פי עד אחד מאי אחד אילימא עד אחד ממש מרישא שמעינן לה על פי שנים עדים אלא מאי אחד אחד אחד,תניא נמי הכי לא יומת על פי עד אחד להביא שנים שרואים אותו אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה ואין רואין זה את זה שאין מצטרפין ולא עוד אלא אפילו בזה אחר זה בחלון אחד אין מצטרפין,אמר ליה רב פפא לאביי השתא ומה אחד מחלון זה ואחד מחלון זה דהאי קא חזי כולו מעשה והאי קא חזי כולו מעשה אמרת לא מצטרפי בזה אחר זה דהאי חזי פלגא דמעשה והאי חזי פלגא דמעשה מיבעיא א"ל לא נצרכא אלא לבועל את הערוה,אמר רבא אם היו רואין את המתרה או המתרה רואה אותן מצטרפין אמר רבא מתרה שאמרו אפילו מפי עצמו ואפילו מפי השד,אמר רב נחמן עדות מיוחדת כשירה בדיני ממונות דכתיב לא יומת על פי עד אחד בדיני נפשות הוא דאין כשירה אבל בדיני ממונות כשירה,מתקיף לה רב זוטרא אלא מעתה בדיני נפשות תציל אלמה תנן הוא והן נהרגין קשיא:,רבי יוסי אומר וכו': א"ל רב פפא לאביי ומי אית ליה לרבי יוסי האי סברא והתנן רבי יוסי אומר השונא נהרג מפני שהוא כמועד ומותרה,א"ל ההוא רבי יוסי בר יהודה היא דתניא רבי יוסי בר יהודה אומר חבר אין צריך התראה לפי שלא ניתנה התראה אלא להבחין בין שוגג למזיד:,דבר אחר ע"פ שנים עדים שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן: הנהו לעוזי דאתו לקמיה דרבא אוקי רבא תורגמן בינייהו והיכי עביד הכי והתנן שלא תהא סנהדרין שומעת מפי התורגמן רבא מידע הוה ידע מה דהוו אמרי ואהדורי הוא דלא הוה ידע | 6b. strong MISHNA: /strong In a case where there b were two /b witnesses b observing /b an individual violating a capital transgression b from this window /b in a house, b and two observing him from that window /b in a house, b and one /b person was b forewarning /b the transgressor b in the middle /b between the two sets of witnesses, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. In a situation b where some of /b the witnesses observing from the two windows b see each other, /b the testimony of all b these /b witnesses constitutes b one testimony, but if /b they do b not /b see each other, the testimony of b these /b witnesses constitutes b two /b independent b testimonies. Therefore, /b as two independent sets of witnesses, b if one of /b the sets b was found /b to be a set of b conspiring /b witnesses, while the testimony of the other set remained valid, both b he, /b the one accused of violating the capital transgression, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed, and the second /b set, whose testimony remained valid, b is exempt. /b , b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Transgressors b are never executed unless his two witnesses are /b the ones b forewarning him, as it is stated: “At the mouth of two witnesses… /b he who is to be put to death shall die” (Deuteronomy 17:6), from which it is derived that it is from the mouths of the two witnesses that the accused must be forewarned, and forewarning issued by someone else is insufficient. b Alternatively, /b from the phrase b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the judges must hear the testimony directly from the witnesses, and the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b Rav Zutra bar Tuvya says /b that b Rav says: From where /b is it derived with regard b to disjointed testimony, /b in which each of the witnesses saw the incident independent of the other, b that it is not valid? /b It is derived from a verse, b as it is stated: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). The exposition is as follows: b What /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? b If we say /b that it means b one witness literally, we learn it from the first /b portion of the verse: b “At the mouth of two witnesses,” /b indicating that the testimony of fewer than two witnesses is not valid. b Rather, what /b is the meaning of b “one /b witness”? It means that the accused is not executed based on the testimony of people who witnessed an incident with b one /b witness here and b one /b witness elsewhere.,The Gemara notes: b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : It is written: b “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness,” /b from which it is derived b to include /b the i halakha /i that in the case of b two /b witnesses b who observe /b an individual violating a capital transgression, b one from this window and one from that window, and they do not see each other, that they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Moreover, even /b if they witnessed the same transgression from the same perspective, watching the incident not at the same time but b one after the other in one window, they do not join /b to constitute a set of witnesses., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: /b Why is it necessary to mention both cases? b Now if /b in the case where b one /b witness views the incident b from this window and one /b witness views the incident b from that window, where this /b witness b sees the entire incident and that /b witness b sees the entire incident, you say /b that b they do not join /b to testify together as two witnesses, if they see the incident b one after the other, where this /b witness b sees half /b the b incident and that /b witness b sees half /b the b incident, /b is it b necessary /b to say that the witnesses do not join together? Abaye b said to him: /b It b is necessary /b to state this i halakha /i b only /b with regard b to /b a case where they witnessed one who b engages in intercourse with a forbidden relative, /b which is a continuing act, and each of the witnesses saw sufficient behavior to render the transgressor liable. The i tanna /i of the i baraita /i teaches that even in that case, they do not join to constitute a set of witnesses.,Apropos witnesses joining to constitute a set of witnesses, b Rava says: /b Even if the witness in either window is unable to see the witness in the other window, b if /b the witness in each window b sees the one who is forewarning /b the accused, b or /b if b the one who is forewarning /b the accused b could see /b the two disjointed witnesses, b they join /b to constitute a set of witnesses. b Rava says: /b The one b forewarning /b the accused of b whom /b the Sages b spoke /b need not be a third witness, but b even /b if the victim forewarns the murderer b from his own mouth, and even /b if the forewarning emerged b from the mouth of a demon, /b meaning the source of the forewarning is unknown, the forewarning is legitimate., b Rav Naḥman says: Disjointed testimony /b of two witnesses, each of whom observed an incident independent of the other, b is valid in /b cases of b monetary law, as it is written: “He shall not die at the mouth of one witness” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). This indicates that b it is /b only b with regard to /b cases of b capital law that /b disjointed testimony b is not valid, but with regard to /b cases of b monetary law /b that testimony b is valid. /b , b Rav Zutra objects to this: But if that is so, /b and disjointed testimony is effective in certain cases, b in /b cases of b capital law /b disjointed testimony b should spare /b the accused from execution. Since one must exploit every avenue possible to prevent executions, in a case where some of the disjointed witnesses were rendered conspiring witnesses, the entire testimony should be voided on their account. b Why, /b then, b did we learn /b in the mishna that if one set witnessed the capital transgression from one window and one set from the other window, and one set was found to be a set of conspiring witnesses, b he, /b the accused, b and they, /b the conspiring witnesses, b are executed? /b The Gemara comments: Indeed, that is b difficult /b according to Rav Naḥman.,§ The mishna teaches that b Rabbi Yosei says: /b Perpetrators are never executed unless his two witnesses are the ones forewarning him. b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: And is Rabbi Yosei of /b the opinion that b this /b line of b reasoning /b is correct, and forewarning by the witnesses is indispensable? b But didn’t we learn /b in a mishna (9b): b Rabbi Yosei says: An enemy /b who commits murder cannot claim that he killed the victim unwittingly. Rather, b he is executed /b even if there was no forewarning, b due to /b the fact b that his /b halakhic status is b like /b that of one who is b cautioned and forewarned. /b Apparently, Rabbi Yosei does not always require that there be forewarning.,Abaye b said to him: That /b statement in the mishna you cited that is attributed to Rabbi Yosei b is /b actually the opinion of b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yosei bar Yehuda says: A i ḥaver /i does not require forewarning, as forewarning was instituted only to distinguish between /b one who commits a transgression b unwittingly and /b one who does so b intentionally. /b A i ḥaver /i , who is a Torah scholar, does not require forewarning to distinguish between them. Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥalafta, whose opinion is cited in the mishna here, is of the opinion that forewarning is a necessary prerequisite to executing someone who is judged liable, and that forewarning must be issued by the witnesses.,§ The mishna teaches: b Alternatively, /b from the phrase in the verse b “at the mouth of two witnesses” /b one derives b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter. /b The Gemara relates: There were b certain /b people who spoke b a foreign /b language b who came before Rava /b for judgment. b Rava installed an interpreter between them /b and heard the testimony through the interpreter. The Gemara asks: b And how did he do so? But didn’t we learn /b in the mishna b that /b the b Sanhedrin will not hear /b testimony b from the mouth of an interpreter? /b The Gemara answers: b Rava knew what they were saying, /b as he understood their language, b but he did not know /b how to b respond /b to them in their language. He posed questions through the interpreter but understood the answers on his own, as required by the mishna. |
|
7. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79| 30a. וכל לישני דבי דינא ולא הוה כתב בה במותב תלתא הוינא וחד ליתוהי,סבר רבינא למימר היינו דריש לקיש א"ל רב נתן בר אמי הכי אמרינן משמיה דרבא כל כי האי גוונא חיישינן לב"ד טועין,אמר רב נחמן בר יצחק אי כתב בה בי דינא תו לא צריך,ודילמא בית דין חצוף הוא דאמר שמואל שנים שדנו דיניהן דין אלא שנקראו ב"ד חצוף דכתב ביה בי דינא דרבנא אשי,ודילמא רבנן דבי רב אשי כשמואל סבירא להו דכתיב בו (ואמרנא ליה לרבנא אשי) ואמר לן רבנא אשי,ת"ר אמר להן אחד אני ראיתי אביכם שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן בבית לא אמר כלום בשדה דבריו קיימין,כללו של דבר כל שבידו ליטלן דבריו קיימין אין בידו ליטלן לא אמר כלום,הרי שראו את אביהן שהטמין מעות בשידה תיבה ומגדל ואמר של פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן אם כמוסר דבריו קיימין אם כמערים לא אמר כלום,הרי שהיה מצטער על מעות שהניח לו אביו ובא בעל החלום ואמר לו כך וכך הן במקום פלוני הן של מעשר שני הן זה היה מעשה ואמרו דברי חלומות לא מעלין ולא מורידין:,שנים אומרים זכאי כו': מיכתב היכי כתבי,ר' יוחנן אמר זכאי ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין (ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין) רבי (אליעזר) אמר מדבריהן נזדכה פלוני,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו לשלומי איהו מנתא בהדייהו דלמאן דאמר זכאי משלם ולמאן דאמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלם,ולמ"ד זכאי משלם לימא להו אי לדידי צייתיתון אתון נמי לא שלמיתון,אלא איכא בינייהו לשלומי אינהו מנתא דידיה למ"ד זכאי משלמי למ"ד פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני ופלוני מחייבין לא משלמי,ולמאן דאמר זכאי משלמי ולימרו ליה אי לאו את בהדן לא הוה סליק דינא מידי,אלא איכא בינייהו משום (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך רבי יוחנן אמר זכאי משום לא תלך רכיל,ריש לקיש אמר פלוני ופלוני מזכין ופלוני פלוני מחייבין משום דמיחזי כשיקרא,ור' אלעזר אית ליה דמר ואית ליה דמר הלכך כתבי הכי מדבריהם נזדכה פלוני:,גמרו את הדבר היו מכניסין כו': למאן אילימא לבעלי דינין התם קיימי אלא לעדים,כמאן דלא כרבי נתן דתניא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהן כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בבית דין עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד רבי נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין את דבריו,לא לעולם לבעלי דינין ורבי נחמיה היא דתניא רבי נחמיה אומר כך היה מנהגן של נקיי הדעת שבירושלים מכניסין לבעלי דינין ושומעין דבריהן ומכניסין את העדים ושומעין דבריהם ומוציאין אותן לחוץ ונושאין ונותנין בדבר (גמרו את הדבר מכניסין אותן כו'),והתניא גמרו את הדבר מכניסין את העדים ההיא דלא כרבי נתן,גופא לעולם אין עדותן מצטרפת עד שיראו שניהם כאחד רבי יהושע בן קרחה אומר אפילו בזה אחר זה במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא קרא ואיבעית אימא סברא,איבעית אימא סברא אמנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קא מסהיד האי ומנה דקא מסהיד האי לא קמסהיד האי ואידך אמנה בעלמא תרוייהו קמסהדי,ואיבעית אימא קרא דכתיב (ויקרא ה, א) והוא עד או ראה או ידע,ותניא ממשמע שנאמר (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד איני יודע שהוא אחד מה תלמוד לומר אחד,זה בנה אב כל מקום שנאמר עד הרי כאן שנים עד שיפרט לך הכתוב אחד,ואפקיה רחמנא בלשון חד למימר עד דחזו תרווייהו כחד ואידך והוא עד או ראה או ידע מ"מ:,ואין עדותן מתקיימת בב"ד עד שיעידו שניהן כאחד ר' נתן אומר שומעין דבריו של זה היום וכשיבא חבירו למחר שומעין דבריו במאי קמיפלגי איבעית אימא סברא איבעית אימא קרא,אב"א סברא מר סבר עד אחד כי אתי לשבועה אתי לממונא לא אתי,ואידך אטו כי אתו בהדי הדדי בחד פומא קא מסהדי אלא מצרפינן להו הכא נמי ליצרפינהו,ואיבעית אימא קרא (ויקרא ה, א) אם לא יגיד ונשא עונו | 30a. b and all of the formulations /b of an enactment b of the court /b were written in it. But only two were signed on it, b and /b the following statement b was not written in it: We were /b convened b in a session of three /b judges, b and one /b of the judges b is no /b longer here, as he died or left for another reason. There was therefore room for concern that perhaps there were only two witnesses, and they wrote the document of admission improperly., b Ravina thought to say /b that b this is /b a case in which the principle b of Reish Lakish, /b that witnesses do not sign a document unless the action was performed appropriately, applies. b Rav Natan bar Ami said to him: This /b is what b we say in the name of Rava: /b In b any cases like this, we are concerned for /b the possibility of b an erroneous court /b that thinks that two constitute a court., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak says: If it was written in /b the document: We, the members of b the court, /b convened, it is b unnecessary /b for the deed to b further /b state that one of the judges is no longer there, as a standard court consists of three judges.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps it was an impudent court, as Shmuel says: /b With regard to b two /b judges b who /b convened a tribunal and b judged, their verdict is /b a binding b verdict; but /b because they contravened the rabbinic ordice mandating that a court must be composed of three judges, b they are called an impudent court. /b The Gemara answers: It was a document b in which it was written: /b We, the members of b the court of Rabbana Ashi, /b convened. Rav Ashi’s court presumably conformed to rabbinic protocol.,The Gemara asks: b But perhaps the Sages of the court of Rav Ashi hold like Shmuel, /b that the verdict of two judges is binding, and they convened an impudent court. The Gemara answers: It is a document b in which it is written: And we said to Rabbana Ashi, and Rabbana Ashi said to us. /b Rav Ashi himself certainly would not have participated in the discussions of an impudent court.,§ The Gemara continues its discussion of when an admission is deemed credible. b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In a case where b one said to /b the children of another: b I saw that your father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, saying: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, /b and the money was found where he said, the i halakha /i depends on the circumstances. If the chest, box, or cabinet was b in the house, /b the witness has b said nothing. /b His testimony about the status of the money is not accepted, as he is only one witness, and he could not have taken the money for himself had he wanted to. But if it was b in the field, his statement stands, /b i.e., is accepted., b The principle of the matter /b is as follows: In b any /b case b where it is in /b the b power of /b the witness b to take /b the money, b his statement stands; /b if b it is not in his power to take /b the money, b he has said nothing. /b ,In a case b where /b the children themselves b saw that their father hid money in a chest, box, or cabinet, and /b the father b said: /b This money b belongs to so-and-so, /b or: This money b is second tithe, if /b he said so b as one who relays /b information to his own children, b his statement stands. /b But b if /b he said so b as one who employs artifice, /b i.e., he appears to have told them that the money was not his only so that they would not take it, b he has said nothing, /b and they may spend the money.,In a case b where /b one b was distressed about money that his father left him /b as an inheritance, because he could not find it, b and the master of the dream, /b i.e., someone in his dream, b came and said to him: It is such and such /b an amount of money and b it is in such and such a place, /b but the money b is second tithe, /b and he found this amount in the place of which he dreamed; and b this was /b an actual b incident /b that was brought before the Sages, b and they said /b that he can spend the money, as b matters /b appearing in b dreams do not make a difference /b in determining the practical i halakha /i .,§ The mishna teaches that if b two /b judges b say /b the defendant is b exempt /b and one says he is liable, he is exempt. The Gemara asks: When there is a dispute between the judges, b how do they write /b the verdict?, b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b They write that he is b exempt, /b without mentioning the dispute. b Reish Lakish says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable; /b they must mention that there was a dispute. b Rabbi Eliezer says /b that they do not specify the names of the judges, but rather they add the phrase: b From the statement of /b the judges b so-and-so was deemed exempt, /b to the wording of the verdict. This indicates that not all the judges agreed that he is exempt, but does not specify which judges came to which conclusion.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the difference b between /b these opinions, besides the wording of the verdict? The Gemara answers: The practical difference b between them /b is b with regard to /b whether or not, in a case where it is discovered that the verdict was erroneous, the judge who was in the minority must b pay /b his b portion /b of restitution b along with /b the judges of the majority. b As according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b the minority judge b pays /b as well, b and according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, he does not pay. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b does he pay? Let him say to /b the other judges: b If you would have listened to me you would not have paid either. /b Why should I have to pay for your mistake?, b Rather, /b he does not pay, and the practical difference b between /b the opinions is b with regard to /b whether or not b those /b other judges must b pay his portion /b of the restitution. b According to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, they pay /b the full sum, as they did not mention that there was a dispute over the matter. But b according to the one who says /b that they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, they do not pay /b the portion of the overruled judge, and he does not pay it either.,The Gemara asks: b But according to the one who says /b that they write that he is b exempt, /b why b do they pay /b his portion? b Let them say to him: If you had not been with us the judgment would have had no verdict at all, /b as two judges cannot issue a verdict. Therefore, you share the responsibility with us and should participate in the payment., b Rather, /b the difference b between /b the opinions is only with regard to the wording of the verdict, and is b due to /b the prohibition of: b “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” /b (Leviticus 19:16). b Rabbi Yoḥa says /b that they write that he is b exempt due to /b the prohibition of gossip, as derived from the verse: b “You shall not go as a talebearer.” /b , b Reish Lakish says /b they specify: b So-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b exempt, and so-and-so and so-and-so deem /b him b liable, because /b otherwise the document would b have the appearance of falsehood, /b as not all the judges deemed him exempt., b And Rabbi Elazar accepts /b the opinion b of /b this b Sage, /b Rabbi Yoḥa, b and accepts /b the opinion b of /b that b Sage, /b Reish Lakish. b Therefore, this /b is what b they write: From the statement of /b the judges, b so-and-so was deemed exempt. /b This wording indicates that the ruling was not based on a consensus among the judges, so that it will not have the appearance of falsehood, but it also does not specify what each judge said, to avoid gossip.,§ The mishna teaches that after the judges b finished the matter /b and reached a decision, b they would bring /b them b in. /b The Gemara asks: b Whom /b would they bring in? b If we say /b they would bring in b the litigants, /b this cannot be, as b they were there /b the whole time; they never left the room. b Rather, /b they would bring in b the witnesses. /b ,If so, b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the mishna? It is b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan; as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together. Rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b The mishna, by contrast, indicates that the verdict must be given with the two witnesses present together.,The Gemara reverses its interpretation of the mishna: b No, actually /b it can be explained that the judges would bring in b the litigants; and it is /b in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Neḥemya. As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Neḥemya says: This was the custom of the scrupulous people of Jerusalem: /b When they would judge, b they /b would b bring in the litigants and hear their statements, and /b then b they /b would b bring in the witnesses and hear their statements /b in the presence of the litigants, b and /b then b they /b would b take them /b all b outside /b of the courtroom b and discuss the matter /b in their absence. Once b they finished the matter they /b would b bring them, /b i.e., the litigants, b in, /b to hear their verdict.,The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i explicitly: When b they finished the matter they /b would b bring in the witnesses? /b The Gemara answers: b That /b i baraita /i is certainly b not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Natan. /b ,§ The Gemara discusses b the /b matter b itself: The testimonies of /b individual witnesses b are never combined /b into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa says: /b Their testimonies are combined b even in /b a case where they saw the incident b one after the other. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, and if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning: /b The first i tanna /i holds that the witnesses must see the incident transpire together, as otherwise, b about the one hundred dinars /b of debt b that this /b one b is testifying, that /b one b is not testifying, and /b about b the one hundred dinars that that /b one b is testifying, this one is not testifying. /b There is only one witness of each incident, which is not sufficient. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, holds that since b both /b witnesses b are testifying about one hundred dinars in general, /b the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff one hundred dinars., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse, as it is written: /b “And if anyone sins, hearing the voice of adjuration, b and he is a witness, whether he has seen or known, /b if he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” (Leviticus 5:1).,The Gemara explains: b And it is taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: “One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sins; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15); b by inference, from that /b which b is stated /b in the verse: b A witness shall not rise up /b against a man, even without the word “one,” b do I not know that it is /b referring to b one /b witness? After all, the verse is written in the singular. Therefore, b what /b is the meaning when b the verse states /b explicitly: b “One /b witness”?, b This established a paradigm, /b a basis for the principle that in b every place /b in the Torah b where /b the word b “witness” is stated, /b it means that b there are two /b witnesses, b unless the verse specifies for you /b that it is referring to only b one /b witness., b And /b according to the first i tanna /i , b the Merciful One expresses it in the singular form, /b i.e., “witness” and not “witnesses,” b to say /b that they are not combined into a testimony of two witnesses b unless the two of them saw /b the incident transpire together b as one. And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, derives from the phrase: b “And he is a witness, whether he has seen or known,” /b that b in any case /b where one testifies about what he sees and knows, his testimony is valid.,The i baraita /i cited above teaches: b And /b furthermore, b their testimony does not stand in court unless the two of them testify /b together b as one. Rabbi Natan says: /b They need not testify together; rather, their testimonies are combined even if the judges b hear the statement of this /b witness b today, and when the other /b witness b comes tomorrow /b the judges b hear his statement. /b The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? /b The Gemara answers: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b and b if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse. /b ,The Gemara elaborates: b If you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to b logical reasoning, /b as one b Sage, /b the first i tanna /i , b holds /b that b when one witness comes /b to testify, b he comes to /b render the defendant liable to take b an oath. /b This is the i halakha /i when there is one witness against the defendant in a case of monetary law. b He does not come to /b render the defendant liable to pay b money, /b because for this two witnesses are necessary., b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Natan, responds: b Is that to say /b that b when they come together, /b they render the defendant ficially liable because b they testify with one mouth? /b Obviously they testify one after the other. b Rather, /b clearly it is the judges who b combine /b their two testimonies into one. b Here too, /b when the witnesses come to court at different times, b let /b the judges b combine /b their testimonies., b And if you wish, say /b that they disagree with regard to the interpretation of b a verse: “If he does not utter it, then he shall bear his iniquity” /b (Leviticus 5:1), |
|
8. Babylonian Talmud, Sotah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 226| 47a. רב ושמואל חד אמר נס וחד אמר נס בתוך נס מאן דאמר נס יער הוה דובים לא הוו מ"ד נס בתוך נס לא יער הוה ולא דובים הוו וליהוי דובים ולא ליהוי יער דבעיתי,אמר רבי חנינא בשביל ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק מלך מואב הובקעו מישראל ארבעים ושנים ילדים איני,והאמר רב יהודה אמר רב לעולם יעסוק אדם בתורה ובמצות ואע"פ שלא לשמה שמתוך שלא לשמה בא לשמה שבשכר ארבעים ושנים קרבנות שהקריב בלק מלך מואב זכה ויצתה ממנו רות שיצא ממנו שלמה שכתוב ביה (מלכים א ג, ד) אלף עולות יעלה שלמה ואמר רבי יוסי בן חוני רות בתו של עגלון בנו של בלק היתה תאותו מיהא לקללה הוי,(מלכים ב ב, יט) ויאמרו אנשי העיר אל אלישע הנה נא מושב העיר טוב כאשר אדוני רואה וגו' וכי מאחר דמים רעים וארץ משכלת אלא מה טובתה אמר רבי חנין חן מקום על יושביו אמר רבי יוחנן שלשה חינות הן חן מקום על יושביו חן אשה על בעלה חן מקח על מקחו,תנו רבנן שלשה חלאין חלה אלישע אחד שגירה דובים בתינוקות ואחד שדחפו לגחזי בשתי ידים ואחד שמת בו שנאמר (מלכים ב יג, יד) ואלישע חלה את חליו אשר ימות בו,תנו רבנן לעולם תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת לא כאלישע שדחפו לגחזי בשתי ידיו ולא כיהושע בן פרחיה שדחפו [להנוצרי] (לאחד מתלמידיו) בשתי ידיו,אלישע מאי היא דכתיב (מלכים ב ה, כג) ויאמר נעמן הואל קח ככרים וכתיב ויאמר אליו לא לבי הלך כאשר הפך איש מעל מרכבתו לקראתך העת לקחת את הכסף ולקחת בגדים וזיתים וכרמים וצאן ובקר ועבדים ושפחות,ומי שקיל כולי האי כסף ובגדים הוא דשקיל אמר ר' יצחק באותה שעה היה אלישע עוסק בשמנה שרצים אמר לו רשע הגיע עת ליטול שכר שמנה שרצים וצרעת נעמן תדבק בך ובזרעך לעולם (מלכים ב ז, ג) וארבעה אנשים היו מצורעים אמר רבי יוחנן זה גחזי ושלשת בניו,(מלכים ב ח, ז) וילך אלישע דמשק למה הלך אמר ר' יוחנן שהלך להחזירו לגחזי בתשובה ולא חזר אמר לו חזור בך אמר לו כך מקובלני ממך כל מי שחטא והחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה,מאי עבד איכא דאמרי אבן שואבת תלה לו לחטאת ירבעם והעמידו בין שמים לארץ ואיכא דאמרי שם חקק לה אפומה והיתה אומרת אנכי ולא יהיה לך,ואיכא דאמרי רבנן דחה מקמיה דכתיב (מלכים ב ו, א) ויאמרו בני הנביאים אל אלישע הנה נא המקום אשר אנחנו יושבים שם לפניך צר ממנו מכלל דעד האידנא לא הוה דחיק,יהושע בן פרחיה מאי היא כדהוה קא קטיל ינאי מלכא לרבנן שמעון בן שטח אטמינהו אחתיה ר' יהושע בן פרחיה אזל ערק לאלכסנדריא של מצרים כי הוה שלמא שלח ליה שמעון בן שטח מני ירושלים עיר הקודש לך אלכסנדריא של מצרים אחותי בעלי שרוי בתוכך ואני יושבת שוממה אמר ש"מ הוה ליה שלמא,כי אתא אקלע לההוא אושפיזא קם קמייהו ביקרא שפיר עבדי ליה יקרא טובא יתיב וקא משתבח כמה נאה אכסניא זו א"ל (אחד מתלמידיו) רבי עיניה טרוטות א"ל רשע בכך אתה עוסק אפיק ארבע מאה שפורי ושמתיה כל יומא אתא לקמיה ולא קבליה,יומא חד הוה קרי קרית שמע אתא לקמיה הוה בדעתיה לקבוליה אחוי ליה בידיה סבר מדחא דחי ליה אזל זקף לבינתא פלחא אמר ליה חזור בך א"ל כך מקובלני ממך כל החוטא ומחטיא את הרבים אין מספיקין בידו לעשות תשובה דאמר מר [יש"ו] כישף והסית והדיח והחטיא את ישראל,תניא רבי שמעון בן אלעזר אומר יצר תינוק ואשה תהא שמאל דוחה וימין מקרבת, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big נמצא ההורג עד שלא נערפה העגלה תצא ותרעה בעדר משנערפה העגלה תקבר במקומה שעל ספק באתה מתחילתה כיפרה ספיקה והלכה לה נערפה העגלה ואחר כך נמצא ההורג הרי זה יהרג,עד אחד אומר ראיתי את ההורג ועד אחד אומר לא ראית אשה אומרת ראיתי ואשה אומרת לא ראית היו עורפין עד אחד אומר ראיתי ושנים אומרים לא ראית היו עורפין שנים אומרים ראינו ואחד אומר להן לא ראיתם לא היו עורפין,משרבו הרוצחנין בטלה עגלה ערופה משבא אליעזר בן דינאי ותחינה בן פרישה היה נקרא חזרו לקרותו בן הרצחן,משרבו המנאפים פסקו המים המרים ורבי יוחנן בן זכאי הפסיקן שנאמר (הושע ד, יד) לא אפקוד על בנותיכם כי תזנינה ועל כלותיכם כי תנאפנה כי הם וגו',משמת יוסי בן יועזר איש צרידה ויוסי בן יהודה איש ירושלים בטלו האשכלות שנאמר (מיכה ז, א) אין אשכול לאכול בכורה אותה נפשי יוחנן כהן גדול העביר הודיית המעשר אף הוא בטל את המעוררין ואת הנוקפין | 47a. b Rav and Shmuel /b had a dispute with regard to this episode. b One says /b there was b a miracle, and one says /b there b was a miracle within a miracle. /b The Gemara explains: b The one who says /b there was b a miracle /b claims that b there was /b already b a forest /b in that place but b there were no bears, /b and the miracle was the appearance of bears. b The one who says /b it was b a miracle within a miracle /b claims b that neither was there a forest nor were there bears /b in that area. The Gemara asks with regard to the second opinion: Why was a double miracle required? b And let there be bears and no forest; /b the forest served no role in the story, so why was it created? The Gemara explains: The forest was necessary, b as /b bears b are frightened /b to venture into open areas but will attack people in their natural habitat, a forest., b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Due to forty-two offerings that Balak, king of Moab, brought /b when he tried to have Balaam curse the Jewish people, b forty-two children were broken off from Israel, /b in that incident involving Elisha. The Gemara asks: b Is that so? /b Was that the reward for his offerings?, b But didn’t Rav Yehuda say /b that b Rav says: A person should always engage in Torah /b study b and /b in performance of b mitzvot, even /b if he does so b not for their own sake, as through /b such acts performed b not for their own sake, /b one will b come /b to perform them b for their own sake. /b He proves the value of a mitzva done not for its own sake: b As in reward for the forty-two offerings that Balak, king of Moab, brought, he merited that Ruth descended from him, from whom /b King b Solomon descended, about whom it is written /b that he brought many offerings: b “A thousand burnt-offerings did Solomon offer up” /b (I Kings 3:4). b And Rabbi Yosei ben Ḥoni /b similarly b says: Ruth was the daughter of Eglon, son of Balak. /b These Sages state that Balak’s reward was to have Ruth descend from him, not that a number of Jewish people perish. The Gemara answers: b His desire, in any event, was to curse /b the Jewish people, and his reward for sacrificing his offerings was that the curse was fulfilled in the incident involving Elisha, as well.,The Gemara returns to discussing the incident involving Elisha: b “And the men of the city said to Elisha: Behold, please, the situation of this city is pleasant, as my lord sees, /b but the water is bad and the land miscarries” (II Kings 2:19). The Gemara asks: b But if the water is bad and the land causes women to miscarry, what is pleasant /b about b it? Rabbi Ḥanin says: The grace of a place is upon its inhabitants, /b i.e., people are fond of their hometown despite its shortcomings. b Rabbi Yoḥa says: There are three graces /b that have a similar impact: b The grace of a place upon its inhabitants; the grace of a woman upon her husband, /b despite her faults; and b the grace of a purchased /b item b upon its buyer, /b as one who has bought something views it in a positive light.,§ b The Sages taught: Elisha fell ill three times. One /b was a punishment b for inciting /b the b bears to /b attack b the children; and one /b was a punishment b for pushing Gehazi /b away b with both hands, /b without leaving him the option to return; b and one /b was the sickness b from which he died, as /b an expression of illness b is stated /b three times in the verse about Elisha: b “And Elisha became sick [ i ḥala /i ] with his illness [ i ḥolyo /i ] from which he would die” /b (II Kings 13:14). The root i ḥet /i , i lamed /i , i heh /i , which indicates illness, is used twice in this verse, and it is stated once that Elisha will die., b The Sages taught: It should always be /b the b left, /b weaker, hand that b pushes /b another away b and /b the b right, /b stronger, hand that b draws /b him b near. /b In other words, even when a student is rebuffed, he should be given the opportunity to return. This is b not like Elisha, who pushed Gehazi /b away b with both hands, and not like Yehoshua ben Peraḥya, who pushed Jesus the Nazarene, /b one b of his students, /b away b with both hands. /b ,The Gemara specifies: b What was /b that incident with b Elisha? As it is written: “And Naaman said: Pray, take talents” /b (II Kings 5:23). Naaman offered Gehazi payment for the help Elisha had given him, b and /b when the verse recounts Elisha’s words to Gehazi, it b is written: “And he said to him: Did not my heart go, when the man turned back from his chariot to meet you? Is it a time to take money, and to take garments, and olives, and vineyards, and sheep, and oxen, and servants, and maidservants?” /b (II Kings 5:26). Here Elisha criticizes Gehazi for taking the payment.,The Gemara clarifies the criticism: b And did he take all that? /b But b it was /b only b money and garments that he took. Rabbi Yitzḥak says: At that time, Elisha was engaged in /b the study of the topic of the b eight /b impure b creeping animals. He said /b to Gehazi: b Wicked one, it is time /b for you b to receive /b now, in this temporal world, b the reward /b for studying the topic of the b eight /b impure b creeping animals. /b This is why the verse lists eight items. The Gemara adds parenthetically that Elisha also said to Gehazi: b “And the leprosy of Naaman shall cleave to you and to your descendants forever” /b (II Kings 5:27), and that the verse later states: b “Now there were four leprous men” /b (II Kings 7:3), about whom b Rabbi Yoḥa says: This is /b referring to b Gehazi and his three sons. /b ,The verse states: b “And Elisha came to Damascus” /b (II Kings 8:7). The Gemara asks: b For what /b purpose did b he go /b there? b Rabbi Yoḥa says: He went to help Gehazi in repentance, but /b Gehazi b would not /b agree to b repent /b from his evil ways. Elisha b said to him: Return from your /b sins. Gehazi b said to him: This is /b the tradition that b I received from you: Whoever sins and caused the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. /b ,The Gemara asks: b What did /b Gehazi b do /b that caused the masses to sin? b There are /b those b who say /b that b he hung a magnetic rock on Jeroboam’s calf, /b the golden calf that Jeroboam established as an idol, and used a magnet to pull the calf off the ground so that b he suspended it between heaven and earth, /b i.e., caused it to hover above the ground. This seemingly miraculous occurrence caused the people to worship it even more devoutly. b And there are /b those b who say: He engraved /b the sacred b name on its mouth, and it would say: “I am /b the Lord your God” b and: “You shall not have /b other gods” (Exodus 20:2). The idol would quote the two prohibitions from the Ten Commandments against idol worship, causing people to worship it even more devoutly., b And there are /b those b who say: /b Gehazi b pushed the Sages /b away b from /b coming b before him, /b preventing them learning from Elisha, b as it is written, /b after the aforementioned incident: b “And the sons of the prophets said to Elisha, behold this place where we are staying before you is too cramped for us” /b (II Kings 6:1). This proves b by inference that until that time /b the place b was not cramped, /b as Gehazi would turn people away.,The Gemara returns to the incident in which b Yehoshua ben Peraḥya /b turned away Jesus the Nazarene: b What is /b this incident? b When King Yannai was killing the Sages, Shimon ben Shataḥ was hidden by his sister, /b Yannai’s wife, while b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya went /b and b fled to Alexandria of Egypt. When peace was made /b between Yannai and the Sages, b Shimon ben Shataḥ sent him /b the following letter: b From myself, Jerusalem the holy city, to you, Alexandria of Egypt. My sister, my husband dwells within you, and I am sitting desolate. /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b said: /b I can b learn from it that there is peace, /b and I can return., b When he came /b back to Eretz Yisrael, Rabbi Yehoshua b arrived at a certain inn. /b The innkeeper b stood before him, honoring him considerably, /b and overall b they accorded him great honor. /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya then b sat and was praising /b them by saying: b How beautiful is this inn. Jesus the Nazarene, /b one of his students, b said to him: My teacher, /b but the b eyes /b of the innkeeper’s wife b are narrow [ i terutot /i ]. /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b said to him: Wicked one, is this what you are engaged in, /b gazing at women? b He brought out four hundred i shofarot /i and excommunicated him. Every day /b Jesus b would come before him, but he would not accept his /b wish to return., b One day, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b was reciting i Shema /i /b when Jesus b came before him. He intended to accept him /b on this occasion, so b he signaled to him with his hand /b to wait. Jesus b thought he was rejecting him /b entirely. He therefore b went and stood up a brick /b and b worshipped it /b as an idol. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Peraḥya b said to him: Return from your /b sins. Jesus b said to him: This is /b the tradition that b I received from you: Anyone who sins and causes the masses to sin is not given the opportunity to repent. /b The Gemara explains how he caused the masses to sin: b For the Master said: Jesus the Nazarene performed sorcery, and he incited /b the masses, b and subverted /b the masses, b and caused the Jewish people to sin. /b , b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: /b With regard to the evil b inclination, /b to b a child, and /b to b a woman, the left /b hand b should reject and the right /b hand should b welcome. /b If one pushes too forcefully, the damage might be irreversible., strong MISHNA: /strong b If the killer is found before the heifer’s neck was broken, /b the heifer b shall go out and graze among the herd. /b It is not considered sacred at all, and it may rejoin the other animals. If the killer is found b from /b the time b when the heifer’s neck was broken, /b even if the rest of the ritual has not yet been performed, it is prohibited to benefit from the animal, despite the killer having been found; it b should be buried in its place. /b This is b because /b the heifer b initially came for uncertainty, /b as the killer was unknown, and b it atoned /b for b its uncertainty and left, /b i.e., it fulfilled its purpose of bringing atonement and is considered a heifer whose neck is broken in all regards. If b the heifer’s neck was broken and afterward the killer was found, he is killed. /b The ritual does not atone for him.,If b one witness says: I saw the killer, and one /b other b witness says: You did not see /b him; or if b a woman says: I saw, and /b another b woman says: You did not see, they would break the neck /b of the heifer, as without clear testimony about the identity of the killer the ritual is performed. Similarly, if b one witness says: I saw /b the killer, b and two /b witnesses b say: You did not see, they would break the neck /b of the heifer, as the pair is relied upon. If b two /b witnesses b say: We saw /b the killer, b and one /b witness b says to them: You did not see, they would not break the neck /b of the heifer, as there are two witnesses to the identity of the killer.,The mishna further states: b From /b the time b when murderers proliferated, the /b ritual of the b heifer whose neck is broken was nullified. /b The ritual was performed only when the identity of the murderer was completely unknown. Once there were many known murderers, the conditions for the performance of the ritual were no longer present, as the probable identity of the murderer was known. b From /b the time b when Eliezer ben Dinai, who was /b also b called Teḥina ben Perisha, came, they renamed him: Son of a murderer. /b This is an example of a publicly known murderer.,The mishna teaches a similar occurrence: b From /b the time b when adulterers proliferated, /b the performance of the ritual of b the bitter waters was nullified; /b they would not administer the bitter waters to the i sota /i . b And /b it was b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Zakkai /b who b nullified it, as /b it b is stated: “I will not punish your daughters when they commit harlotry, nor your daughters-in-law when they commit adultery; for they /b consort with lewd women” (Hosea 4:14), meaning that when the husbands are adulterers, the wives are not punished for their own adultery., b From /b the time b when Yosei ben Yo’ezer of Tzereida and Yosei ben Yehuda of Jerusalem died, the clusters ceased, /b i.e., they were the last of the clusters, as explained in the Gemara, b as /b it b is stated: “There is no cluster to eat; nor first-ripe fig that my soul desires” /b (Micah 7:1). The mishna continues in the same vein: b Yoḥa the High Priest took away the declaration of the tithe. /b After his time, no one recited the passage about the elimination of tithes that had previously been said at the end of a three-year tithing cycle. b He also nullified /b the actions of b the awakeners and the strikers /b at the Temple. |
|
| 9. Anon., Midrash Tannaim To Deut, 23.8 Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 226 |
10. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •rabbi joshua ben qorha Found in books: Schremer (2010), Brothers Estranged: Heresy, Christianity and Jewish Identity in Late Antiquity, 226| 4b. (במדבר כד, טז) ויודע דעת עליון אפשר דעת בהמתו לא הוה ידע דעת עליון מי הוה ידע,מאי דעת בהמתו לא הוה ידע בעידנא דחזו ליה דהוה רכיב אחמריה אמרו ליה מאי טעמא לא רכבתא אסוסיא אמר להו ברטיבא שדאי ליה מיד ותאמר האתון הלא אנכי אתונך אמר לה לטעינא בעלמא,אמרה ליה אשר רכבת עלי אמר לה אקראי בעלמא אמרה ליה מעודך ועד היום הזה ולא עוד אלא שאני עושה לך רכיבות ביום ואישות בלילה כתיב הכא ההסכן הסכנתי וכתיב התם (מלכים א א, ב) ותהי לו סוכנת,אלא מאי ויודע דעת עליון שהיה יודע לכוין אותה שעה שהקב"ה כועס בה והיינו דקאמר להו נביא (מיכה ו, ה) עמי זכר נא מה יעץ בלק מלך מואב ומה ענה אותו בלעם בן בעור מן השטים ועד הגלגל למען דעת צדקות ה',א"ר אלעזר אמר להן הקב"ה לישראל עמי ראו כמה צדקות עשיתי עמכם שלא כעסתי עליכם כל אותן הימים שאם כעסתי עליכם לא נשתייר מעובדי כוכבים משונאיהם של ישראל שריד ופליט והיינו דקאמר ליה בלעם לבלק (במדבר כג, ח) מה אקב לא קבה אל ומה אזעם לא זעם ה',וכמה זעמו רגע וכמה רגע אמר אמימר ואיתימא רבינא רגע כמימריה ומנלן דרגע הוה ריתחיה דכתיב (תהלים ל, ו) כי רגע באפו חיים ברצונו ואיבעית אימא מהכא (ישעיהו כו, כ) חבי כמעט רגע עד יעבור זעם,אימת רתח אמר אביי בתלת שעי קמייתא כי חיורא כרבלתא דתרנגולא כל שעתא ושעתא מחוור חיורא כל שעתא אית ביה סורייקי סומקי ההיא שעתא לית ביה סורייקי סומקי,רבי יהושע בן לוי הוה מצער ליה ההוא מינא [בקראי יומא חד] נקט תרנגולא [ואוקמיה בין כרעיה דערסא] ועיין ביה סבר כי מטא ההיא שעתא אלטייה כי מטא ההיא שעתא נימנם,אמר שמע מינה לאו אורח ארעא למיעבד הכי [ורחמיו על כל מעשיו כתיב] וכתיב (משלי יז, כו) גם ענוש לצדיק לא טוב,תנא משמיה דר"מ בשעה שהמלכים מניחין כתריהן בראשיהן ומשתחוין לחמה מיד כועס [הקב"ה] אמר רב יוסף לא ליצלי איניש צלותא דמוספי בתלת שעי קמייתא דיומא ביומא קמא דריש שתא ביחיד דלמא כיון דמפקיד דינא דלמא מעייני בעובדיה ודחפו ליה מידחי,אי הכי דצבור נמי דצבור נפישא זכותיה אי הכי דיחיד דצפרא נמי לא כיון דאיכא צבורא דקא מצלו לא קא מדחי,והא אמרת שלש ראשונות הקב"ה יושב ועוסק בתורה איפוך,ואיבעית אימא לעולם לא תיפוך תורה דכתיב בה אמת דכתיב (משלי כג, כג) אמת קנה ואל תמכור אין הקב"ה עושה לפנים משורת הדין דין דלא כתיב ביה אמת הקב"ה עושה לפנים משורת הדין:,יום מעיד טרף בעגל סימן: גופא אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי מאי דכתיב (דברים ז, יא) אשר אנכי מצוך היום לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא למחר לעשותם היום לעשותם ולא היום ליטול שכרן,אמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל מצות שישראל עושין בעולם הזה באות ומעידות אותם לעולם הבא שנאמר (ישעיהו מג, ט) יתנו עידיהם ויצדקו ישמעו ויאמרו אמת יתנו עידיהם ויצדקו אלו ישראל ישמעו ויאמרו אמת אלו עובדי כוכבים,ואמר רבי יהושע בן לוי כל מצות שישראל עושין בעולם הזה באות וטורפות אותם לעובדי כוכבים לעולם הבא על פניהם שנאמר (דברים ד, ו) ושמרתם ועשיתם כי היא חכמתכם ובינתכם לעיני העמים נגד העמים לא נאמר אלא לעיני העמים מלמד שבאות וטורפות לעובדי כוכבים על פניהם לעוה"ב,וא"ר יהושע בן לוי לא עשו ישראל את העגל אלא ליתן פתחון פה לבעלי תשובה שנאמר (דברים ה, כה) מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי כל הימים וגו',והיינו דא"ר יוחנן משום ר"ש בן יוחאי לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה ולא ישראל ראוין לאותו מעשה לא דוד ראוי לאותו מעשה דכתיב (תהלים קט, כב) ולבי חלל בקרבי,ולא ישראל ראוין לאותו מעשה דכתיב מי יתן והיה לבבם זה להם ליראה אותי כל הימים אלא למה עשו | 4b. b “And knows the knowledge of the Most High” /b (Numbers 24:16). Now, this should not be understood to mean that Balaam knew the thoughts of God, as is it b possible /b that Balaam b did not know the mind of his animal, and /b yet b he did know the mind of the Most High? /b ,The Gemara clarifies: b What /b is meant by the claim that Balaam b did not know the mind of his animal? When /b the princes of Moab b saw that /b Balaam b was riding on his donkey, they said to him: What is the reason /b that b you do not ride upon a horse, /b which is more fitting for you? Balaam b said to them: /b I am riding on a donkey because b I left /b my horse b in a meadow /b to graze. b Immediately: “And the donkey said /b to Balaam: b Am not I your donkey?” /b (Numbers 22:30), i.e., the donkey you always use. Balaam b said to it: For /b carrying b burdens only, /b not for riding.,The donkey further b said to /b Balaam: b “Upon which you have ridden.” /b Balaam b said to it: Merely at irregular occurrences. /b The donkey b said to him: “All your life long unto this day” /b (Numbers 22:30). The donkey added: b And moreover, I perform for you riding during the day, and marriage, /b i.e., intercourse, b during the night. /b The Gemara explains: This is derived from the following comparison: b It is written here /b that Balaam’s donkey said: b “Was I ever wont [ i hahasken hiskanti /i ] to do so to you” /b (Numbers 22:30), b and it is written there, /b with regard to Abishag the Shunammite and King David: b “And be a companion [ i sokhenet /i ] unto him; /b and let her lie in your bosom” (I Kings 1:2). This teaches that the term i hiskanti /i alludes to sexual intercourse.,The Gemara returns to its previous question: b Rather, what /b is the meaning of: b “And knows the knowledge of the Most High” /b (Numbers 24:16)? It means b that he was able to determine /b precisely b the hour at which the Holy One, Blessed be He, is angry. /b At that moment Balaam would utter his curse and, through God’s anger, it would be fulfilled. b And this is what the prophet said to /b the Jewish people: b “O My people, remember now what Balak, king of Moab, devised, and what Balaam, son of Beor, answered him; from Shittim unto Gilgal, that you may know the righteous acts of the Lord” /b (Micah 6:5)., b Rabbi Elazar says, /b in explanation of that verse: b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said to the Jewish people: My nation, see how many acts of kindness I performed for you, that I did not become angry at you during all of those days /b when Balaam attempted to curse the Jewish people, and he was not able to find a moment of divine anger. b As, had I become angry at you, there would not have remained a remt or a refugee among the enemies of the Jewish people, /b a euphemism for the Jewish people themselves. Instead, God restrained His anger and Balaam’s curse went unfulfilled. b And this is what Balaam said to Balak: /b Since God is not becoming angry, I can do nothing, as: b “How shall I curse whom God has not cursed? And how shall I execrate whom the Lord has not execrated”? /b (Numbers 23:8).,The Gemara further discusses this matter: b And how /b long does b His indignation /b last? It lasts b a moment. And how /b long is b a moment? Ameimar, and some say Ravina, said: /b It lasts b as /b long as it takes b to say /b the word b moment [ i rega /i ]. /b The Gemara asks: b And from where do we /b derive b that /b God’s b anger /b lasts for only b a moment? As it is written: “His anger is but for a moment; His favor, for a lifetime” /b (Psalms 30:6). b And if you wish, say /b instead that it is derived b from here: “Hide yourself for a brief moment, until the anger passes” /b (Isaiah 26:20), meaning that God’s anger passes in a mere moment.,The Gemara asks: b When /b is God b angry? Abaye said: During the first three hours /b of the day, b when the crest of the rooster whitens /b in the sun, as though life has left the rooster and it suddenly turns white, that is when God is angry. The Gemara asks: Doesn’t its crest b whiten each and every hour? /b How can this serve as a sign? The Gemara answers: The difference is that b every /b other b hour there /b remain b red streaks [ i surayekei /i ] /b in the rooster’s crest, whereas at b that hour /b of His anger b there are no red streaks in /b its crest.,The Gemara relates: b A certain heretic would distress Rabi Yehoshua ben Levi /b by incessantly challenging him as to the meaning b of verses. One day, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b took a rooster and placed it between the legs of the bed /b upon which he sat, b and looked at it. He thought: When that moment /b of God’s anger b arrives, I will curse /b the heretic and be rid of b him. When that moment /b of God’s anger b arrived, /b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b fell asleep /b and missed the opportunity to curse the heretic.,Upon awakening, Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi b said: /b I can b conclude from /b the fact that I fell asleep that it is b not proper conduct to do this, /b to curse people, even if they are wicked, as the verse: b “And His tender mercies are over all His works” /b (Psalms 145:9) b is written /b even with regard to sinners. b And /b moreover, it is inappropriate to cause the punishment of another, as b it is written: “Punishment, even for the righteous, is not good” /b (Proverbs 17:26). Even for a righteous person, it is improper to punish another.,In explanation of the cause of God’s anger, b it is taught in the name of Rabbi Meir: When the kings /b wake up and b place their crowns on their heads and bow down to the sun, the Holy One, Blessed be He, immediately grows angry. /b This is why God’s anger occurs during the first three hours of the day. b Rav Yosef says: A person should not recite the additional prayers during the first three hours of the day on the first day of Rosh HaShana /b if he is praying b individually, /b as, b since the judgment /b of the entire world b is reckoned /b then, b perhaps /b the Heavenly court b will scrutinize his actions and reject him. /b ,The Gemara raises a difficulty: b If that is so, /b the prayer b of the community /b should not be recited at that time b as well. /b The Gemara explains: The prayer b of the community /b is not rejected even at this time, due to b its many merits. /b The Gemara asks: b If that is so, /b then shouldn’t the b morning /b prayer b of /b one who is praying b individually also not /b be recited at this time? The Gemara answers: b Since there is /b in all places b a community that prays /b the morning prayer at that same time, his prayer b is not rejected. /b By contrast, the additional prayer is recited at different times by different communities, as unlike the morning prayer it does not have a fixed time but can be recited at any point during the day.,The Gemara raises another difficulty: b But didn’t you say /b that b during the first three hours of the day The Holy One, Blessed be He, sits and engages in Torah /b study, and He engages in judgment only during the second set of three hours? The Gemara answers: b Reverse /b the order so that it is stated that He sits in judgment during the first three hours of the day., b And if you wish, say /b instead: b Actually, do not reverse /b the order. Rather, this is the reason that an individual should not recite the additional prayer during the first three hours of the day when God is engaged in Torah study: In the case of the b Torah, with regard to which it is written: Truth, as it is written: “Buy the truth, and sell it not” /b (Proverbs 23:23), b the Holy One, Blessed be He, does not act /b in a manner that is b beyond the letter of the law. /b But with regard to b judgment, with regard to which it is not written: Truth, /b but it is a process that involves mercy and compromise, b the Holy One, Blessed be He, /b can b act /b in a manner that is b beyond the letter of the law. /b ,§ The Gemara presents b a mnemonic /b for the ensuing statements of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi: b Today, bear witness, shake, the /b golden b calf. /b The Gemara returns to an earlier discussion (3a), first by citing b the /b matter b itself. Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: What /b is the meaning of that b which is written: “Which I command you this day, to do them” /b (Deuteronomy 7:11)? This verse teaches that b today /b is the time b to do them, /b i.e., to perform the mitzvot, in this world, b but tomorrow, /b in the World-to-Come, b is not /b the time b to do them. /b Furthermore, b today /b is the time b to do them, but today is not /b the time b to receive /b one’s b reward, /b which is given in the World-to-Come., b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All of the mitzvot that the Jews perform in this word /b will b come and bear witness for them in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified, and let them hear, and say: It is truth” /b (Isaiah 43:9). He explains: b “Let them bring their witnesses that they may be justified”; these are /b referring to b the Jews. “And let them hear, and say: It is truth”; these are /b referring to b the nations of the world. /b , b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: All of the mitzvot that the Jewish people perform in this world /b will b come and strike the faces of the nations of the world in the World-to-Come, as it is stated: “Observe therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the eyes of the nations” /b (Deuteronomy 4:6). It b is not stated: Before the nations; rather, /b the verse states: b “In the eyes of the nations,” /b which taken literally b teaches that they /b will b come and strike the faces of the nations of the world in the World-to-Come. /b , b And Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: The Jewish people fashioned the /b Golden b Calf /b (see Exodus, chapter 32) b only to give a claim to penitents, as it is stated /b after the revelation at Sinai: b “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me, /b and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children b forever” /b (Deuteronomy 5:25). If the nation was truly at such a lofty spiritual state, how could they worship the Golden Calf? Rather, their sin occurred so that it would be made clear that one can repent for any sin, as even a sin as severe as the Golden Calf was forgiven., b And this is /b similar to that b which Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Shimon ben Yoḥai: David was not fit to /b act as he did in b that incident /b involving Bathsheba, b and the Jewish people were not fit to /b act as they did in b that incident /b of the Golden Calf. b David was not fit to /b act as he did in b that incident /b involving Bathsheba (see II Samuel, chapter 11), b as it is written: “And my heart is wounded within me” /b (Psalms 109:22), i.e., he had vanquished his evil inclination, and therefore it should not have been able to rule over him to that extent., b And /b likewise b the Jewish people were not fit to /b act as they did in b that incident /b of the Golden Calf, b as it is written /b with regard to the Jewish people of that time: b “Who would give that they had such a heart as this always, to fear Me /b and keep all My commandments, that it might be good for them, and with their children b forever” /b (Deuteronomy 5:25). b Rather, why did they perform /b these sins? |
|
