| 1. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 108 |
2. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 4.4, 6.7, 8.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 108, 183| 4.4. "אַךְ אִישׁ אַל־יָרֵב וְאַל־יוֹכַח אִישׁ וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן׃", 6.7. "וְהֵמָּה כְּאָדָם עָבְרוּ בְרִית שָׁם בָּגְדוּ בִי׃", 8.1. "אֶל־חִכְּךָ שֹׁפָר כַּנֶּשֶׁר עַל־בֵּית יְהוָה יַעַן עָבְרוּ בְרִיתִי וְעַל־תּוֹרָתִי פָּשָׁעוּ׃", 8.1. "גַּם כִּי־יִתְנוּ בַגּוֹיִם עַתָּה אֲקַבְּצֵם וַיָּחֵלּוּ מְּעָט מִמַּשָּׂא מֶלֶךְ שָׂרִים׃", | 4.4. "Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; For thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", 6.7. "But they like men have transgressed the covet; There have they dealt treacherously against Me.", 8.1. "Set the horn to thy mouth. As a vulture he cometh against the house of the LORD; Because they have transgressed My covet, And trespassed against My law.", |
|
3. Hebrew Bible, Micah, 6.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 108| 6.2. "שִׁמְעוּ הָרִים אֶת־רִיב יְהוָה וְהָאֵתָנִים מֹסְדֵי אָרֶץ כִּי רִיב לַיהוָה עִם־עַמּוֹ וְעִם־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִתְוַכָּח׃", | 6.2. "Hear, O ye mountains, the LORD’S controversy, And ye enduring rocks, the foundations of the earth; For the LORD hath a controversy with His people, And He will plead with Israel.", |
|
4. Hebrew Bible, Malachi, 3.16-3.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 60| 3.16. "אָז נִדְבְּרוּ יִרְאֵי יְהוָה אִישׁ אֶת־רֵעֵהוּ וַיַּקְשֵׁב יְהוָה וַיִּשְׁמָע וַיִּכָּתֵב סֵפֶר זִכָּרוֹן לְפָנָיו לְיִרְאֵי יְהוָה וּלְחֹשְׁבֵי שְׁמוֹ׃", 3.17. "וְהָיוּ לִי אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת לַיּוֹם אֲשֶׁר אֲנִי עֹשֶׂה סְגֻלָּה וְחָמַלְתִּי עֲלֵיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר יַחְמֹל אִישׁ עַל־בְּנוֹ הָעֹבֵד אֹתוֹ׃", 3.18. "וְשַׁבְתֶּם וּרְאִיתֶם בֵּין צַדִּיק לְרָשָׁע בֵּין עֹבֵד אֱלֹהִים לַאֲשֶׁר לֹא עֲבָדוֹ׃", 3.19. "כִּי־הִנֵּה הַיּוֹם בָּא בֹּעֵר כַּתַּנּוּר וְהָיוּ כָל־זֵדִים וְכָל־עֹשֵׂה רִשְׁעָה קַשׁ וְלִהַט אֹתָם הַיּוֹם הַבָּא אָמַר יְהוָה צְבָאוֹת אֲשֶׁר לֹא־יַעֲזֹב לָהֶם שֹׁרֶשׁ וְעָנָף׃", | 3.16. "Then they that feared the LORD Spoke one with another; and the LORD hearkened, and heard, and a book of remembrance was written before Him, for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon His name.", 3.17. "And they shall be Mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in the day that I do make, even Mine own treasure; and I will spare them, as a man spareth His own son that serveth him.", 3.18. "Then shall ye again discern between the righteous and the wicked, between him that serveth God and him that serveth Him not.", 3.19. "For, behold, the day cometh, It burneth as a furnace; and all the proud, and all that work wickedness, shall be stubble; and the day that cometh shall set them ablaze, Saith the LORD of hosts, that it shall leave them neither root nor branch.", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 9.24, 10.2, 11.40, 13.1-14.32, 19.16, 19.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 60 | 11.40. "And he that eateth of the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even; he also that beareth the carcass of it shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until the even.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Job, 14.5 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 183| 14.5. "אִם חֲרוּצִים יָמָיו מִסְפַּר־חֳדָשָׁיו אִתָּךְ חקו [חֻקָּיו] עָשִׂיתָ וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר׃", | 14.5. "Seeing his days are determined, The number of his months is with Thee, And Thou hast appointed his bounds that he cannot pass;", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 148.6 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 183| 148.6. "וַיַּעֲמִידֵם לָעַד לְעוֹלָם חָק־נָתַן וְלֹא יַעֲבוֹר׃", | 148.6. "He hath also established them for ever and ever; He hath made a decree which shall not be transgressed.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 4.16, 5.29 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 183, 188| 4.16. "וַיֵּצֵא קַיִן מִלִּפְנֵי יְהוָה וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּאֶרֶץ־נוֹד קִדְמַת־עֵדֶן׃", 5.29. "וַיִּקְרָא אֶת־שְׁמוֹ נֹחַ לֵאמֹר זֶה יְנַחֲמֵנוּ מִמַּעֲשֵׂנוּ וּמֵעִצְּבוֹן יָדֵינוּ מִן־הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר אֵרְרָהּ יְהוָה׃", | 4.16. "And Cain went out from the presence of the LORD, and dwelt in the land of Nod, on the east of Eden.", 5.29. "And he called his name Noah, saying: ‘This same shall comfort us in our work and in the toil of our hands, which cometh from the ground which the LORD hath cursed.’", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 17.2, 25.15-25.26, 26.13 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 183, 188| 17.2. "לְבִלְתִּי רוּם־לְבָבוֹ מֵאֶחָיו וּלְבִלְתִּי סוּר מִן־הַמִּצְוָה יָמִין וּשְׂמֹאול לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיךְ יָמִים עַל־מַמְלַכְתּוֹ הוּא וּבָנָיו בְּקֶרֶב יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 17.2. "כִּי־יִמָּצֵא בְקִרְבְּךָ בְּאַחַד שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה אֲשֶׁר יַעֲשֶׂה אֶת־הָרַע בְּעֵינֵי יְהוָה־אֱלֹהֶיךָ לַעֲבֹר בְּרִיתוֹ׃", 25.15. "אֶבֶן שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה־לָּךְ אֵיפָה שְׁלֵמָה וָצֶדֶק יִהְיֶה־לָּךְ לְמַעַן יַאֲרִיכוּ יָמֶיךָ עַל הָאֲדָמָה אֲשֶׁר־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לָךְ׃", 25.16. "כִּי תוֹעֲבַת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ כָּל־עֹשֵׂה אֵלֶּה כֹּל עֹשֵׂה עָוֶל׃", 25.17. "זָכוֹר אֵת אֲשֶׁר־עָשָׂה לְךָ עֲמָלֵק בַּדֶּרֶךְ בְּצֵאתְכֶם מִמִּצְרָיִם׃", 25.18. "אֲשֶׁר קָרְךָ בַּדֶּרֶךְ וַיְזַנֵּב בְּךָ כָּל־הַנֶּחֱשָׁלִים אַחַרֶיךָ וְאַתָּה עָיֵף וְיָגֵעַ וְלֹא יָרֵא אֱלֹהִים׃", 25.19. "וְהָיָה בְּהָנִיחַ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ לְךָ מִכָּל־אֹיְבֶיךָ מִסָּבִיב בָּאָרֶץ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה־אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ נַחֲלָה לְרִשְׁתָּהּ תִּמְחֶה אֶת־זֵכֶר עֲמָלֵק מִתַּחַת הַשָּׁמָיִם לֹא תִּשְׁכָּח׃", 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׃", | 17.2. "If there be found in the midst of thee, within any of thy gates which the LORD thy God giveth thee, man or woman, that doeth that which is evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, in transgressing His covet,", 25.15. "A perfect and just weight shalt thou have; a perfect and just measure shalt thou have; that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee.", 25.16. "For all that do such things, even all that do unrighteously, are an abomination unto the LORD thy God.", 25.17. "Remember what Amalek did unto thee by the way as ye came forth out of Egypt;", 25.18. "how he met thee by the way, and smote the hindmost of thee, all that were enfeebled in thy rear, when thou wast faint and weary; and he feared not God.", 25.19. "Therefore it shall be, when the LORD thy God hath given thee rest from all thine enemies round about, in the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee for an inheritance to possess it, that thou shalt blot out the remembrance of Amalek from under heaven; thou shalt not forget.", 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.", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189| 11.13. "הוֹלֵךְ רָכִיל מְגַלֶּה־סּוֹד וְנֶאֱמַן־רוּחַ מְכַסֶּה דָבָר׃", 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.", 20.19. "He that goeth about as a talebearer revealeth secrets; therefore meddle not with him that openeth wide his lips.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 5.18-5.27, 6.24-6.27, 12.1 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 188, 189| 5.18. "וְהֶעֱמִיד הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וּפָרַע אֶת־רֹאשׁ הָאִשָּׁה וְנָתַן עַל־כַּפֶּיהָ אֵת מִנְחַת הַזִּכָּרוֹן מִנְחַת קְנָאֹת הִוא וּבְיַד הַכֹּהֵן יִהְיוּ מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים׃", 5.19. "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ אֹתָהּ הַכֹּהֵן וְאָמַר אֶל־הָאִשָּׁה אִם־לֹא שָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָךְ וְאִם־לֹא שָׂטִית טֻמְאָה תַּחַת אִישֵׁךְ הִנָּקִי מִמֵּי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים הָאֵלֶּה׃", 5.21. "וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה וְאָמַר הַכֹּהֵן לָאִשָּׁה יִתֵּן יְהוָה אוֹתָךְ לְאָלָה וְלִשְׁבֻעָה בְּתוֹךְ עַמֵּךְ בְּתֵת יְהוָה אֶת־יְרֵכֵךְ נֹפֶלֶת וְאֶת־בִּטְנֵךְ צָבָה׃", 5.22. "וּבָאוּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרְרִים הָאֵלֶּה בְּמֵעַיִךְ לַצְבּוֹת בֶּטֶן וְלַנְפִּל יָרֵךְ וְאָמְרָה הָאִשָּׁה אָמֵן אָמֵן׃", 5.23. "וְכָתַב אֶת־הָאָלֹת הָאֵלֶּה הַכֹּהֵן בַּסֵּפֶר וּמָחָה אֶל־מֵי הַמָּרִים׃", 5.24. "וְהִשְׁקָה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־מֵי הַמָּרִים הַמְאָרֲרִים וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרֲרִים לְמָרִים׃", 5.25. "וְלָקַח הַכֹּהֵן מִיַּד הָאִשָּׁה אֵת מִנְחַת הַקְּנָאֹת וְהֵנִיף אֶת־הַמִּנְחָה לִפְנֵי יְהוָה וְהִקְרִיב אֹתָהּ אֶל־הַמִּזְבֵּחַ׃", 5.26. "וְקָמַץ הַכֹּהֵן מִן־הַמִּנְחָה אֶת־אַזְכָּרָתָהּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה וְאַחַר יַשְׁקֶה אֶת־הָאִשָּׁה אֶת־הַמָּיִם׃", 5.27. "וְהִשְׁקָהּ אֶת־הַמַּיִם וְהָיְתָה אִם־נִטְמְאָה וַתִּמְעֹל מַעַל בְּאִישָׁהּ וּבָאוּ בָהּ הַמַּיִם הַמְאָרֲרִים לְמָרִים וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ וְהָיְתָה הָאִשָּׁה לְאָלָה בְּקֶרֶב עַמָּהּ׃", 6.24. "יְבָרֶכְךָ יְהוָה וְיִשְׁמְרֶךָ׃", 6.25. "יָאֵר יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וִיחֻנֶּךָּ׃", 6.26. "יִשָּׂא יְהוָה פָּנָיו אֵלֶיךָ וְיָשֵׂם לְךָ שָׁלוֹם׃", 6.27. "וְשָׂמוּ אֶת־שְׁמִי עַל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וַאֲנִי אֲבָרֲכֵם׃", 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׃", | 5.18. "And the priest shall set the woman before the LORD, and let the hair of the woman’s head go loose, and put the meal-offering of memorial in her hands, which is the meal-offering of jealousy; and the priest shall have in his hand the water of bitterness that causeth the curse.", 5.19. "And the priest shall cause her to swear, and shall say unto the woman: ‘If no man have lain with thee, and if thou hast not gone aside to uncleanness, being under thy husband, be thou free from this water of bitterness that causeth the curse;", 5.20. "but if thou hast gone aside, being under thy husband, and if thou be defiled, and some man have lain with thee besides thy husband—", 5.21. "then the priest shall cause the woman to swear with the oath of cursing, and the priest shall say unto the woman—the LORD make thee a curse and an oath among thy people, when the LORD doth make thy thigh to fall away, and thy belly to swell;", 5.22. "and this water that causeth the curse shall go into thy bowels, and make thy belly to swell, and thy thigh to fall away’; and the woman shall say: ‘Amen, Amen.’", 5.23. "And the priest shall write these curses in a scroll, and he shall blot them out into the water of bitterness.", 5.24. "And he shall make the woman drink the water of bitterness that causeth the curse; and the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter.", 5.25. "And the priest shall take the meal-offering of jealousy out of the woman’s hand, and shall wave the meal-offering before the LORD, and bring it unto the altar.", 5.26. "And the priest shall take a handful of the meal-offering, as the memorial-part thereof, and make it smoke upon the altar, and afterward shall make the woman drink the water.", 5.27. "And when he hath made her drink the water, then it shall come to pass, if she be defiled, and have acted unfaithfully against her husband, that the water that causeth the curse shall enter into her and become bitter, and her belly shall swell, and her thigh shall fall away; and the woman shall be a curse among her people.", 6.24. "The LORD bless thee, and keep thee;", 6.25. "The LORD make His face to shine upon thee, and be gracious unto thee;", 6.26. "The LORD lift up His countece upon thee, and give thee peace.", 6.27. "So shall they put My name upon the children of Israel, and I will bless them.’", 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.", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 24.5 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 183| 24.5. "וְהָאָרֶץ חָנְפָה תַּחַת יֹשְׁבֶיהָ כִּי־עָבְרוּ תוֹרֹת חָלְפוּ חֹק הֵפֵרוּ בְּרִית עוֹלָם׃", | 24.5. "The earth also is defiled under the inhabitants thereof; Because they have transgressed the laws, violated the statute, Broken the everlasting covet.", |
|
| 13. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 63 |
| 14. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 63 |
| 15. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.8, 2.9, 2.10, 2.11, 2.12, 2.13, 2.14, 2.15, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 4.6, 5.16, 5.24, 6.12, 6.17, 6.22, 6.24, 6.27-7.2, 7.4, 7.8, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.20, 8.21, 8.21-9.2, 8.22, 8.23, 8.24, 9.1, 9.8, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.22, 10.19 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 188 |
| 16. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9-1.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 63 |
| 17. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 6.15, 9.2-9.8, 10.13, 11.4, 12.3-12.6, 13.4-13.6, 13.14, 14.22, 15.5-15.13, 20.1-20.8, 20.15-20.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 60, 63, 96, 108, 171, 183, 189 |
| 18. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 6.15, 9.2-9.8, 10.13, 11.4, 12.3-12.6, 13.4-13.6, 13.14, 14.22, 15.5-15.13, 20.1-20.8, 20.15-20.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 60, 63, 96, 108, 171, 183, 189 |
19. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 7.18 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 188| 7.18. "וִיקַבְּלוּן מַלְכוּתָא קַדִּישֵׁי עֶלְיוֹנִין וְיַחְסְנוּן מַלְכוּתָא עַד־עָלְמָא וְעַד עָלַם עָלְמַיָּא׃", | 7.18. "But the saints of the Most High shall receive the kingdom, and possess the kingdom for ever, even for ever and ever.’", |
|
20. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 4.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 63| 4.4. "וְשָׁלֹשׁ שׁוּרוֹת שֶׁל תַּלְמִידֵי חֲכָמִים יוֹשְׁבִין לִפְנֵיהֶם, כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד מַכִּיר אֶת מְקוֹמוֹ. הָיוּ צְרִיכִין לִסְמֹךְ, סוֹמְכִין מִן הָרִאשׁוֹנָה. אֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁנִיָּה בָּא לוֹ לָרִאשׁוֹנָה וְאֶחָד מִן הַשְּׁלִישִׁית בָּא לוֹ לַשְּׁנִיָּה, וּבוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד מִן הַקָּהָל וּמוֹשִׁיבִין אוֹתוֹ בַשְּׁלִישִׁית. וְלֹא הָיָה יוֹשֵׁב בִּמְקוֹמוֹ שֶׁל רִאשׁוֹן, אֶלָּא יוֹשֵׁב בְּמָקוֹם הָרָאוּי לוֹ: \n", | 4.4. "And there were three rows of disciples of the Sages who sat before them, and each knew his proper place. If they needed to appoint [another as a judge] they appointed him from the first row, and one from the second row came into the first row, and one from the third row came into the second row, and they chose another from the congregation and set him in the third row. He did not sit in the place of the former, but he sat in the place that was proper for him.", |
|
21. New Testament, Matthew, 5.22 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 108| 5.22. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὀργιζόμενος τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ ἔνοχος ἔσται τῇ κρίσει· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ τῷ ἀδελφῷ αὐτοῦ Ῥακά, ἔνοχος ἔσται τῷ συνεδρίῳ· ὃς δʼ ἂν εἴπῃ Μωρέ, ἔνοχος ἔσται εἰς τὴν γέενναν τοῦ πυρός. | 5.22. But I tell you, that everyone who is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment; and whoever shall say to his brother, 'Raca!' shall be in danger of the council; and whoever shall say, 'You fool!' shall be in danger of the fire of Gehenna. |
|
22. New Testament, 1 Corinthians, 7.1 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 7| 7.1. Περὶ δὲ ὧν ἐγράψατε, καλὸν ἀνθρώπῳ γυναικὸς μὴ ἅπτεσθαι· | 7.1. Now concerning the things about which you wrote to me: it isgood for a man not to touch a woman. |
|
| 23. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189 |
| 24. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189 |
25. 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| 31a. גברא אגברא קא רמית,נהרדעי אמרי אפילו אחד אומר מנה שחור ואחד אומר מנה לבן מצטרפים,כמאן כרבי יהושע בן קרחה אימר דשמעת ליה לרבי יהושע בן קרחה היכא דלא מכחשו אהדדי היכא דמכחשי אהדדי מי אמר,אלא הוא דאמר כי האי תנא דתניא אמר ר' שמעון בן אלעזר לא נחלקו בית שמאי ובית הלל על שתי כיתי עדים שאחת אומרת מאתים ואחת אומרת מנה שיש בכלל מאתים מנה,על מה נחלקו על כת אחת שבית שמאי אומרים נחלקה עדותן ובית הלל אומרים יש בכלל מאתים מנה,אחד אומר חבית של יין ואחד אומר חבית של שמן הוה עובדא ואתי לקמיה דרבי אמי חייביה רבי אמי לשלומי ליה חביתא דחמרא מיגו חביתא דמשחא,כמאן כר"ש בן אלעזר אימר דאמר ר"ש [ב"א] היכא דיש בכלל מאתים מנה כי האי גוונא מי אמר,לא צריכא לדמי,אחד אומר בדיוטא העליונה ואחד אומר בדיוטא התחתונה אמר רבי חנינא מעשה בא לפני רבי וצירף עדותן:,ומניין לכשיצא כו': תנו רבנן מניין לכשיצא לא יאמר הריני מזכה וחבירי מחייבין אבל מה אעשה שחבירי רבו עלי תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יט, טז) לא תלך רכיל בעמך ואומר (משלי יא, יג) הולך רכיל מגלה סוד,ההוא תלמידא דנפיק עליה קלא דגלי מילתא דאיתמר בי מדרשא בתר עשרין ותרתין שנין אפקיה רב אמי מבי מדרשא אמר דין גלי רזיא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big כל זמן שמביא ראיה סותר את הדין אמר לו כל ראיות שיש לך הבא מיכן עד שלשים יום מצא בתוך שלשים יום סותר לאחר שלשים יום אינו סותר,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא מצא בתוך שלשים ומצא לאחר שלשים,אמר לו הבא עדים ואמר אין לי עדים אמר הבא ראיה ואמר אין לי ראיה ולאחר זמן הביא ראיה ומצא עדים הרי זה אינו כלום,אמר רשב"ג מה יעשה זה שלא היה יודע שיש לו עדים ומצא עדים לא היה יודע שיש לו ראיה ומצא ראיה,ראה שמתחייב בדין ואמר קרבו פלוני ופלוני ויעידוני או שהוציא ראיה מתחת פונדתו הרי זה אינו כלום:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big אמר רבה בר רב הונא הלכה כרשב"ג ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אין הלכה כדברי חכמים,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כרשב"ג ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כחכמים,מהו דתימא הני מילי לכתחילה אבל דיעבד שפיר דמי קמ"ל דאי עביד מהדרינן ליה:,אמר לו הבא עדים כו' אמר רשב"ג כו': אמר רבה בר רב הונא א"ר יוחנן הלכה כדברי חכמים ואמר רבה בר רב הונא אמר רבי יוחנן אין הלכה כרשב"ג,פשיטא כיון דאמר הלכה כדברי חכמים ממילא ידענא דאין הלכה כרשב"ג,הא קמ"ל דבההיא אין הלכה כרשב"ג הא בכולהו הלכה כרשב"ג,לאפוקי מהא דאמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן כל מקום ששנה רשב"ג במשנתנו הלכה כמותו חוץ מערב וצידן וראיה אחרונה,ההוא ינוקא דתבעוהו לדינא קמיה דרב נחמן א"ל אית לך סהדי א"ל לא אית לך ראיה א"ל לא חייביה רב נחמן,הוה קא בכי ואזיל שמעוהו הנך אינשי אמרו ליה אנן ידעינן במילי דאבוך אמר רב נחמן בהא אפילו רבנן מודו דינוקא במילי דאבוה לא ידע,ההיא איתתא דנפק שטרא מתותי ידה אמרה ליה ידענא בהאי שטרא דפריע הוה הימנה רב נחמן,אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן כמאן כרבי דאמר אותיות נקנות במסירה,אמר ליה שאני הכא דאי בעיא קלתיה,איכא דאמרי לא הימנה רב נחמן אמר ליה רבא לרב נחמן והא אי בעיא | 31a. The Gemara answers: b Are you setting /b the statement of one b man against /b the statement of another b man? /b Rav Ḥisda holds that a contradiction with regard to secondary details does not disqualify the testimony even in capital law, and Rav Yehuda holds that it does disqualify the testimony. Neither Sage is bound by the statement of the other.,The Sages b of Neharde’a say: Even /b if b one says /b that it was b a black coin and /b the other b one says /b that it was b a white coin /b their testimonies b are combined. /b ,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, /b that as long as both witnesses testify that the defendant owes the plaintiff the same sum, the testimonies are combined? b Say that you heard Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa /b saying that two testimonies are combined in a case b where they do not contradict each other; /b but in a case b where they contradict each other, did he say /b that they are combined?, b Rather, /b the Sages of Neharde’a b stated /b their opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b that i tanna /i , as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar says: Beit Shammai and Beit Hillel do not disagree with regard to /b a case of b two sets of witnesses, where one /b set b says /b that the plaintiff lent the defendant b two hundred /b dinars, b and /b the other b one says /b that he lent him b one hundred dinars. /b Both Beit Hillel and Beit Shammai agree that this is not considered a contradiction, and the testimony is accepted concerning the amount of one hundred dinars, b as one hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred, /b i.e., testimony concerning a large amount includes testimony concerning a smaller amount., b With regard to what /b case b do they disagree? /b They disagree b over /b the case of b one set /b of two witnesses, where one witness testifies that the defendant owes the plaintiff two hundred dinars, and the other witness says that he owes him one hundred. b As Beit Shammai say /b that b their testimony is divided. /b Since they are not testifying about the same amount, the entire testimony is disqualified. b And Beit Hillel say: One hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred. /b Apparently, according to Beit Hillel’s opinion, as transmitted by Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar, although the testimonies are not identical, since both attest to the defendant’s liability to pay a certain amount of money, they are combined and accepted to that effect. This is the source for the opinion of the Sages of Neharde’a.,With regard to a case where b one /b witness b says /b that the plaintiff gave the defendant b a barrel of wine, and /b the other b one says /b that he gave him b a barrel of oil, there was /b actually such b an incident, and it came before Rabbi Ami. /b Since wine was cheaper than oil, b Rabbi Ami deemed /b the defendant b liable to pay /b the plaintiff only the value of b a barrel of wine out of /b the value of b a barrel of oil, /b an amount both witnesses agreed that he owed.,The Gemara asks: b In accordance with whose /b opinion is this ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion transmitted by b Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar? Say that Rabbi Shimon ben Elazar said /b that two contradicting testimonies can be combined in a case b where one hundred dinars is /b subsumed b within two hundred; /b perhaps one of the witnesses saw only half the loan, and the other one saw it all. But in b a case like this, /b where the testimonies are about completely different items, b did he say /b that they can be combined?,The Gemara answers: b No, /b this is not a case of a direct contradiction. This ruling is b necessary /b only b with regard to monetary value, /b i.e., where one witness says that the defendant owes the value of a barrel of wine, and the second one says that he owes the value of a barrel of oil. Therefore, it is comparable to a case of one hundred dinars and two hundred dinars.,With regard to a case where b one /b witness b says /b that the incident took place b on the upper floor [ i badeyota /i ] and /b the other b one says /b that it occurred b on the lower floor, Rabbi Ḥanina says /b that b an incident /b like this b came before Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b and he combined their testimonies. /b This was in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Korḥa, that since they agree with regard to the matter itself, the secondary details are insignificant.,§ The mishna teaches: b And from where /b is it derived that b when /b the judge b leaves /b the courtroom, he should not say: I deemed you exempt and my colleagues deemed you liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me and consequently you were deemed liable? About this it is stated: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” (Leviticus 19:16), and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets, but one who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter” (Proverbs 11:13). b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b From where /b is it derived that b when /b the judge b leaves he should not say: I deemed /b you b exempt and my colleagues deemed /b you b liable, but what can I do, as my colleagues outnumbered me /b and consequently you were deemed liable? b The verse states: “You shall not go as a talebearer among your people” /b (Leviticus 19:16), b and it says: “One who goes about as a talebearer reveals secrets” /b (Proverbs 11:13).,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain student, about whom a rumor emerged that he revealed a statement that was stated in the study hall /b and should have been kept secret, and the rumor emerged b twenty-two years after /b the time the statement was revealed. b Rav Ami removed him from the study hall /b as a punishment. Rav Ami b said: This is a revealer of secrets /b and he cannot be trusted., strong MISHNA: /strong b Any time /b one of the litigants b brings /b additional b proof, he can overturn the verdict /b that was decided according to previous proofs. If one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring all the proofs that you have from now until thirty days /b from now, if b he found /b additional proof b within thirty days, he can overturn /b the verdict. If he found it b after thirty days, he cannot overturn /b the verdict anymore., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: /b He can still overturn the verdict, as b what should this /b litigant, b who /b sought and b did not find /b additional proof b within thirty /b days b but found /b it b after thirty /b days, b have done? /b ,In a case where one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring witnesses, and /b the latter b said: I have no witnesses, /b and the former b said /b to him: b Bring a proof, and he said: I have no proof, and he later brought a proof or found witnesses, /b in this case, b this /b proof or these witnesses are worth b nothing. /b It is apparently a false proof or false testimony., b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said: What should this /b litigant, b who did not know that he has witnesses and /b ultimately b found witnesses, /b or who b did not know that he has a proof and /b ultimately b found proof, have done? /b Therefore, he can still overturn the verdict.,If at the beginning of the discussion in the court one did not bring witnesses or other evidence for his claims, but then b he saw that he /b was about to be b deemed liable /b to pay b in the judgment, and said: Bring so-and-so and so-and-so, and they will testify on my behalf, or he pulled out a proof from under his belt [ i pundato /i ], /b even Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel holds b that this is /b worth b nothing. /b If there was truth in the testimony of these witnesses or in this proof, he would not have hidden it until now., strong GEMARA: /strong With regard to the first i halakha /i in the mishna, b Rabba bar Rav Huna says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. And Rabba bar Rav Huna /b also b says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious? Since he says /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, we know by ourselves that /b the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b the Rabbis. /b ,The Gemara answers: b Lest you say /b that b this statement, /b that the i halakha /i is not in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, applies b i ab initio /i , but after the fact, /b even if the court ruled in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, the ruling is b valid, /b as their opinion was not entirely rejected, Rabba bar Rav Huna therefore b teaches us that if /b the court b acts /b in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis, b we send /b the case b back /b to court.,§ The mishna teaches that in a case where one litigant b said to /b the other: b Bring witnesses, /b and he admitted that he had none, and he subsequently found witnesses, b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel said /b that their testimony is valid. b Rabba bar Rav Huna says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis. And Rabba bar Rav Huna /b also b says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b The b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,The Gemara asks: Isn’t it b obvious? Since he says /b that the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with the statement of the Rabbis, we know by ourselves that /b the b i halakha /i is not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,The Gemara answers: b This /b statement of Rabba bar Rav Huna b teaches us that /b specifically b with regard to that /b i halakha /i , the b i halakha /i /b is b not in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel; but with regard to all /b other statements of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel in the corpus of the Mishna, the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the statement of b Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel. /b ,This is b to the exclusion of that which Rabba bar bar Ḥanna says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: Anywhere that Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel taught /b a ruling b in our Mishna, /b the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with his /b opinion, b except for /b the following three cases: The responsibility of the b guarantor, and /b the incident that occurred in the city of b Tzaidan, and /b the dispute with regard to b evidence /b in the b final /b disagreement. Whereas in the former dispute in the mishna here, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel, in the latter dispute in the mishna here, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis. Rabba bar Rav Huna, by contrast, maintains that in the case of a guarantor and in the case in Tzaidan, the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabban Shimon ben Gamliel.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain child who was taken to court before Rav Naḥman. They said to him: Do you have witnesses /b on your behalf? The child b said to them: No. /b They continued to ask: b Do you have evidence? /b The child b said to them: No. Rav Naḥman deemed him liable, /b in accordance with the claim of the other litigant.,The child b was walking and crying. These people heard him, /b and b said to him: We know about the /b monetary b matters of your father /b and can testify on your behalf. When he brought them before Rav Naḥman, b Rav Naḥman said: In /b a case like b this, even the Rabbis concede /b that the testimony is accepted, b as a child does not know about the /b monetary b matters of his father. /b Clearly, when he said that he has no witnesses or proof, he said so out of ignorance and was mistaken; there is no concern about artifice.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain woman from whose possession /b a promissory b note emerged, /b i.e., she was appointed to hold it. b She said to /b the judge: b I know that this /b promissory b note was repaid. /b The creditor should not use it to collect. b Rav Naḥman deemed her /b testimony b credible /b and did not allow the creditor to collect the debt., b Rava said to Rav Naḥman: In accordance with whose /b opinion is your ruling? Is it b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b who says /b that b letters, /b i.e., the content of a promissory note, b are acquired by /b merely b transferring /b the document? In other words, there is no need to write a deed for the transfer of a monetary document from one individual’s ownership to another. By giving it to the recipient, he becomes the owner of the document. Therefore, since the promissory note is in this woman’s possession, she is considered its legal owner, and her claim that it was repaid is consequently accepted.,Rav Naḥman b said to him: /b That is not the reason for my ruling; rather, b here it is different. /b Here the woman’s claim is accepted in any event, b as, /b since the promissory note was in her possession, b if she had wanted /b to, b she /b could have b burned it. /b Therefore, she is presumably telling the truth., b Some say /b that there is another version of the story, according to which b Rav Naḥman did not deem her /b testimony b credible. Rava said to Rav Naḥman: But if she had wanted /b to, |
|
26. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •sect, non-members 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 |
|
