| 1. Septuagint, Leviticus, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 125, 126 |
| 2. Septuagint, Deuteronomy, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 180 |
| 3. Septuagint, Genesis, None (th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84 |
4. Hebrew Bible, Ruth, 4.2, 4.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 24, 25, 208| 4.2. "וַיִּקַּח עֲשָׂרָה אֲנָשִׁים מִזִּקְנֵי הָעִיר וַיֹּאמֶר שְׁבוּ־פֹה וַיֵּשֵׁבוּ׃", 4.2. "וְעַמִּינָדָב הוֹלִיד אֶת־נַחְשׁוֹן וְנַחְשׁוֹן הוֹלִיד אֶת־שַׂלְמָה׃", 4.7. "וְזֹאת לְפָנִים בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל עַל־הַגְּאוּלָּה וְעַל־הַתְּמוּרָה לְקַיֵּם כָּל־דָּבָר שָׁלַף אִישׁ נַעֲלוֹ וְנָתַן לְרֵעֵהוּ וְזֹאת הַתְּעוּדָה בְּיִשְׂרָאֵל׃", | 4.2. "And he took ten men of the elders of the city, and said: ‘Sit ye down here.’ And they sat down.", 4.7. "Now this was the custom in former time in Israel concerning redeeming and concerning exchanging, to confirm all things: a man drew off his shoe, and gave it to his neighbour; and this was the attestation in Israel.—", |
|
5. Hebrew Bible, Micah, 6.8 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 61| 6.8. "הִגִּיד לְךָ אָדָם מַה־טּוֹב וּמָה־יְהוָה דּוֹרֵשׁ מִמְּךָ כִּי אִם־עֲשׂוֹת מִשְׁפָּט וְאַהֲבַת חֶסֶד וְהַצְנֵעַ לֶכֶת עִם־אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", | 6.8. "It hath been told thee, O man, what is good, And what the LORD doth require of thee: Only to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God.", |
|
6. Hebrew Bible, Proverbs, 11.13, 20.19 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period 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.", |
|
7. Hebrew Bible, Numbers, 4.3, 4.23, 4.30, 4.35, 4.39, 4.47, 5.6-5.8, 5.13, 5.21-5.22, 12.1, 15.30, 30.15, 35.2-35.5, 35.30 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 32, 44, 48, 74, 82, 91, 103, 117, 119, 120, 123, 125, 126, 189| 4.3. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה תִּפְקְדֵם כָּל־הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹד אֶת־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.3. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל־בָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲשׂוֹת מְלָאכָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.23. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה עַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה תִּפְקֹד אוֹתָם כָּל־הַבָּא לִצְבֹא צָבָא לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.35. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל־הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.39. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל־הַבָּא לַצָּבָא לַעֲבֹדָה בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 4.47. "מִבֶּן שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וָמַעְלָה וְעַד בֶּן־חֲמִשִּׁים שָׁנָה כָּל־הַבָּא לַעֲבֹד עֲבֹדַת עֲבֹדָה וַעֲבֹדַת מַשָּׂא בְּאֹהֶל מוֹעֵד׃", 5.6. "דַּבֵּר אֶל־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אִישׁ אוֹ־אִשָּׁה כִּי יַעֲשׂוּ מִכָּל־חַטֹּאת הָאָדָם לִמְעֹל מַעַל בַּיהוָה וְאָשְׁמָה הַנֶּפֶשׁ הַהִוא׃", 5.7. "וְהִתְוַדּוּ אֶת־חַטָּאתָם אֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ וְהֵשִׁיב אֶת־אֲשָׁמוֹ בְּרֹאשׁוֹ וַחֲמִישִׁתוֹ יֹסֵף עָלָיו וְנָתַן לַאֲשֶׁר אָשַׁם לוֹ׃", 5.8. "וְאִם־אֵין לָאִישׁ גֹּאֵל לְהָשִׁיב הָאָשָׁם אֵלָיו הָאָשָׁם הַמּוּשָׁב לַיהוָה לַכֹּהֵן מִלְּבַד אֵיל הַכִּפֻּרִים אֲשֶׁר יְכַפֶּר־בּוֹ עָלָיו׃", 5.13. "וְשָׁכַב אִישׁ אֹתָהּ שִׁכְבַת־זֶרַע וְנֶעְלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָׁהּ וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ וְהִוא לֹא נִתְפָּשָׂה׃", 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׃", 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׃", 30.15. "וְאִם־הַחֲרֵשׁ יַחֲרִישׁ לָהּ אִישָׁהּ מִיּוֹם אֶל־יוֹם וְהֵקִים אֶת־כָּל־נְדָרֶיהָ אוֹ אֶת־כָּל־אֱסָרֶיהָ אֲשֶׁר עָלֶיהָ הֵקִים אֹתָם כִּי־הֶחֱרִשׁ לָהּ בְּיוֹם שָׁמְעוֹ׃", 35.2. "וְאִם־בְּשִׂנְאָה יֶהְדָּפֶנּוּ אוֹ־הִשְׁלִיךְ עָלָיו בִּצְדִיָּה וַיָּמֹת׃", 35.2. "צַו אֶת־בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתְנוּ לַלְוִיִּם מִנַּחֲלַת אֲחֻזָּתָם עָרִים לָשָׁבֶת וּמִגְרָשׁ לֶעָרִים סְבִיבֹתֵיהֶם תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם׃", 35.3. "וְהָיוּ הֶעָרִים לָהֶם לָשָׁבֶת וּמִגְרְשֵׁיהֶם יִהְיוּ לִבְהֶמְתָּם וְלִרְכֻשָׁם וּלְכֹל חַיָּתָם׃", 35.3. "כָּל־מַכֵּה־נֶפֶשׁ לְפִי עֵדִים יִרְצַח אֶת־הָרֹצֵחַ וְעֵד אֶחָד לֹא־יַעֲנֶה בְנֶפֶשׁ לָמוּת׃", 35.4. "וּמִגְרְשֵׁי הֶעָרִים אֲשֶׁר תִּתְּנוּ לַלְוִיִּם מִקִּיר הָעִיר וָחוּצָה אֶלֶף אַמָּה סָבִיב׃", 35.5. "וּמַדֹּתֶם מִחוּץ לָעִיר אֶת־פְּאַת־קֵדְמָה אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֶת־פְּאַת־נֶגֶב אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֶת־פְּאַת־יָם אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְאֵת פְּאַת צָפוֹן אַלְפַּיִם בָּאַמָּה וְהָעִיר בַּתָּוֶךְ זֶה יִהְיֶה לָהֶם מִגְרְשֵׁי הֶעָרִים׃", | 4.3. "from thirty years old and upward even until fifty years old, all that enter upon the service, to do work in the tent of meeting.", 4.23. "from thirty years old and upward until fifty years old shalt thou number them: all that enter in to wait upon the service, to do service in the tent of meeting.", 4.30. "from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old shalt thou number them, every one that entereth upon the service, to do the work of the tent of meeting.", 4.35. "from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered upon the service, for service in the tent of meeting.", 4.39. "from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered upon the service, for service in the tent of meeting,", 4.47. "from thirty years old and upward even unto fifty years old, every one that entered in to do the work of service, and the work of bearing burdens in the tent of meeting,", 5.6. "Speak unto the children of Israel: When a man or woman shall commit any sin that men commit, to commit a trespass against the LORD, and that soul be guilty;", 5.7. "then they shall confess their sin which they have done; and he shall make restitution for his guilt in full, and add unto it the fifth part thereof, and give it unto him in respect of whom he hath been guilty.", 5.8. "But if the man have no kinsman to whom restitution may be made for the guilt, the restitution for guilt which is made shall be the LORD’S, even the priest’s; besides the ram of the atonement, whereby atonement shall be made for him.", 5.13. "and a man lie with her carnally, and it be hid from the eyes of her husband, she being defiled secretly, and there be no witness against her, neither she be taken in the act;", 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.’", 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.", 15.30. "But the soul that doeth aught with a high hand, whether he be home-born or a stranger, the same blasphemeth the LORD; and that soul shall be cut off from among his people.", 30.15. "But if her husband altogether hold his peace at her from day to day, then he causeth all her vows to stand, or all her bonds, which are upon her; he hath let them stand, because he held his peace at her in the day that he heard them.", 35.2. "’Command the children of Israel, that they give unto the Levites of the inheritance of their possession cities to dwell in; and open land round about the cities shall ye give unto the Levites.", 35.3. "And the cities shall they have to dwell in; and their open land shall be for their cattle, and for their substance, and for all their beasts.", 35.4. "And the open land about the cities, which ye shall give unto the Levites, shall be from the wall of the city and outward a thousand cubits round about.", 35.5. "And ye shall measure without the city for the east side two thousand cubits, and for the south side two thousand cubits, and for the west side two thousand cubits, and for the north side two thousand cubits, the city being in the midst. This shall be to them the open land about the cities.", 35.30. "Whoso killeth any person, the murderer shall be slain at the mouth of witnesses; but one witness shall not testify against any person that he die.", |
|
8. Hebrew Bible, Deuteronomy, 1.13, 6.13, 16.18, 17.6, 17.9, 17.15, 19.15-19.21, 21.18-21.21, 22.1-22.3, 22.28, 28.58, 29.18 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 4, 28, 44, 45, 48, 74, 78, 82, 84, 91, 103, 117, 120, 121, 123, 125, 148, 180, 208| 1.13. "הָבוּ לָכֶם אֲנָשִׁים חֲכָמִים וּנְבֹנִים וִידֻעִים לְשִׁבְטֵיכֶם וַאֲשִׂימֵם בְּרָאשֵׁיכֶם׃", 6.13. "אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ תִּירָא וְאֹתוֹ תַעֲבֹד וּבִשְׁמוֹ תִּשָּׁבֵעַ׃", 16.18. "שֹׁפְטִים וְשֹׁטְרִים תִּתֶּן־לְךָ בְּכָל־שְׁעָרֶיךָ אֲשֶׁר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ נֹתֵן לְךָ לִשְׁבָטֶיךָ וְשָׁפְטוּ אֶת־הָעָם מִשְׁפַּט־צֶדֶק׃", 17.6. "עַל־פִּי שְׁנַיִם עֵדִים אוֹ שְׁלֹשָׁה עֵדִים יוּמַת הַמֵּת לֹא יוּמַת עַל־פִּי עֵד אֶחָד׃", 17.9. "וּבָאתָ אֶל־הַכֹּהֲנִים הַלְוִיִּם וְאֶל־הַשֹּׁפֵט אֲשֶׁר יִהְיֶה בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם וְדָרַשְׁתָּ וְהִגִּידוּ לְךָ אֵת דְּבַר הַמִּשְׁפָּט׃", 17.15. "שׂוֹם תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ אֲשֶׁר יִבְחַר יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ בּוֹ מִקֶּרֶב אַחֶיךָ תָּשִׂים עָלֶיךָ מֶלֶךְ לֹא תוּכַל לָתֵת עָלֶיךָ אִישׁ נָכְרִי אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אָחִיךָ הוּא׃", 19.15. "לֹא־יָקוּם עֵד אֶחָד בְּאִישׁ לְכָל־עָוֺן וּלְכָל־חַטָּאת בְּכָל־חֵטְא אֲשֶׁר יֶחֱטָא עַל־פִּי שְׁנֵי עֵדִים אוֹ עַל־פִּי שְׁלֹשָׁה־עֵדִים יָקוּם דָּבָר׃", 19.16. "כִּי־יָקוּם עֵד־חָמָס בְּאִישׁ לַעֲנוֹת בּוֹ סָרָה׃", 19.17. "וְעָמְדוּ שְׁנֵי־הָאֲנָשִׁים אֲשֶׁר־לָהֶם הָרִיב לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לִפְנֵי הַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַשֹּׁפְטִים אֲשֶׁר יִהְיוּ בַּיָּמִים הָהֵם׃", 19.18. "וְדָרְשׁוּ הַשֹּׁפְטִים הֵיטֵב וְהִנֵּה עֵד־שֶׁקֶר הָעֵד שֶׁקֶר עָנָה בְאָחִיו׃", 19.19. "וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ׃", 19.21. "וְלֹא תָחוֹס עֵינֶךָ נֶפֶשׁ בְּנֶפֶשׁ עַיִן בְּעַיִן שֵׁן בְּשֵׁן יָד בְּיָד רֶגֶל בְּרָגֶל׃", 21.18. "כִּי־יִהְיֶה לְאִישׁ בֵּן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקוֹל אָבִיו וּבְקוֹל אִמּוֹ וְיסְּרוּ אֹתוֹ וְלֹא יִשְׁמַע אֲלֵיהֶם׃", 21.19. "וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ אֶל־זִקְנֵי עִירוֹ וְאֶל־שַׁעַר מְקֹמוֹ׃", 21.21. "וּרְגָמֻהוּ כָּל־אַנְשֵׁי עִירוֹ בָאֲבָנִים וָמֵת וּבִעַרְתָּ הָרָע מִקִּרְבֶּךָ וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל יִשְׁמְעוּ וְיִרָאוּ׃", 22.1. "לֹא־תִרְאֶה אֶת־שׁוֹר אָחִיךָ אוֹ אֶת־שֵׂיוֹ נִדָּחִים וְהִתְעַלַּמְתָּ מֵהֶם הָשֵׁב תְּשִׁיבֵם לְאָחִיךָ׃", 22.1. "לֹא־תַחֲרֹשׁ בְּשׁוֹר־וּבַחֲמֹר יַחְדָּו׃", 22.2. "וְאִם־לֹא קָרוֹב אָחִיךָ אֵלֶיךָ וְלֹא יְדַעְתּוֹ וַאֲסַפְתּוֹ אֶל־תּוֹךְ בֵּיתֶךָ וְהָיָה עִמְּךָ עַד דְּרֹשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ׃", 22.2. "וְאִם־אֱמֶת הָיָה הַדָּבָר הַזֶּה לֹא־נִמְצְאוּ בְתוּלִים לנער [לַנַּעֲרָה׃]", 22.3. "וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לַחֲמֹרוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְשִׂמְלָתוֹ וְכֵן תַּעֲשֶׂה לְכָל־אֲבֵדַת אָחִיךָ אֲשֶׁר־תֹּאבַד מִמֶּנּוּ וּמְצָאתָהּ לֹא תוּכַל לְהִתְעַלֵּם׃", 22.28. "כִּי־יִמְצָא אִישׁ נער [נַעֲרָה] בְתוּלָה אֲשֶׁר לֹא־אֹרָשָׂה וּתְפָשָׂהּ וְשָׁכַב עִמָּהּ וְנִמְצָאוּ׃", 28.58. "אִם־לֹא תִשְׁמֹר לַעֲשׂוֹת אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי הַתּוֹרָה הַזֹּאת הַכְּתוּבִים בַּסֵּפֶר הַזֶּה לְיִרְאָה אֶת־הַשֵּׁם הַנִּכְבָּד וְהַנּוֹרָא הַזֶּה אֵת יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ׃", 29.18. "וְהָיָה בְּשָׁמְעוֹ אֶת־דִּבְרֵי הָאָלָה הַזֹּאת וְהִתְבָּרֵךְ בִּלְבָבוֹ לֵאמֹר שָׁלוֹם יִהְיֶה־לִּי כִּי בִּשְׁרִרוּת לִבִּי אֵלֵךְ לְמַעַן סְפוֹת הָרָוָה אֶת־הַצְּמֵאָה׃", | 1.13. "Get you, from each one of your tribes, wise men, and understanding, and full of knowledge, and I will make them heads over you.’", 6.13. "Thou shalt fear the LORD thy God; and Him shalt thou serve, and by His name shalt thou swear.", 16.18. "Judges and officers shalt thou make thee in all thy gates, which the LORD thy God giveth thee, tribe by tribe; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.", 17.6. "At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses, shall he that is to die be put to death; at the mouth of one witness he shall not be put to death.", 17.9. "And thou shall come unto the priests the Levites, and unto the judge that shall be in those days; and thou shalt inquire; and they shall declare unto thee the sentence of judgment.", 17.15. "thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, whom the LORD thy God shall choose; one from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee; thou mayest not put a foreigner over thee, who is not thy brother.", 19.15. "One witness shall not rise up against a man for any iniquity, or for any sin, in any sin that he sinneth; at the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be establishment", 19.16. "If an unrighteous witness rise up against any man to bear perverted witness against him;", 19.17. "then both the men, between whom the controversy is, shall stand before the LORD, before the priests and the judges that shall be in those days.", 19.18. "And the judges shall inquire diligently; and, behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsely against his brother;", 19.19. "then shall ye do unto him, as he had purposed to do unto his brother; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee.", 19.20. "And those that remain shall hear, and fear, and shall henceforth commit no more any such evil in the midst of thee.", 19.21. "And thine eye shall not pity: life for life, eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot.", 21.18. "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, that will not hearken to the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and though they chasten him, will not hearken unto them;", 21.19. "then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;", 21.20. "and they shall say unto the elders of his city: ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he doth not hearken to our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard.’", 21.21. "And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die; so shalt thou put away the evil from the midst of thee; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.", 22.1. "Thou shalt not see thy brother’s ox or his sheep driven away, and hide thyself from them; thou shalt surely bring them back unto thy brother.", 22.2. "And if thy brother be not nigh unto thee, and thou know him not, then thou shalt bring it home to thy house, and it shall be with thee until thy brother require it, and thou shalt restore it to him.", 22.3. "And so shalt thou do with his ass; and so shalt thou do with his garment; and so shalt thou do with every lost thing of thy brother’s, which he hath lost, and thou hast found; thou mayest not hide thyself.", 22.28. "If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, that is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;", 28.58. "If thou wilt not observe to do all the words of this law that are written in this book, that thou mayest fear this glorious and awful Name, the LORD thy God;", 29.18. "and it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying: ‘I shall have peace, though I walk in the stubbornness of my heart—that the watered be swept away with the dry’;", |
|
9. Hebrew Bible, Psalms, 19.8, 19.10, 89.3, 89.38, 95.7 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66, 82, 91| 19.8. "תּוֹרַת יְהוָה תְּמִימָה מְשִׁיבַת נָפֶשׁ עֵדוּת יְהוָה נֶאֱמָנָה מַחְכִּימַת פֶּתִי׃", 89.3. "כִּי־אָמַרְתִּי עוֹלָם חֶסֶד יִבָּנֶה שָׁמַיִם תָּכִן אֱמוּנָתְךָ בָהֶם׃", 89.3. "וְשַׂמְתִּי לָעַד זַרְעוֹ וְכִסְאוֹ כִּימֵי שָׁמָיִם׃", 89.38. "כְּיָרֵחַ יִכּוֹן עוֹלָם וְעֵד בַּשַּׁחַק נֶאֱמָן סֶלָה׃", 95.7. "כִּי הוּא אֱלֹהֵינוּ וַאֲנַחְנוּ עַם מַרְעִיתוֹ וְצֹאן יָדוֹ הַיּוֹם אִם־בְּקֹלוֹ תִשְׁמָעוּ׃", | 19.8. "The law of the LORD is perfect, restoring the soul; the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple. .", 19.10. "The fear of the LORD is clean, enduring for ever; the ordices of the LORD are true, they are righteous altogether;", 89.3. "For I have said: 'For ever is mercy built; In the very heavens Thou dost establish Thy faithfulness.", 89.38. "It shall be established for ever as the moon; And be stedfast as the witness in sky.' Selah", 95.7. "For He is our God, And we are the people of His pasture, and the flock of His hand. To-day, if ye would but hearken to His voice!", |
|
10. Hebrew Bible, Genesis, 21.25, 38.25, 42.20 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66, 84, 103| 21.25. "וְהוֹכִחַ אַבְרָהָם אֶת־אֲבִימֶלֶךְ עַל־אֹדוֹת בְּאֵר הַמַּיִם אֲשֶׁר גָּזְלוּ עַבְדֵי אֲבִימֶלֶךְ׃", 38.25. "הִוא מוּצֵאת וְהִיא שָׁלְחָה אֶל־חָמִיהָ לֵאמֹר לְאִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־אֵלֶּה לּוֹ אָנֹכִי הָרָה וַתֹּאמֶר הַכֶּר־נָא לְמִי הַחֹתֶמֶת וְהַפְּתִילִים וְהַמַּטֶּה הָאֵלֶּה׃", | 21.25. "And Abraham reproved Abimelech because of the well of water, which Abimelech’s servants had violently taken away.", 38.25. "When she was brought forth, she sent to her father-in-law, saying: ‘By the man, whose these are, am I with child’; and she said: ‘Discern, I pray thee, whose are these, the signet, and the cords, and the staff.’", 42.20. "and bring your youngest brother unto me; so shall your words be verified, and ye shall not die.’ And they did so.", |
|
11. Hebrew Bible, Hosea, 4.4 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 4.4. "אַךְ אִישׁ אַל־יָרֵב וְאַל־יוֹכַח אִישׁ וְעַמְּךָ כִּמְרִיבֵי כֹהֵן׃", | 4.4. "Yet let no man strive, neither let any man reprove; For thy people are as they that strive with the priest.", |
|
12. Hebrew Bible, Job, 4.12, 40.2 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103, 125| 4.12. "וְאֵלַי דָּבָר יְגֻנָּב וַתִּקַּח אָזְנִי שֵׁמֶץ מֶנְהוּ׃", 40.2. "כִּי־בוּל הָרִים יִשְׂאוּ־לוֹ וְכָל־חַיַּת הַשָּׂדֶה יְשַׂחֲקוּ־שָׁם׃", 40.2. "הֲרֹב עִם־שַׁדַּי יִסּוֹר מוֹכִיחַ אֱלוֹהַּ יַעֲנֶנָּה׃", | 4.12. "Now a word was secretly brought to me, And mine ear received a whisper thereof.", 40.2. "Shall he that reproveth contend with the Almighty? He that argueth with God, let him answer it.", |
|
13. Hebrew Bible, Leviticus, 4.13, 4.14, 4.15, 4.16, 4.17, 4.18, 4.19, 4.20, 4.21, 5.1, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7, 5.8, 5.9, 5.10, 5.11, 5.12, 5.13, 5.20, 5.21, 5.22, 5.23, 5.24, 5.25, 5.26, 13.1-14.32, 19.16, 19.17, 21.8, 24.16, 27.3 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 37| 4.19. "וְאֵת כָּל־חֶלְבּוֹ יָרִים מִמֶּנּוּ וְהִקְטִיר הַמִּזְבֵּחָה׃", | 4.19. "And all the fat thereof shall he take off from it, and make it smoke upon the altar.", |
|
14. Hebrew Bible, Exodus, 12.4, 16.29, 18.21, 21.29, 22.6-22.14, 23.3, 23.7, 23.13, 30.11-30.16 (9th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 38, 58, 59, 66, 74, 78, 81, 122, 125, 144| 12.4. "וּמוֹשַׁב בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֲשֶׁר יָשְׁבוּ בְּמִצְרָיִם שְׁלֹשִׁים שָׁנָה וְאַרְבַּע מֵאוֹת שָׁנָה׃", 12.4. "וְאִם־יִמְעַט הַבַּיִת מִהְיֹת מִשֶּׂה וְלָקַח הוּא וּשְׁכֵנוֹ הַקָּרֹב אֶל־בֵּיתוֹ בְּמִכְסַת נְפָשֹׁת אִישׁ לְפִי אָכְלוֹ תָּכֹסּוּ עַל־הַשֶּׂה׃", 16.29. "רְאוּ כִּי־יְהוָה נָתַן לָכֶם הַשַּׁבָּת עַל־כֵּן הוּא נֹתֵן לָכֶם בַּיּוֹם הַשִּׁשִּׁי לֶחֶם יוֹמָיִם שְׁבוּ אִישׁ תַּחְתָּיו אַל־יֵצֵא אִישׁ מִמְּקֹמוֹ בַּיּוֹם הַשְּׁבִיעִי׃", 18.21. "וְאַתָּה תֶחֱזֶה מִכָּל־הָעָם אַנְשֵׁי־חַיִל יִרְאֵי אֱלֹהִים אַנְשֵׁי אֱמֶת שֹׂנְאֵי בָצַע וְשַׂמְתָּ עֲלֵהֶם שָׂרֵי אֲלָפִים שָׂרֵי מֵאוֹת שָׂרֵי חֲמִשִּׁים וְשָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרֹת׃", 21.29. "וְאִם שׁוֹר נַגָּח הוּא מִתְּמֹל שִׁלְשֹׁם וְהוּעַד בִּבְעָלָיו וְלֹא יִשְׁמְרֶנּוּ וְהֵמִית אִישׁ אוֹ אִשָּׁה הַשּׁוֹר יִסָּקֵל וְגַם־בְּעָלָיו יוּמָת׃", 22.6. "כִּי־יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ כֶּסֶף אוֹ־כֵלִים לִשְׁמֹר וְגֻנַּב מִבֵּית הָאִישׁ אִם־יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנָיִם׃", 22.7. "אִם־לֹא יִמָּצֵא הַגַּנָּב וְנִקְרַב בַּעַל־הַבַּיִת אֶל־הָאֱלֹהִים אִם־לֹא שָׁלַח יָדוֹ בִּמְלֶאכֶת רֵעֵהוּ׃", 22.8. "עַל־כָּל־דְּבַר־פֶּשַׁע עַל־שׁוֹר עַל־חֲמוֹר עַל־שֶׂה עַל־שַׂלְמָה עַל־כָּל־אֲבֵדָה אֲשֶׁר יֹאמַר כִּי־הוּא זֶה עַד הָאֱלֹהִים יָבֹא דְּבַר־שְׁנֵיהֶם אֲשֶׁר יַרְשִׁיעֻן אֱלֹהִים יְשַׁלֵּם שְׁנַיִם לְרֵעֵהוּ׃", 22.9. "כִּי־יִתֵּן אִישׁ אֶל־רֵעֵהוּ חֲמוֹר אוֹ־שׁוֹר אוֹ־שֶׂה וְכָל־בְּהֵמָה לִשְׁמֹר וּמֵת אוֹ־נִשְׁבַּר אוֹ־נִשְׁבָּה אֵין רֹאֶה׃", 22.11. "וְאִם־גָּנֹב יִגָּנֵב מֵעִמּוֹ יְשַׁלֵּם לִבְעָלָיו׃", 22.12. "אִם־טָרֹף יִטָּרֵף יְבִאֵהוּ עֵד הַטְּרֵפָה לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם׃", 22.13. "וְכִי־יִשְׁאַל אִישׁ מֵעִם רֵעֵהוּ וְנִשְׁבַּר אוֹ־מֵת בְּעָלָיו אֵין־עִמּוֹ שַׁלֵּם יְשַׁלֵּם׃", 22.14. "אִם־בְּעָלָיו עִמּוֹ לֹא יְשַׁלֵּם אִם־שָׂכִיר הוּא בָּא בִּשְׂכָרוֹ׃", 23.3. "מְעַט מְעַט אֲגָרְשֶׁנּוּ מִפָּנֶיךָ עַד אֲשֶׁר תִּפְרֶה וְנָחַלְתָּ אֶת־הָאָרֶץ׃", 23.3. "וְדָל לֹא תֶהְדַּר בְּרִיבוֹ׃", 23.7. "מִדְּבַר־שֶׁקֶר תִּרְחָק וְנָקִי וְצַדִּיק אַל־תַּהֲרֹג כִּי לֹא־אַצְדִּיק רָשָׁע׃", 23.13. "וּבְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־אָמַרְתִּי אֲלֵיכֶם תִּשָּׁמֵרוּ וְשֵׁם אֱלֹהִים אֲחֵרִים לֹא תַזְכִּירוּ לֹא יִשָּׁמַע עַל־פִּיךָ׃", 30.11. "וַיְדַבֵּר יְהוָה אֶל־מֹשֶׁה לֵּאמֹר׃", 30.12. "כִּי תִשָּׂא אֶת־רֹאשׁ בְּנֵי־יִשְׂרָאֵל לִפְקֻדֵיהֶם וְנָתְנוּ אִישׁ כֹּפֶר נַפְשׁוֹ לַיהוָה בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם וְלֹא־יִהְיֶה בָהֶם נֶגֶף בִּפְקֹד אֹתָם׃", 30.13. "זֶה יִתְּנוּ כָּל־הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל בְּשֶׁקֶל הַקֹּדֶשׁ עֶשְׂרִים גֵּרָה הַשֶּׁקֶל מַחֲצִית הַשֶּׁקֶל תְּרוּמָה לַיהוָה׃", 30.14. "כֹּל הָעֹבֵר עַל־הַפְּקֻדִים מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וָמָעְלָה יִתֵּן תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה׃", 30.15. "הֶעָשִׁיר לֹא־יַרְבֶּה וְהַדַּל לֹא יַמְעִיט מִמַּחֲצִית הַשָּׁקֶל לָתֵת אֶת־תְּרוּמַת יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", 30.16. "וְלָקַחְתָּ אֶת־כֶּסֶף הַכִּפֻּרִים מֵאֵת בְּנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל וְנָתַתָּ אֹתוֹ עַל־עֲבֹדַת אֹהֶל מוֹעֵד וְהָיָה לִבְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל לְזִכָּרוֹן לִפְנֵי יְהוָה לְכַפֵּר עַל־נַפְשֹׁתֵיכֶם׃", | 12.4. "and if the household be too little for a lamb, then shall he and his neighbour next unto his house take one according to the number of the souls; according to every man’s eating ye shall make your count for the lamb.", 16.29. "See that the LORD hath given you the sabbath; therefore He giveth you on the sixth day the bread of two days; abide ye every man in his place, let no man go out of his place on the seventh day.’", 18.21. "Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating unjust gain; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens.", 21.29. "But if the ox was wont to gore in time past, and warning hath been given to its owner, and he hath not kept it in, but it hath killed a man or a woman; the ox shall be stoned, and its owner also shall be put to death.", 22.6. "If a man deliver unto his neighbour money or stuff to keep, and it be stolen out of the man’s house; if the thief be found, he shall pay double.", 22.7. "If the thief be not found, then the master of the house shall come near unto God, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods.", 22.8. "For every matter of trespass, whether it be for ox, for ass, for sheep, for raiment, or for any manner of lost thing, whereof one saith: 'This is it,' the cause of both parties shall come before God; he whom God shall condemn shall pay double unto his neighbour.", 22.9. "If a man deliver unto his neighbour an ass, or an ox, or a sheep, or any beast, to keep, and it die, or be hurt, or driven away, no man seeing it;", 22.10. "the oath of the LORD shall be between them both, to see whether he have not put his hand unto his neighbour’s goods; and the owner thereof shall accept it, and he shall not make restitution.", 22.11. "But if it be stolen from him, he shall make restitution unto the owner thereof.", 22.12. "If it be torn in pieces, let him bring it for witness; he shall not make good that which was torn.", 22.13. "And if a man borrow aught of his neighbour, and it be hurt, or die, the owner thereof not being with it, he shall surely make restitution.", 22.14. "If the owner thereof be with it, he shall not make it good; if it be a hireling, he loseth his hire.", 23.3. "neither shalt thou favour a poor man in his cause.", 23.7. "Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not; for I will not justify the wicked.", 23.13. "And in all things that I have said unto you take ye heed; and make no mention of the name of other gods, neither let it be heard out of thy mouth. .", 30.11. "And the LORD spoke unto Moses, saying:", 30.12. "’When thou takest the sum of the children of Israel, according to their number, then shall they give every man a ransom for his soul unto the LORD, when thou numberest them; that there be no plague among them, when thou numberest them.", 30.13. "This they shall give, every one that passeth among them that are numbered, half a shekel after the shekel of the sanctuary—the shekel is twenty gerahs—half a shekel for an offering to the LORD.", 30.14. "Every one that passeth among them that are numbered, from twenty years old and upward, shall give the offering of the LORD.", 30.15. "The rich shall not give more, and the poor shall not give less, than the half shekel, when they give the offering of the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.", 30.16. "And thou shalt take the atonement money from the children of Israel, and shalt appoint it for the service of the tent of meeting, that it may be a memorial for the children of Israel before the LORD, to make atonement for your souls.’", |
|
15. Hebrew Bible, 2 Kings, 17.28, 17.32, 17.34, 17.39, 17.41, 22.1, 22.3 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 66| 17.28. "וַיָּבֹא אֶחָד מֵהַכֹּהֲנִים אֲשֶׁר הִגְלוּ מִשֹּׁמְרוֹן וַיֵּשֶׁב בְּבֵית־אֵל וַיְהִי מוֹרֶה אֹתָם אֵיךְ יִירְאוּ אֶת־יְהוָה׃", 17.32. "וַיִּהְיוּ יְרֵאִים אֶת־יְהוָה וַיַּעֲשׂוּ לָהֶם מִקְצוֹתָם כֹּהֲנֵי בָמוֹת וַיִּהְיוּ עֹשִׂים לָהֶם בְּבֵית הַבָּמוֹת׃", 17.34. "עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה הֵם עֹשִׂים כַּמִּשְׁפָּטִים הָרִאשֹׁנִים אֵינָם יְרֵאִים אֶת־יְהוָה וְאֵינָם עֹשִׂים כְּחֻקֹּתָם וּכְמִשְׁפָּטָם וְכַתּוֹרָה וְכַמִּצְוָה אֲשֶׁר צִוָּה יְהוָה אֶת־בְּנֵי יַעֲקֹב אֲשֶׁר־שָׂם שְׁמוֹ יִשְׂרָאֵל׃", 17.39. "כִּי אִם־אֶת־יְהוָה אֱלֹהֵיכֶם תִּירָאוּ וְהוּא יַצִּיל אֶתְכֶם מִיַּד כָּל־אֹיְבֵיכֶם׃", 17.41. "וַיִּהְיוּ הַגּוֹיִם הָאֵלֶּה יְרֵאִים אֶת־יְהוָה וְאֶת־פְּסִילֵיהֶם הָיוּ עֹבְדִים גַּם־בְּנֵיהֶם וּבְנֵי בְנֵיהֶם כַּאֲשֶׁר עָשׂוּ אֲבֹתָם הֵם עֹשִׂים עַד הַיּוֹם הַזֶּה׃", 22.1. "בֶּן־שְׁמֹנֶה שָׁנָה יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בְמָלְכוֹ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְאַחַת שָׁנָה מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם וְשֵׁם אִמּוֹ יְדִידָה בַת־עֲדָיָה מִבָּצְקַת׃", 22.1. "וַיַּגֵּד שָׁפָן הַסֹּפֵר לַמֶּלֶךְ לֵאמֹר סֵפֶר נָתַן לִי חִלְקִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וַיִּקְרָאֵהוּ שָׁפָן לִפְנֵי הַמֶּלֶךְ׃", 22.3. "וַיְהִי בִּשְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה לַמֶּלֶךְ יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ שָׁלַח הַמֶּלֶךְ אֶת־שָׁפָן בֶּן־אֲצַלְיָהוּ בֶן־מְשֻׁלָּם הַסֹּפֵר בֵּית יְהוָה לֵאמֹר׃", | 17.28. "So one of the priests whom they had carried away from Samaria came and dwelt in Beth-el, and taught them how they should fear the LORD.", 17.32. "So they feared the LORD, and made unto them from among themselves priests of the high places, who sacrificed for them in the houses of the high places.", 17.34. "Unto this day they do after the former manners: they fear not the LORD, neither do they after their statutes, or after their ordices, or after the law or after the commandment which the LORD commanded the children of Jacob, whom He named Israel;", 17.39. "but the LORD your God shall ye fear; and He will deliver you out of the hand of all your enemies.’", 17.41. "So these nations feared the LORD, and served their graven images; their children likewise, and their children’s children, as did their fathers, so do they unto this day.", 22.1. "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem; and his mother’s name was Jedidah the daughter of Adaiah of Bozkath.", 22.3. "And it came to pass in the eighteenth year of king Josiah, that the king sent Shaphan the son of Azaliah, the son of Meshullam, the scribe, to the house of the LORD, saying.", |
|
16. Hebrew Bible, 1 Samuel, 20.25 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45| 20.25. "וַיֵּשֶׁב הַמֶּלֶךְ עַל־מוֹשָׁבוֹ כְּפַעַם בְּפַעַם אֶל־מוֹשַׁב הַקִּיר וַיָּקָם יְהוֹנָתָן וַיֵּשֶׁב אַבְנֵר מִצַּד שָׁאוּל וַיִּפָּקֵד מְקוֹם דָּוִד׃", | 20.25. "And the king sat upon his seat, as at other times, upon a seat by the wall: and Yehonatan, arose, and Avner sat by Sha᾽ul’s side, and David’s place was empty.", |
|
17. Hebrew Bible, 1 Kings, 2.27, 21.10, 21.13 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 87| 2.27. "וַיְגָרֶשׁ שְׁלֹמֹה אֶת־אֶבְיָתָר מִהְיוֹת כֹּהֵן לַיהוָה לְמַלֵּא אֶת־דְּבַר יְהוָה אֲשֶׁר דִּבֶּר עַל־בֵּית עֵלִי בְּשִׁלֹה׃", 21.13. "וַיָּבֹאוּ שְׁנֵי הָאֲנָשִׁים בְּנֵי־בְלִיַּעַל וַיֵּשְׁבוּ נֶגְדּוֹ וַיְעִדֻהוּ אַנְשֵׁי הַבְּלִיַּעַל אֶת־נָבוֹת נֶגֶד הָעָם לֵאמֹר בֵּרַךְ נָבוֹת אֱלֹהִים וָמֶלֶךְ וַיֹּצִאֻהוּ מִחוּץ לָעִיר וַיִּסְקְלֻהוּ בָאֲבָנִים וַיָּמֹת׃", | 2.27. "So Solomon thrust out Abiathar from being priest unto the LORD; that the word of the LORD might be fulfilled, which He spoke concerning the house of Eli in Shiloh.", 21.10. "and set two men, base fellows, before him, and let them bear witness against him, saying: Thou didst curse God and the king. And then carry him out, and stone him, that he die.’", 21.13. "And the two men, the base fellows, came in and sat before him; and the base fellows bore witness against him, even against Naboth, in the presence of the people, saying: ‘Naboth did curse God and the king.’ Then they carried him forth out of the city, and stoned him with stones, that he died.", |
|
18. Hebrew Bible, Isaiah, 8.2, 29.21, 30.20 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82, 87, 103| 8.2. "לְתוֹרָה וְלִתְעוּדָה אִם־לֹא יֹאמְרוּ כַּדָּבָר הַזֶּה אֲשֶׁר אֵין־לוֹ שָׁחַר׃", 8.2. "וְאָעִידָה לִּי עֵדִים נֶאֱמָנִים אֵת אוּרִיָּה הַכֹּהֵן וְאֶת־זְכַרְיָהוּ בֶּן יְבֶרֶכְיָהוּ׃", 29.21. "מַחֲטִיאֵי אָדָם בְּדָבָר וְלַמּוֹכִיחַ בַּשַּׁעַר יְקֹשׁוּן וַיַּטּוּ בַתֹּהוּ צַדִּיק׃", | 8.2. "and I will take unto Me faithful witnesses to record, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah the son of Jeberechiah.’", 29.21. "That make a man an offender by words, and lay a snare for him that reproveth in the gate, And turn aside the just with a thing of nought.", 30.20. "And though the Lord give you sparing bread and scant water, Yet shall not thy Teacher hide Himself any more, But thine eyes shall see thy Teacher;", |
|
19. Hebrew Bible, Jeremiah, 38.23, 42.5, 50.24 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66, 82| 38.23. "וְאֶת־כָּל־נָשֶׁיךָ וְאֶת־בָּנֶיךָ מוֹצִאִים אֶל־הַכַּשְׂדִּים וְאַתָּה לֹא־תִמָּלֵט מִיָּדָם כִּי בְיַד מֶלֶךְ־בָּבֶל תִּתָּפֵשׂ וְאֶת־הָעִיר הַזֹּאת תִּשְׂרֹף בָּאֵשׁ׃", 42.5. "וְהֵמָּה אָמְרוּ אֶל־יִרְמְיָהוּ יְהִי יְהוָה בָּנוּ לְעֵד אֱמֶת וְנֶאֱמָן אִם־לֹא כְּכָל־הַדָּבָר אֲשֶׁר יִשְׁלָחֲךָ יְהוָה אֱלֹהֶיךָ אֵלֵינוּ כֵּן נַעֲשֶׂה׃", 50.24. "יָקֹשְׁתִּי לָךְ וְגַם־נִלְכַּדְתְּ בָּבֶל וְאַתְּ לֹא יָדָעַתְּ נִמְצֵאת וְגַם־נִתְפַּשְׂתְּ כִּי בַיהוָה הִתְגָּרִית׃", | 38.23. "And they shall bring out all thy wives and thy children to the Chaldeans; and thou shalt not escape out of their hand, but shalt be taken by the hand of the king of Babylon; and thou shalt cause this city to be burned with fire.’", 42.5. "Then they said to Jeremiah: ‘The LORD be a true and faithful witness against us, if we do not even according to all the word wherewith the LORD thy God shall send thee to us.", 50.24. "I have laid a snare for thee, and thou art also taken, O Babylon, And thou wast not aware; Thou art found, and also caught, Because thou hast striven against the LORD.", |
|
20. Hebrew Bible, Amos, 5.10 (8th cent. BCE - 6th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 | 5.10. "They hate him that reproveth in the gate, And they abhor him that speaketh uprightly.", |
|
21. Hebrew Bible, Joshua, 1.18 (8th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 44, 126| 1.18. "כָּל־אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר־יַמְרֶה אֶת־פִּיךָ וְלֹא־יִשְׁמַע אֶת־דְּבָרֶיךָ לְכֹל אֲשֶׁר־תְּצַוֶּנּוּ יוּמָת רַק חֲזַק וֶאֱמָץ׃", | 1.18. "Whosoever he be that shall rebel against thy commandment, and shall not hearken unto thy words in all that thou commandest him, he shall be put to death; only be strong and of good courage.’", |
|
22. Hebrew Bible, Ezekiel, 12.13, 17.20, 19.4, 19.8, 21.28-21.29 (6th cent. BCE - 5th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82| 12.13. "וּפָרַשְׂתִּי אֶת־רִשְׁתִּי עָלָיו וְנִתְפַּשׂ בִּמְצוּדָתִי וְהֵבֵאתִי אֹתוֹ בָבֶלָה אֶרֶץ כַּשְׂדִּים וְאוֹתָהּ לֹא־יִרְאֶה וְשָׁם יָמוּת׃", 19.4. "וַיִּשְׁמְעוּ אֵלָיו גּוֹיִם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ וַיְבִאֻהוּ בַחַחִים אֶל־אֶרֶץ מִצְרָיִם׃", 19.8. "וַיִּתְּנוּ עָלָיו גּוֹיִם סָבִיב מִמְּדִינוֹת וַיִּפְרְשׂוּ עָלָיו רִשְׁתָּם בְּשַׁחְתָּם נִתְפָּשׂ׃", 21.28. "וְהָיָה לָהֶם כקסום־[כִּקְסָם־] שָׁוְא בְּעֵינֵיהֶם שְׁבֻעֵי שְׁבֻעוֹת לָהֶם וְהוּא־מַזְכִּיר עָוֺן לְהִתָּפֵשׂ׃", 21.29. "לָכֵן כֹּה־אָמַר אֲדֹנָי יְהוִה יַעַן הַזְכַּרְכֶם עֲוֺנְכֶם בְּהִגָּלוֹת פִּשְׁעֵיכֶם לְהֵרָאוֹת חַטֹּאותֵיכֶם בְּכֹל עֲלִילוֹתֵיכֶם יַעַן הִזָּכֶרְכֶם בַּכַּף תִּתָּפֵשׂוּ׃", | 12.13. "My net also will I spread upon him, and he shall be taken in My snare; and I will bring him to Babylon to the land of the Chaldeans; yet shall he not see it, though he shall die there.", 17.20. "And I will spread My net upon him, and he shall be taken in My snare, and I will bring him to Babylon, and will plead with him there for his treachery that he hath committed against Me.", 19.4. "Then the nations assembled against him, He was taken in their pit; And they brought him with hooks Unto the land of Egypt.", 19.8. "Then the nations cried out against him On every side from the provinces; And they spread their net over him, He was taken in their pit.", 21.28. "And it shall be unto them as a false divination in their sight, who have weeks upon weeks! but it bringeth iniquity to remembrance, that they may be taken.", 21.29. "Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD: Because ye have made your iniquity to be remembered, in that your transgressions are uncovered, so that your sins do appear in all your doings; because that ye are come to remembrance, ye shall be taken with the hand.", |
|
23. Hebrew Bible, Nehemiah, 10.30 (5th cent. BCE - 4th cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 125 | 10.30. "they cleaved to their brethren, their nobles, and entered into a curse, and into an oath, to walk in God’s law, which was given by Moses the servant of God, and to observe and do all the commandments of the LORD our Lord, and His ordices and His statutes;", |
|
24. Hebrew Bible, Ecclesiastes, 7.19 (5th cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 24| 7.19. "הַחָכְמָה תָּעֹז לֶחָכָם מֵעֲשָׂרָה שַׁלִּיטִים אֲשֶׁר הָיוּ בָּעִיר׃", | 7.19. "Wisdom is a stronghold to the wise man more than ten rulers that are in a city.", |
|
25. Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles, 31.17, 34.1, 34.3 (5th cent. BCE - 3rd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 59| 31.17. "וְאֵת הִתְיַחֵשׂ הַכֹּהֲנִים לְבֵית אֲבוֹתֵיהֶם וְהַלְוִיִּם מִבֶּן עֶשְׂרִים שָׁנָה וּלְמָעְלָה בְּמִשְׁמְרוֹתֵיהֶם בְּמַחְלְקוֹתֵיהֶם׃", 34.1. "בֶּן־שְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנִים יֹאשִׁיָּהוּ בְמָלְכוֹ וּשְׁלֹשִׁים וְאַחַת שָׁנָה מָלַךְ בִּירוּשָׁלִָם׃", 34.1. "וַיִּתְּנוּ עַל־יַד עֹשֵׂה הַמְּלָאכָה הַמֻּפְקָדִים בְּבֵית יְהוָה וַיִּתְּנוּ אֹתוֹ עוֹשֵׂי הַמְּלָאכָה אֲשֶׁר עֹשִׂים בְּבֵית יְהוָה לִבְדּוֹק וּלְחַזֵּק הַבָּיִת׃", 34.3. "וּבִשְׁמוֹנֶה שָׁנִים לְמָלְכוֹ וְהוּא עוֹדֶנּוּ נַעַר הֵחֵל לִדְרוֹשׁ לֵאלֹהֵי דָּוִיד אָבִיו וּבִשְׁתֵּים עֶשְׂרֵה שָׁנָה הֵחֵל לְטַהֵר אֶת־יְהוּדָה וִירוּשָׁלִַם מִן־הַבָּמוֹת וְהָאֲשֵׁרִים וְהַפְּסִלִים וְהַמַּסֵּכוֹת׃", 34.3. "וַיַּעַל הַמֶּלֶךְ בֵּית־יְהוָה וְכָל־אִישׁ יְהוּדָה וְיֹשְׁבֵי יְרוּשָׁלִַם וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהַלְוִיִּם וְכָל־הָעָם מִגָּדוֹל וְעַד־קָטָן וַיִּקְרָא בְאָזְנֵיהֶם אֶת־כָּל־דִּבְרֵי סֵפֶר הַבְּרִית הַנִּמְצָא בֵּית יְהוָה׃", | 31.17. "and them that were reckoned by genealogy of the priests by their fathers’houses, and the Levites from twenty years old and upward, in their charges by their courses;", 34.1. "Josiah was eight years old when he began to reign; and he reigned thirty and one years in Jerusalem.", 34.3. "For in the eighth year of his reign, while he was yet young, he began to seek after the God of David his father; and in the twelfth year he began to purge Judah and Jerusalem from the high places, and the Asherim, and the graven images, and the molten images.", |
|
| 26. Anon., Testament of Solomon, 110, 112-115, 111 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84 |
27. Hebrew Bible, Daniel, 9.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 125| 9.11. "וְכָל־יִשְׂרָאֵל עָבְרוּ אֶת־תּוֹרָתֶךָ וְסוֹר לְבִלְתִּי שְׁמוֹעַ בְּקֹלֶךָ וַתִּתַּךְ עָלֵינוּ הָאָלָה וְהַשְּׁבֻעָה אֲשֶׁר כְּתוּבָה בְּתוֹרַת מֹשֶׁה עֶבֶד־הָאֱלֹהִים כִּי חָטָאנוּ לוֹ׃", | 9.11. "Yea, all Israel have transgressed Thy law, and have turned aside, so as not to hearken to Thy voice; and so there hath been poured out upon us the curse and the oath that is written in the Law of Moses the servant of God; for we have sinned against Him.", |
|
| 28. Dead Sea Scrolls, Temple Scroll, 17.8, 57.8, 57.11-57.15, 64.2-64.13, 66.8-66.11 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40, 44, 59, 76, 82, 84 |
| 29. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9, 1.11, 1.24, 1.28, 2.3-2.9, 2.11-2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 58, 66, 163, 197, 199, 208 |
| 30. Dead Sea Scrolls, of Discipline, 1.24-2.1, 3.4, 4.6, 5.12, 5.24-6.1, 5.24, 6.4, 6.5, 6.8, 6.9, 6.10, 6.13, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16, 6.17, 6.18, 6.19, 6.20, 6.21, 6.22, 6.23, 6.24-7.25, 6.25, 6.26, 6.27-7.2, 6.27, 7.8, 7.15, 7.16, 7.17, 7.22, 7.23, 7.24, 7.25, 7.2161, 8.1, 8.2, 8.3, 8.4, 8.5, 8.6, 8.7, 8.8, 8.9, 8.10, 8.13, 8.14, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18, 8.19, 8.21-9.2, 8.21, 8.22, 8.23, 8.24, 9.1, 9.7, 9.16, 9.17, 10.14 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 136 |
| 31. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 9.9, 9.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 95 |
| 32. Dead Sea Scrolls, Hodayot, 9.9, 9.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 95 |
| 33. Dead Sea Scrolls, Community Rule, 1.9, 1.11, 1.24, 1.28, 2.3-2.9, 2.11-2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 58, 66, 163, 197, 199, 208 |
| 34. Dead Sea Scrolls, (Cairo Damascus Covenant) Cd-A, 3.16, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.23, 9.23-10.2, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.13, 10.21, 11.5, 11.6, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 14.18, 14.19, 14.20, 14.21, 14.22, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 15.14, 15.15, 15.556, 16.10, 16.11, 16.12, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.19, 20.28, 20.29, 20.30 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129 |
| 35. Dead Sea Scrolls, War Scroll, 2.1-2.12 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 44 |
| 36. Dead Sea Scrolls, Rule of The Community, 1.9, 1.11, 1.24, 1.28, 2.3-2.9, 2.11-2.22 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 58, 66, 163, 197, 199, 208 |
| 37. Dead Sea Scrolls, Damascus Covenant, 3.16, 6.11, 6.12, 6.13, 6.14, 8.8, 9.1, 9.2, 9.3, 9.4, 9.5, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.9, 9.10, 9.11, 9.12, 9.13, 9.14, 9.15, 9.16, 9.17, 9.18, 9.19, 9.20, 9.21, 9.22, 9.23, 9.23-10.2, 10.1, 10.3, 10.4, 10.5, 10.6, 10.7, 10.8, 10.9, 10.10, 10.13, 10.21, 11.5, 11.6, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5, 12.6, 13.4, 13.5, 13.6, 13.7, 13.8, 13.9, 13.10, 13.11, 13.12, 13.13, 14.18, 14.19, 14.20, 14.21, 14.22, 15.1, 15.2, 15.3, 15.4, 15.5, 15.6, 15.14, 15.15, 15.556, 16.10, 16.11, 16.12, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.19, 20.28, 20.29, 20.30 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129 |
38. Anon., Jubilees, 49.17 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59 | 49.17. And it is not permissible to slay it during any period of the light, but during the period bordering on the evening, |
|
39. Septuagint, Ecclesiasticus (Siracides), 4.17, 6.8, 11.8, 36.21, 37.8, 50.24 (2nd cent. BCE - 2nd cent. BCE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 28, 66, 208 | 4.17. For at first she will walk with him on tortuous paths,she will bring fear and cowardice upon him,and will torment him by her discipline until she trusts him,and she will test him with her ordices. 36.21. A woman will accept any man,but one daughter is better than another. 37.8. Be wary of a counselor,and learn first what is his interest -- for he will take thought for himself -- lest he cast the lot against you 50.24. May he entrust to us his mercy!And let him deliver us in our days! |
|
| 40. Dead Sea Scrolls, Pesher On Habakkuk, 5.10 (2nd cent. BCE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 95 |
41. New Testament, Matthew, 5.33-5.37, 18.15-18.17, 23.6 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 92, 140, 208| 5.33. Πάλιν ἠκούσατε ὅτι ἐρρέθη τοῖς ἀρχαίοις Οὐκ ἐπιορκήσεις, ἀποδώσεις δὲ τῷ κυρίῳ τοὺς ὅρκους σου. 5.34. Ἐγὼ δὲ λέγω ὑμῖν μν̀ ὀμόσαι ὅλως· μήτε ἐν τῷ οὐρανῷ, ὅτι θρόνος ἐστὶν τοῦ θεοῦ· 5.35. μήτε ἐν τῇ γῇ, ὅτι ὑποπόδιόν ἐστιν τῶν ποδῶν αὐτοῦ· μήτε εἰς Ἰεροσόλυμα, ὅτι πόλις ἐστὶν τοῦ μεγάλου βασιλέως· 5.36. μήτε ἐν τῇ κεφαλῇ σου ὀμόσῃς, ὅτι οὐ δύνασαι μίαν τρίχα λευκὴν ποιῆσαι ἢ μέλαιναν. 5.37. ἔστω δὲ ὁ λόγος ὑμῶν ναὶ ναί, οὒ οὔ· τὸ δὲ περισσὸν τούτων ἐκ τοῦ πονηροῦ ἐστίν. 18.15. Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ ὁ ἀδελφός σου, ὕπαγε ἔλεγξον αὐτὸν μεταξὺ σοῦ καὶ αὐτοῦ μόνου. ἐάν σου ἀκούσῃ, ἐκέρδησας τὸν ἀδελφόν σου· 18.16. ἐὰν δὲ μὴ ἀκούσῃ, παράλαβε μετὰ σοῦ ἔτι ἕνα ἢ δύο, ἵνα ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων ἢ τριῶν σταθῇ πᾶν ῥῆμα· 18.17. ἐὰν δὲ παρακούσῃ αὐτῶν, εἰπὸν τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ· ἐὰν δὲ καὶ τῆς ἐκκλησίας παρακούσῃ, ἔστω σοι ὥσπερ ὁ ἐθνικὸς καὶ ὁ τελώνης. 23.6. φιλοῦσι δὲ τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν ἐν τοῖς δείπνοις καὶ τὰς πρωτοκαθεδρίας ἐν ταῖς συναγωγαῖς | 5.33. "Again you have heard that it was said to them of old time, 'You shall not make false vows, but shall perform to the Lord your vows,' 5.34. but I tell you, don't swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is the throne of God; 5.35. nor by the earth, for it is the footstool of his feet; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. 5.36. Neither shall you swear by your head, for you can't make one hair white or black. 5.37. But let your 'Yes' be 'Yes' and your 'No' be 'no.' Whatever is more than these is of the evil one. 18.15. "If your brother sins against you, go, show him his fault between you and him alone. If he listens to you, you have gained back your brother. 18.16. But if he doesn't listen, take one or two more with you, that at the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. 18.17. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the assembly. If he refuses to hear the assembly also, let him be to you as a Gentile or a tax collector. 23.6. and love the place of honor at feasts, the best seats in the synagogues, |
|
42. Mishnah, Bava Metzia, 2.2-2.3, 2.7-2.8, 7.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 132| 2.2. "וְאֵלוּ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז, מָצָא פֵרוֹת בִּכְלִי אוֹ כְלִי כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, מָעוֹת בְּכִיס אוֹ כִיס כְּמוֹת שֶׁהוּא, צִבּוּרֵי פֵרוֹת, צִבּוּרֵי מָעוֹת, שְׁלשָׁה מַטְבְּעוֹת זֶה עַל גַּב זֶה, כְּרִיכוֹת בִּרְשׁוּת הַיָּחִיד, וְכִכָּרוֹת שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבַּיִת, וְגִזֵּי צֶמֶר הַלְּקוּחוֹת מִבֵּית הָאֻמָּן, כַּדֵּי יַיִן וְכַדֵּי שֶׁמֶן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּב לְהַכְרִיז:", 2.3. "מָצָא אַחַר הַגַּפָּה אוֹ אַחַר הַגָּדֵר גּוֹזָלוֹת מְקֻשָּׁרִין, אוֹ בִשְׁבִילִין שֶׁבַּשָּׂדוֹת, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן. מָצָא כְלִי בָּאַשְׁפָּה, אִם מְכֻסֶּה, לֹא יִגַּע בּוֹ, אִם מְגֻלֶּה, נוֹטֵל וּמַכְרִיז. מָצָא בְגַל אוֹ בְכֹתֶל יָשָׁן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ. מָצָא בְכֹתֶל חָדָשׁ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלַחוּץ, שֶׁלּוֹ, מֵחֶצְיוֹ וְלִפְנִים, שֶׁל בַּעַל הַבָּיִת. אִם הָיָה מַשְׂכִּירוֹ לַאֲחֵרִים, אֲפִלּוּ בְתוֹךְ הַבַּיִת, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ שֶׁלּוֹ:", 2.7. "אָמַר אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְלֹא אָמַר סִימָנֶיהָ, לֹא יִתֶּן לוֹ. וְהָ רַמַּאי, אַף עַל פִּי שֶׁאָמַר סִימָנֶיהָ, לֹא יִתֶּן לוֹ, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כב) עַד דְּרשׁ אָחִיךָ אֹתוֹ, עַד שֶׁתִּדְרשׁ אֶת אָחִיךָ אִם רַמַּאי הוּא אִם אֵינוֹ רַמָּאי. כָּל דָּבָר שֶׁעוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל, יַעֲשֶׂה וְיֹאכַל. וְדָבָר שֶׁאֵין עוֹשֶׂה וְאוֹכֵל, יִמָּכֵר, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) וַהֲשֵׁבֹתוֹ לוֹ, רְאֵה הֵיאַךְ תְּשִׁיבֶנּוּ לוֹ. מַה יְּהֵא בַדָּמִים. רַבִּי טַרְפוֹן אוֹמֵר, יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, לֹא יִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן, לְפִיכָךְ אִם אָבְדוּ אֵינוֹ חַיָּב בְּאַחֲרָיוּתָן:", 2.8. "מָצָא סְפָרִים, קוֹרֵא בָהֶן אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְאִם אֵינוֹ יוֹדֵעַ לִקְרוֹת, גּוֹלְלָן. אֲבָל לֹא יִלְמֹד בָּהֶן בַּתְּחִלָּה, וְלֹא יִקְרָא אַחֵר עִמּוֹ. מָצָא כְסוּת, מְנַעֲרָהּ אַחַת לִשְׁלֹשִׁים יוֹם. וְשׁוֹטְחָהּ לְצָרְכָּהּ, אֲבָל לֹא לִכְבוֹדוֹ. כְּלֵי כֶסֶף וּכְלֵי נְחֹשֶׁת, מִשְׁתַּמֵּשׁ בָּהֶן לְצָרְכָּן, אֲבָל לֹא לְשָׁחֳקָן. כְּלֵי זָהָב וּכְלֵי זְכוּכִית, לֹא יִגַּע בָּהֶן עַד שֶׁיָּבֹא אֵלִיָּהוּ. מָצָא שַׂק אוֹ קֻפָּה, וְכָל דָּבָר שֶׁאֵין דַּרְכּוֹ לִטֹּל, הֲרֵי זֶה לֹא יִטֹּל:", 7.8. "שׁוֹמְרֵי פֵרוֹת אוֹכְלִין מֵהִלְכוֹת מְדִינָה, אֲבָל לֹא מִן הַתּוֹרָה. אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל, וְנוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִים עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִין אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה: \n", | 2.2. "And these must be proclaimed: if a man found fruit in a vessel, or an empty vessel; or money in a bag, or an empty bag; piles of fruit or piles of money; three coins one on top of the other; small sheaves in the private domain; home-made loaves of bread; wool shearings as they come from the craftsman’s shop; jugs of wine or jugs of oil, these must be proclaimed.", 2.3. "If a man found pigeons tied together behind a fence or a hedge or on footpaths in the fields, he may not touch them. If he found an object in the dungheap and it was covered up he may not touch it, but if it was exposed he should take it and proclaim. If he found it in a pile of stones or in an old wall it belongs to him. If he found it in a new wall and it was on the outside [of the wall] it belongs to him. If it was on the inner side it belongs to the householder. But if the house had been hired to others, even if a man found something within the house, it belongs to him.", 2.7. "If he (the claimant) named what was lost but could not describe its distinctive marks, he should not give it back to him. And it should not be give to a [known] deceiver, even if he describes its distinctive marks, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “Until your fellow claims it”, [which is to say] until you inquire about your fellow, if he is a deceiver or not. Whatsoever works and eats, let it work and eat [while in the finder’s care]. But whatsoever does not work and eat should be sold, as it is said [in the verse, Deut. 22:2]: “And you shall return it to him”, See how you can return it to him. What shall be with the money [from the sale]? Rabbi Tarfon says: “He may use it, therefore if it is lost he is responsible for it.” Rabbi Akiva says: “He may not use it, therefore if it is lost he is not responsible for it.”", 2.8. "If he found scrolls he must read them once every thirty days, and if he does not know how to read he should unroll them. But he may not learn from them something he has not yet learned, nor may another read with him. If he found clothing he must shake it out once every thirty days, and spread it out for [the clothing’s] own good, but not for his own honor. [If he found] silver or copper vessels he must use them for their own good but not so as to wear them out. [If he found] vessels of gold or glass he may not touch them until Elijah comes. If he found a sack or a large basket or anything that is not generally carried about, he may not carry it.", 7.8. "Those that guard [gathered] produce may eat from it because that is the custom of the land and not because that is the law of the Torah. There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.", |
|
43. New Testament, Luke, 14.7-14.11 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 208| 14.7. Ἔλεγεν δὲ πρὸς τοὺς κεκλημένους παραβολήν, ἐπέχων πῶς τὰς πρωτοκλισίας ἐξελέγοντο, 14.8. λέγων πρὸς αὐτούς Ὅταν κληθῇς ὑπό τινος εἰς γάμους, μὴ κατακλιθῇς εἰς τὴν πρωτοκλισίαν, μή ποτε ἐντιμότερός σου ᾖ κεκλημένος ὑπʼ αὐτοῦ, 14.9. καὶ ἐλθὼν ὁ σὲ καὶ αὐτὸν καλέσας ἐρεῖ σοι Δὸς τούτῳ τόπον, καὶ τότε ἄρξῃ μετὰ αἰσχύνης τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον κατέχειν. 14.10. ἀλλʼ ὅταν κληθῇς πορευθεὶς ἀνάπεσε εἰς τὸν ἔσχατον τόπον, ἵνα ὅταν ἔλθῃ ὁ κεκληκώς σε ἐρεῖ σοι Φίλε, προσανάβηθι ἀνώτερον· τότε ἔσται σοι δόξα ἐνώπιον πάντων τῶν συνανακειμένων σοι. 14.11. ὅτι πᾶς ὁ ὑψῶν ἑαυτὸν ταπεινωθήσεται καὶ ὁ ταπεινῶν ἑαυτὸν ὑψωθήσεται. | 14.7. He spoke a parable to those who were invited, when he noticed how they chose the best seats, and said to them, 14.8. "When you are invited by anyone to a marriage feast, don't sit in the best seat, since perhaps someone more honorable than you might be invited by him, 14.9. and he who invited both of you would come and tell you, 'Make room for this person.' Then you would begin, with shame, to take the lowest place. 14.10. But when you are invited, go and sit in the lowest place, so that when he who invited you comes, he may tell you, 'Friend, move up higher.' Then you will be honored in the presence of all who sit at the table with you. 14.11. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted." |
|
44. New Testament, John, 8.17 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 8.17. καὶ ἐν τῷ νόμῳ δὲ τῷ ὑμετέρῳ γέγραπται ὅτι δύο ἀνθρώπων ἡ μαρτυρία ἀληθής ἐστιν. | 8.17. It's also written in your law that the testimony of two people is valid. |
|
45. New Testament, Hebrews, 3.13, 10.28 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 91| 3.13. ἀλλὰ παρακαλεῖτε ἑαυτοὺς καθʼ ἑκάστην ἡμέραν, ἄχρις οὗ τόΣήμερονκαλεῖται, ἵνα μὴσκληρυνθῇτις ἐξ ὑμῶν ἀπάτῃ τῆς ἁμαρτίας· 10.28. ἀθετήσας τις νόμον Μωυσέως χωρὶς οἰκτιρμῶνἐπὶ δυσὶν ἢ τρισὶν μάρτυσιν ἀποθνήσκει· | 3.13. but exhort one another day by day, so long as it is called "today;" lest any one of you be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin. 10.28. A man who disregards Moses' law dies without compassion on the word of two or three witnesses. |
|
46. New Testament, Ephesians, 4.26 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 91| 4.26. ὀργίζεσθε καὶ μὴ ἁμαρτάνετε· ὁ ἥλιος μὴ ἐπιδυέτω ἐπὶ παροργισμῷ ὑμῶν, | 4.26. "Be angry, and don't sin." Don't let the sun go down on your wrath, |
|
47. New Testament, James, 5.12 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 5.12. Πρὸ πάντων δέ, ἀδελφοί μου, μὴ ὀμνύετε, μήτε τὸν οὐρανὸν μήτε τὴν γῆν μήτε ἄλλον τινὰ ὅρκον· ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τό Ναί ναὶ καὶ τό Οὔ οὔ, ἵνα μὴ ὑπὸ κρίσιν πέσητε. | 5.12. But above all things, my brothers, don't swear, neither by heaven, nor by the earth, nor by any other oath; but let your "yes" be "yes," and your "no," "no;" so that you don't fall into hypocrisy. |
|
48. Mishnah, Bava Batra, 10.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 10.2. גֵּט פָּשׁוּט, עֵדָיו בִּשְׁנָיִם. וּמְקֻשָּׁר, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. פָּשׁוּט שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ עֵד אֶחָד, וּמְקֻשָּׁר שֶׁכָּתוּב בּוֹ שְׁנֵי עֵדִים, שְׁנֵיהֶם פְּסוּלִין. כָּתַב בּוֹ זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן סִלְעִין עֶשְׂרִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא עֶשְׂרִין. זוּזִין מְאָה דְאִנּוּן תְּלָתִין סִלְעִין, אֵין לוֹ אֶלָּא מָנֶה. כְסַף זוּזִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כְּסַף סִלְעִין דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁנָיִם. דַּרְכּוֹנוֹת דְּאִנּוּן, וְנִמְחַק, אֵין פָּחוּת מִשְּׁתָּיִם. כָּתוּב בּוֹ מִלְמַעְלָה מָנֶה וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָאתַיִם, מִלְמַעְלָה מָאתַיִם וּמִלְּמַטָּה מָנֶה, הַכֹּל הוֹלֵךְ אַחַר הַתַּחְתּוֹן. אִם כֵּן, לָמָּה כוֹתְבִין אֶת הָעֶלְיוֹן, שֶׁאִם תִּמָּחֵק אוֹת אַחַת מִן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, יִלְמַד מִן הָעֶלְיוֹן. | 10.2. "A simple document requires two witnesses; a sewn document requires three. If a simple document has only one witness, or a sewn document has only two, they are both invalid. If it was written in a debt document: “100 zuz which are 20 sela (=80”, he (the creditor) can claim only 20 sela; if [it was written] “100 zuz which are 30 sela (=120” he (the creditor) can claim only 100 zuz. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver zuzim which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two zuzim. [If there was written in a debt document] “Silver selas which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two selas. [If there was written in a debt document] “Darics which are …”, and the rest was erased, [the creditor can claim] at least two darics. If at the top was written a “maneh (100” and at the bottom “200 zuz”, or “200 zuz” at the top and “maneh” at the bottom, everything goes according to the bottom amount. If so, why is the figure written at the top of the document? So that, if a letter of the lower figure was erased, they can learn from the upper figure.", |
|
49. New Testament, Apocalypse, 11.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 11.3. καὶ δώσω τοῖς δυσὶν μάρτυσίν μου, καὶ προφητεύσουσιν ἡμέρας χιλίας διακοσίας ἑξήκοντα, περιβεβλημένους σάκκους. | 11.3. I will give power to my two witnesses, and they will prophesy one thousand two hundred sixty days, clothed in sackcloth. |
|
50. Mishnah, Avot, 5.21 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 32| 5.21. "הוּא הָיָה אוֹמֵר, בֶּן חָמֵשׁ שָׁנִים לַמִּקְרָא, בֶּן עֶשֶׂר לַמִּשְׁנָה, בֶּן שְׁלשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַמִּצְוֹת, בֶּן חֲמֵשׁ עֶשְׂרֵה לַתַּלְמוּד, בֶּן שְׁמֹנֶה עֶשְׂרֵה לַחֻפָּה, בֶּן עֶשְׂרִים לִרְדֹּף, בֶּן שְׁלשִׁים לַכֹּחַ, בֶּן אַרְבָּעִים לַבִּינָה, בֶּן חֲמִשִּׁים לָעֵצָה, בֶּן שִׁשִּׁים לַזִּקְנָה, בֶּן שִׁבְעִים לַשֵּׂיבָה, בֶּן שְׁמֹנִים לַגְּבוּרָה, בֶּן תִּשְׁעִים לָשׁוּחַ, בֶּן מֵאָה כְּאִלּוּ מֵת וְעָבַר וּבָטֵל מִן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 5.21. "He used to say: At five years of age the study of Scripture; At ten the study of Mishnah; At thirteen subject to the commandments; At fifteen the study of Talmud; At eighteen the bridal canopy; At twenty for pursuit [of livelihood]; At thirty the peak of strength; At forty wisdom; At fifty able to give counsel; At sixty old age; At seventy fullness of years; At eighty the age of “strength”; At ninety a bent body; At one hundred, as good as dead and gone completely out of the world.", |
|
51. New Testament, 2 Corinthians, 13.1-13.3 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75, 78| 13.1. Τρίτον τοῦτο ἔρχομαι πρὸς ὑμᾶς·ἐπὶ στόματος δύο μαρτύρων καὶ τριῶν σταθήσεται πᾶν ῥῆμα. 13.2. προείρηκα καὶ προλέγω ὡς παρὼν τὸ δεύτερον καὶ ἀπὼν νῦν τοῖς προημαρτηκόσιν καὶ τοῖς λοιποῖς πᾶσιν, ὅτι ἐὰν ἔλθω εἰς τὸ πάλιν οὐ φείσομαι, 13.3. ἐπεὶ δοκιμὴν ζητεῖτε τοῦ ἐν ἐμοὶ λαλοῦντος χριστοῦ· ὃς εἰς ὑμᾶς οὐκ ἀσθενεῖ ἀλλὰ δυνατεῖ ἐν ὑμῖν, | |
|
52. New Testament, 1 Timothy, 5.19 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75| 5.19. κατὰ πρεσβυτέρου κατηγορίαν μὴ παραδέχου, ἐκτὸς εἰ μὴἐπὶ δύο ἢ τριῶν μαρτύρων· | 5.19. Don't receive an accusation against an elder, except at the word of two or three witnesses. |
|
53. Mishnah, Yadayim, 4.5-4.6 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 148| 4.5. "תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁבְּעֶזְרָא וְשֶׁבְּדָנִיֵּאל, מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. תַּרְגּוּם שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ עִבְרִית וְעִבְרִית שֶׁכְּתָבוֹ תַּרְגּוּם, וּכְתָב עִבְרִי, אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. לְעוֹלָם אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא, עַד שֶׁיִּכְתְּבֶנּוּ אַשּׁוּרִית, עַל הָעוֹר, וּבִדְיוֹ: \n", 4.6. "אוֹמְרִים צְדוֹקִים, קוֹבְלִין אָנוּ עֲלֵיכֶם, פְּרוּשִׁים, שֶׁאַתֶּם אוֹמְרִים, כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדַיִם, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס אֵינוֹ מְטַמֵּא אֶת הַיָּדַיִם. אָמַר רַבָּן יוֹחָנָן בֶּן זַכַּאי, וְכִי אֵין לָנוּ עַל הַפְּרוּשִׁים אֶלָּא זוֹ בִלְבָד. הֲרֵי הֵם אוֹמְרִים, עַצְמוֹת חֲמוֹר טְהוֹרִים וְעַצְמוֹת יוֹחָנָן כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל טְמֵאִים. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, שֶׁלֹּא יַעֲשֶׂה אָדָם עַצְמוֹת אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ תַּרְוָדוֹת. אָמַר לָהֶם, אַף כִּתְבֵי הַקֹּדֶשׁ לְפִי חִבָּתָן הִיא טֻמְאָתָן, וְסִפְרֵי הוֹמֵרִיס, שֶׁאֵינָן חֲבִיבִין, אֵינָן מְטַמְּאִין אֶת הַיָּדָיִם: \n", | 4.5. "The Aramaic sections in Ezra and Daniel defile the hands. If an Aramaic section was written in Hebrew, or a Hebrew section was written in Aramaic, or [Hebrew which was written with] Hebrew script, it does not defile the hands. It never defiles the hands until it is written in the Assyrian script, on parchment, and in ink.", 4.6. "The Sadducees say: we complain against you, Pharisees, because you say that the Holy Scriptures defile the hands, but the books of Homer do not defile the hands. Rabban Yoha ben Zakkai said: Have we nothing against the Pharisees but this? Behold they say that the bones of a donkey are clean, yet the bones of Yoha the high priest are unclean. They said to him: according to the affection for them, so is their impurity, so that nobody should make spoons out of the bones of his father or mother. He said to them: so also are the Holy Scriptures according to the affection for them, so is their uncleanness. The books of Homer which are not precious do not defile the hands.", |
|
54. Mishnah, Demai, 2.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82| 2.2. "הַמְקַבֵּל עָלָיו לִהְיוֹת נֶאֱמָן, מְעַשֵּׂר אֶת שֶׁהוּא אוֹכֵל, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא מוֹכֵר, וְאֶת שֶׁהוּא לוֹקֵחַ, וְאֵינוֹ מִתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אַף הַמִּתְאָרֵחַ אֵצֶל עַם הָאָרֶץ נֶאֱמָן. אָמְרוּ לוֹ, עַל עַצְמוֹ אֵינוֹ נֶאֱמָן, כֵּיצַד יְהֵא נֶאֱמָן עַל שֶׁל אֲחֵרִים: \n", | 2.2. "One who accepts upon himself to be trustworthy (ne’eman), must tithe whatever he eats and whatever he sells and whatever he buys, and he may not be the guest of an am haaretz. Rabbi Judah says: even one who is the guest of an am haaretz can still be considered trustworthy. They said to him: He is not trustworthy in respect of himself! How can he be considered trustworthy in respect of others?", |
|
55. Mishnah, Yoma, 1.3, 1.5, 3.8, 4.2, 6.2 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48, 148| 1.3. "מָסְרוּ לוֹ זְקֵנִים מִזִּקְנֵי בֵית דִּין, וְקוֹרִין לְפָנָיו בְּסֵדֶר הַיּוֹם, וְאוֹמְרִים לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, קְרָא אַתָּה בְּפִיךָ, שֶׁמָּא שָׁכַחְתָּ אוֹ שֶׁמָּא לֹא לָמָדְתָּ. עֶרֶב יוֹם הַכִּפּוּרִים שַׁחֲרִית, מַעֲמִידִין אוֹתוֹ בְּשַׁעַר מִזְרָח, וּמַעֲבִירִין לְפָנָיו פָּרִים וְאֵילִים וּכְבָשִׂים, כְּדֵי שֶׁיְּהֵא מַכִּיר וְרָגִיל בָּעֲבוֹדָה: \n", 1.5. "מְסָרוּהוּ זִקְנֵי בֵית דִּין לְזִקְנֵי כְהֻנָּה, וְהֶעֱלוּהוּ לַעֲלִיַּת בֵּית אַבְטִינָס, וְהִשְׁבִּיעוּהוּ וְנִפְטְרוּ וְהָלְכוּ לָהֶם. וְאָמְרוּ לוֹ, אִישִׁי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, אָנוּ שְׁלוּחֵי בֵית דִּין, וְאַתָּה שְׁלוּחֵנוּ וּשְׁלִיחַ בֵּית דִּין, מַשְׁבִּיעִין אָנוּ עָלֶיךָ בְּמִי שֶׁשִּׁכֵּן שְׁמוֹ בַבַּיִת הַזֶּה, שֶׁלֹּא תְשַׁנֶּה דָבָר מִכָּל מַה שֶּׁאָמַרְנוּ לָךְ. הוּא פוֹרֵשׁ וּבוֹכֶה, וְהֵן פּוֹרְשִׁין וּבוֹכִין: \n", 3.8. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ, וּפָרוֹ הָיָה עוֹמֵד בֵּין הָאוּלָם וְלַמִּזְבֵּחַ, רֹאשׁוֹ לַדָּרוֹם וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְהַכֹּהֵן עוֹמֵד בַּמִּזְרָח וּפָנָיו לַמַּעֲרָב, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 4.2. "קָשַׁר לָשׁוֹן שֶׁל זְהוֹרִית בְּרֹאשׁ שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְהֶעֱמִידוֹ כְנֶגֶד בֵּית שִׁלּוּחוֹ, וְלַנִּשְׁחָט כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית שְׁחִיטָתוֹ. בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל פָּרוֹ שְׁנִיָּה, וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָוִיתִי פָּשַׁעְתִּי חָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁיךָ. אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָוִיתִי וְשֶׁפָּשַׁעְתִּי וְשֶׁחָטָאתִי לְפָנֶיךָ אֲנִי וּבֵיתִי וּבְנֵי אַהֲרֹן עַם קְדוֹשֶׁךָ, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהֵן עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", 6.2. "בָּא לוֹ אֵצֶל שָׂעִיר הַמִּשְׁתַּלֵּחַ וְסוֹמֵךְ שְׁתֵּי יָדָיו עָלָיו וּמִתְוַדֶּה. וְכָךְ הָיָה אוֹמֵר, אָנָּא הַשֵּׁם, עָווּ פָּשְׁעוּ חָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל. אָנָּא בַּשֵּׁם, כַּפֶּר נָא לָעֲוֹנוֹת וְלַפְּשָׁעִים וְלַחֲטָאִים, שֶׁעָווּ וְשֶׁפָּשְׁעוּ וְשֶׁחָטְאוּ לְפָנֶיךָ עַמְּךָ בֵּית יִשְׂרָאֵל, כַּכָּתוּב בְּתוֹרַת משֶׁה עַבְדֶּךָ לֵאמֹר (ויקרא טז), כִּי בַיּוֹם הַזֶּה יְכַפֵּר עֲלֵיכֶם לְטַהֵר אֶתְכֶם מִכֹּל חַטֹּאתֵיכֶם לִפְנֵי יְיָ תִּטְהָרוּ. וְהַכֹּהֲנִים וְהָעָם הָעוֹמְדִים בָּעֲזָרָה, כְּשֶׁהָיוּ שׁוֹמְעִים שֵׁם הַמְפֹרָשׁ שֶׁהוּא יוֹצֵא מִפִּי כֹהֵן גָּדוֹל, הָיוּ כּוֹרְעִים וּמִשְׁתַּחֲוִים וְנוֹפְלִים עַל פְּנֵיהֶם, וְאוֹמְרִים, בָּרוּךְ שֵׁם כְּבוֹד מַלְכוּתוֹ לְעוֹלָם וָעֶד: \n", | 1.3. "They delivered to him elders from the elders of the court and they read before him [throughout the seven days] from the order of the day. And they say to him, “Sir, high priest, you read it yourself with your own mouth, lest you have forgotten or lest you have never learned.” On the eve of Yom HaKippurim in the morning they place him at the eastern gate and pass before him oxen, rams and sheep, so that he may recognize and become familiar with the service.", 1.5. "The elders of the court handed him over to the elders of the priesthood and they took him up to the upper chamber of the house of Avtinas. They adjured him and then left. And they said to him [when leaving]: “Sir, high priest, we are messengers of the court and you are our messenger and the messenger of the court. We adjure you by the one that caused His name dwell in this house that you do not change anything of what we said to you.” He turned aside and wept and they turned aside and wept.", 3.8. "He came to his bull and his bull was standing between the Ulam and the altar, its head to the south and its face to the west. And the priest stands on the eastside facing the west. And he lays both his hands upon it and confesses. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 4.2. "He bound a thread of crimson wool on the head of the goat which was to be sent away, and he placed it at the gate where it was later to be sent away, and on the goat that was to be slaughtered [he placed a thread of crimson wool on its neck] at the place of the slaughtering. He came to his bull a second time, pressed his two hands upon it and made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! I have done wrong, I have transgressed, I have sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people. Please, ‘Hashem’! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which I have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, I and my house and the sons of Aaron Your holy people, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And they answered after him: “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", 6.2. "He then came to the scapegoat and laid his two hands upon it and he made confession. And thus he would say: “Please, ‘Hashem’! They have done wrong, they have transgressed, they have sinned before You, Your people the House of Israel. Please, in the name of Hashem (Bashem)! Forgive the wrongdoings, the transgressions, the sins which your people, the House of Israel, have committed and transgressed and sinned before You, as it is written in the torah of Moses Your servant: “For on this day shall atonement be made for you [to cleanse you of all your sins; you shall be clean before the Lord”] (Leviticus 16:30). And the priests and the people standing in the courtyard, when they would hear God’s name explicated coming out of the high priest’s mouth, would bend their knees, bow down and fall on their faces and say “Blessed be the name of His glorious kingdom for ever and ever!”", |
|
56. Mishnah, Shevuot, 4.1-4.3, 4.10-4.11, 4.13, 8.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 114, 128, 129, 132, 148| 4.1. "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת נוֹהֶגֶת בַּאֲנָשִׁים וְלֹא בְנָשִׁים, בִּרְחוֹקִין וְלֹא בִקְרוֹבִין, בִּכְשֵׁרִים וְלֹא בִפְסוּלִין. וְאֵינָהּ נוֹהֶגֶת אֶלָּא בָרְאוּיִין לְהָעִיד, בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְשֶׁלֹּא בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין, מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ, וּמִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵין חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, בֵּין מִפִּי עַצְמוֹ וּבֵין מִפִּי אֲחֵרִים, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַד שֶׁיִּכְפְּרוּ בָהֶן בְּבֵית דִּין: \n", 4.2. "וְחַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, וְעַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ עִם זְדוֹן הָעֵדוּת, וְאֵינָן חַיָּבִין עַל שִׁגְגָתָהּ. וּמַה הֵן חַיָּבִין עַל זְדוֹן הַשְּׁבוּעָה, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד: \n", 4.3. "שְׁבוּעַת הָעֵדוּת כֵּיצַד. אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם בֹּאוּ וַהֲעִידוּנִי. שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, אוֹ שֶׁאָמְרוּ לוֹ אֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם וְאָמְרוּ אָמֵן, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים חוּץ לְבֵית דִּין וּבָאוּ לְבֵית דִּין וְהוֹדוּ, פְּטוּרִים. כָּפְרוּ, חַיָּבִים עַל כָּל אַחַת וְאֶחָת. הִשְׁבִּיעַ עֲלֵיהֶן חֲמִשָּׁה פְעָמִים בִּפְנֵי בֵית דִּין וְכָפְרוּ, אֵינָן חַיָּבִין אֶלָּא אַחַת. אָמַר רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן, מַה טַּעַם, הוֹאִיל וְאֵינָם יְכוֹלִין לַחֲזֹר וּלְהוֹדוֹת: \n", 4.10. "עָמַד בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת וְאָמַר, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִים לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, עַד שֶׁיִּהְיֶה מִתְכַּוֵּן לָהֶם: \n", 4.11. "אָמַר לִשְׁנַיִם, מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם אִישׁ פְּלוֹנִי וּפְלוֹנִי, שֶׁאִם אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין לִי עֵדוּת שֶׁתָּבֹאוּ וּתְעִידוּנִי, שְׁבוּעָה שֶׁאֵין אָנוּ יוֹדְעִין לְךָ עֵדוּת, וְהֵם יוֹדְעִין לוֹ עֵדוּת עֵד מִפִּי עֵד אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶן קָרוֹב אוֹ פָסוּל, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", 4.13. "מַשְׁבִּיעַ אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, מְצַוֶּה אֲנִי עֲלֵיכֶם, אוֹסֶרְכֶם אָנִי, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. בַּשָּׁמַיִם וּבָאָרֶץ, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין. בְּאל\"ף דל\"ת, בְּיו\"ד ה\"א, בְּשַׁדַּי, בִּצְבָאוֹת, בְּחַנּוּן וְרַחוּם, בְּאֶרֶךְ אַפַּיִם וְרַב חֶסֶד, וּבְכָל הַכִּנּוּיִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ חַיָּבִין. הַמְקַלֵּל בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, חַיָּב, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר, וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין. הַמְקַלֵּל עַצְמוֹ וַחֲבֵרוֹ בְּכֻלָּן, עוֹבֵר בְּלֹא תַעֲשֶׂה. יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, וְכֵן יַכְּכָה אֱלֹהִים, זוֹ הִיא אָלָה הַכְּתוּבָה בַתּוֹרָה. אַל יַכְּךָ, וִיבָרֶכְךָ, וְיֵיטִיב לְ ךָ, רַבִּי מֵאִיר מְחַיֵּב וַחֲכָמִים פּוֹטְרִין: \n", 8.1. "אַרְבָּעָה שׁוֹמְרִין הֵן, שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם, וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל, נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר, וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר. שׁוֹמֵר חִנָּם נִשְׁבָּע עַל הַכֹּל. וְהַשּׁוֹאֵל מְשַׁלֵּם אֶת הַכֹּל. נוֹשֵׂא שָׂכָר וְהַשּׂוֹכֵר נִשְׁבָּעִין עַל הַשְּׁבוּרָה וְעַל הַשְּׁבוּיָה וְעַל הַמֵּתָה, וּמְשַׁלְּמִים אֶת הָאֲבֵדָה וְאֶת הַגְּנֵבָה: \n", | 4.1. "The oath of testimony applies to men and not to women, to non-relatives and not to relatives, to those qualified [to bear witness] and not to those unqualified. And it applies only to those eligible to bear witness. Whether [uttered] in front of the court or not in front of the court, if [uttered] with his own mouth; [but if adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court, these are the words of Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “Whether [uttered] with his own mouth or [adjured] by the mouth of others he is not liable unless he denies it before the court.”", 4.2. "And they are liable for intentional transgression of the oath, and for its unintentional transgression coupled with intentional [denial of knowledge of] testimony, but they are not liable for unintentional transgression. And what are they liable for the intentional transgression of the oath? A sliding scale sacrifice.", 4.3. "The oath of testimony: How is it done? If he said to two [persons]: “Come and bear testimony for me”; [and they replied:] “We swear we know no testimony for you”; Or they said to him: “We know no testimony for you”, [and he said:] “I adjure you” and they said, “Amen! “, they are liable. If he adjured them five times outside the court, and the they came to the court and admitted [knowledge of testimony], they are exempt. If they denied, they are liable for each [oath]. If he adjured them five times before the court, and they denied [knowledge of testimony], they are liable only once. Said Rabbi Shimon: “What is the reason? Because they cannot afterwards admit [knowledge].", 4.10. "[If] he stood in the synagogue and said, “I adjure you that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”, they are exempt unless he directs himself to them.", 4.11. "If he said to two [persons]: “I adjure you, so-and-so and so-and-so, that if you know any testimony for me you should come and bear testimony for me”: [And they replied,] “We swear we know no testimony for you”, and they did know testimony for him, [but it was evidence of] one witness from the mouth of another witness; or if one of them was a relative or [otherwise] ineligible [as a witness], they are exempt.", 4.13. "[If he said]: \"I adjure you\"; \"I command you\"; \"I bind you\"; they are liable. \"By heaven and earth!\", they are exempt. \"By Alef Daleth\"; \"By Yod He\"; \"By God Almighty\"; \"By The Lord of Hosts; \"By the Merciful and Gracious one\"; \"By the Long Suffering One\"; \"By the One Abounding in Kindness\"; or by any of the substitutes [for the name], they are liable. He who blasphemes by any of them is liable, according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses his father or mother by any of them is liable according to the words of Rabbi Meir. And the Sages exempt him. He who curses himself or his neighbor by any of them transgresses a negative precept. [If he said,] \"May God smite you\"; or \"Yea, may God smite you\"; this is the curse written in the Torah. \"May [God] not smite you\"; or \"May he bless you\"; Or \"May he do good unto you [if you bear testimony for me]\": Rabbi Meir makes [them] liable, and the Sages exempt [them].", 8.1. "There are four kinds of guardians: an unpaid guardian, a borrower, a paid guardian and a hirer. An unpaid guardian may take an oath [that he had not been neglectful] in every case [of loss or damage and be free of liability]. A borrower must make restitution in every case. A paid guardian or a hirer may take an oath if the beast was injured, or taken captive or dead, but he must make restitution if it was lost or stolen.", |
|
57. Mishnah, Sanhedrin, 1.6, 3.1, 4.1, 4.4-4.5, 8.4, 9.5, 10.1 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40, 48, 59, 75, 80, 84, 87, 128, 134, 180| 1.6. "סַנְהֶדְרִי גְדוֹלָה הָיְתָה שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, וּקְטַנָּה שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וּמִנַּיִן לַגְּדוֹלָה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (במדבר יא) אֶסְפָה לִּי שִׁבְעִים אִישׁ מִזִּקְנֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל, וּמֹשֶׁה עַל גַּבֵּיהֶן, הֲרֵי שִׁבְעִים וְאֶחָד. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, שִׁבְעִים. וּמִנַּיִן לַקְּטַנָּה שֶׁהִיא שֶׁל עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם לה) וְשָׁפְטוּ הָעֵדָה וְגוֹ' וְהִצִּילוּ הָעֵדָה, עֵדָה שׁוֹפֶטֶת וְעֵדָה מַצֶּלֶת, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים. וּמִנַּיִן לָעֵדָה שֶׁהִיא עֲשָׂרָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם יד) עַד מָתַי לָעֵדָה הָרָעָה הַזֹּאת, יָצְאוּ יְהוֹשֻׁעַ וְכָלֵב. וּמִנַּיִן לְהָבִיא עוֹד שְׁלֹשָׁה, מִמַּשְׁמַע שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שמות כג) לֹא תִהְיֶה אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְרָעֹת, שׁוֹמֵעַ אֲנִי שֶׁאֶהְיֶה עִמָּהֶם לְטוֹבָה, אִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר (שם) אַחֲרֵי רַבִּים לְהַטֹּת, לֹא כְהַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה. הַטָּיָתְךָ לְטוֹבָה עַל פִּי אֶחָד, הַטָּיָתְךָ לְרָעָה עַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם, וְאֵין בֵּית דִּין שָׁקוּל, מוֹסִיפִין עֲלֵיהֶם עוֹד אֶחָד, הֲרֵי כָאן עֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְכַמָּה יְהֵא בְעִיר וּתְהֵא רְאוּיָה לְסַנְהֶדְרִין, מֵאָה וְעֶשְׂרִים. רַבִּי נְחֶמְיָה אוֹמֵר, מָאתַיִם וּשְׁלשִׁים, כְּנֶגֶד שָׂרֵי עֲשָׂרוֹת: \n", 3.1. "דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה. זֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד וְזֶה בּוֹרֵר לוֹ אֶחָד, וּשְׁנֵיהֶן בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, שְׁנֵי דַיָּנִין בּוֹרְרִין לָהֶן עוֹד אֶחָד. זֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל דַּיָּנוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁמֵּבִיא עֲלֵיהֶן רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִין אוֹ פְסוּלִין, אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים אוֹ מֻמְחִין, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן. זֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה וְזֶה פּוֹסֵל עֵדָיו שֶׁל זֶה, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי מֵאִיר. וַחֲכָמִים אוֹמְרִים, אֵימָתַי, בִּזְמַן שֶׁהוּא מֵבִיא עֲלֵיהֶם רְאָיָה שֶׁהֵן קְרוֹבִים אוֹ פְסוּלִים. אֲבָל אִם הָיוּ כְשֵׁרִים, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְפָסְלָן: \n", 4.1. "אֶחָד דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת וְאֶחָד דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ויקרא כד) מִשְׁפַּט אֶחָד יִהְיֶה לָכֶם. מַה בֵּין דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת לְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת בִּשְׁלֹשָׁה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת פּוֹתְחִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת פּוֹתְחִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין פּוֹתְחִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, וְדִינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַטִּין עַל פִּי אֶחָד לִזְכוּת וְעַל פִּי שְׁנַיִם לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת מַחֲזִירִין בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת מַחֲזִירִין לִזְכוּת וְאֵין מַחֲזִירִין לְחוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין זְכוּת וְאֵין הַכֹּל מְלַמְּדִין חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת וְהַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת מְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת הַמְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה מְלַמֵּד זְכוּת, אֲבָל הַמְלַמֵּד זְכוּת אֵין יָכוֹל לַחֲזֹר וּלְלַמֵּד חוֹבָה. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּלַּיְלָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת דָּנִין בַּיּוֹם וְגוֹמְרִין בַּיּוֹם. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם בֵּין לִזְכוּת בֵּין לְחוֹבָה, דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת גּוֹמְרִין בּוֹ בַיּוֹם לִזְכוּת וּבְיוֹם שֶׁלְּאַחֲרָיו לְחוֹבָה, לְפִיכָךְ אֵין דָּנִין לֹא בְעֶרֶב שַׁבָּת וְלֹא בְעֶרֶב יוֹם טוֹב: \n", 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", 4.5. "כֵּיצַד מְאַיְּמִין אֶת הָעֵדִים עַל עֵדֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, הָיוּ מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתָן וּמְאַיְּמִין עֲלֵיהֶן. שֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מֵאֹמֶד, וּמִשְּׁמוּעָה, עֵד מִפִּי עֵד וּמִפִּי אָדָם נֶאֱמָן שָׁמַעְנוּ, אוֹ שֶׁמָּא אִי אַתֶּם יוֹדְעִין שֶׁסּוֹפֵנוּ לִבְדֹּק אֶתְכֶם בִּדְרִישָׁה וּבַחֲקִירָה. הֱווּ יוֹדְעִין שֶׁלֹּא כְדִינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת. דִּינֵי מָמוֹנוֹת, אָדָם נוֹתֵן מָמוֹן וּמִתְכַּפֵּר לוֹ. דִּינֵי נְפָשׁוֹת, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו תְּלוּיִין בּוֹ עַד סוֹף הָעוֹלָם, שֶׁכֵּן מָצִינוּ בְקַיִן שֶׁהָרַג אֶת אָחִיו, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (בראשית ד) דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ צֹעֲקִים, אֵינוֹ אוֹמֵר דַּם אָחִיךָ אֶלָּא דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, דָּמוֹ וְדַם זַרְעִיּוֹתָיו. דָּבָר אַחֵר, דְּמֵי אָחִיךָ, שֶׁהָיָה דָמוֹ מֻשְׁלָךְ עַל הָעֵצִים וְעַל הָאֲבָנִים. לְפִיכָךְ נִבְרָא אָדָם יְחִידִי, לְלַמֶּדְךָ, שֶׁכָּל הַמְאַבֵּד נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ אִבֵּד עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וְכָל הַמְקַיֵּם נֶפֶשׁ אַחַת מִיִּשְׂרָאֵל, מַעֲלֶה עָלָיו הַכָּתוּב כְּאִלּוּ קִיֵּם עוֹלָם מָלֵא. וּמִפְּנֵי שְׁלוֹם הַבְּרִיּוֹת, שֶׁלֹּא יֹאמַר אָדָם לַחֲבֵרוֹ אַבָּא גָדוֹל מֵאָבִיךָ. וְשֶׁלֹּא יְהוּ מִינִין אוֹמְרִים, הַרְבֵּה רָשֻׁיּוֹת בַּשָּׁמָיִם. וּלְהַגִּיד גְּדֻלָּתוֹ שֶׁל הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא, שֶׁאָדָם טוֹבֵעַ כַּמָּה מַטְבְּעוֹת בְּחוֹתָם אֶחָד וְכֻלָּן דּוֹמִין זֶה לָזֶה, וּמֶלֶךְ מַלְכֵי הַמְּלָכִים הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא טָבַע כָּל אָדָם בְּחוֹתָמוֹ שֶׁל אָדָם הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵין אֶחָד מֵהֶן דּוֹמֶה לַחֲבֵרוֹ. לְפִיכָךְ כָּל אֶחָד וְאֶחָד חַיָּב לוֹמַר, בִּשְׁבִילִי נִבְרָא הָעוֹלָם. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ וְלַצָּרָה הַזֹּאת, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (ויקרא ה) וְהוּא עֵד אוֹ רָאָה אוֹ יָדָע אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְגוֹ'. וְשֶׁמָּא תֹאמְרוּ מַה לָּנוּ לָחוּב בְּדָמוֹ שֶׁל זֶה, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (משלי יא) וּבַאֲבֹד רְשָׁעִים רִנָּה: \n", 8.4. "הָיָה אָבִיו רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ אֵינָהּ רוֹצָה, אָבִיו אֵינוֹ רוֹצֶה וְאִמּוֹ רוֹצָה, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שְׁנֵיהֶם רוֹצִים. רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, אִם לֹא הָיְתָה אִמּוֹ רְאוּיָה לְאָבִיו, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה. הָיָה אֶחָד מֵהֶם גִּדֵּם אוֹ חִגֵּר אוֹ אִלֵּם אוֹ סוּמָא אוֹ חֵרֵשׁ, אֵינוֹ נַעֲשֶׂה בֵן סוֹרֵר וּמוֹרֶה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים כא) וְתָפְשׂוּ בוֹ אָבִיו וְאִמּוֹ, וְלֹא גִדְּמִין. וְהוֹצִיאוּ אֹתוֹ, וְלֹא חִגְּרִין. וְאָמְרוּ, וְלֹא אִלְּמִין. בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, וְלֹא סוּמִין. אֵינֶנּוּ שֹׁמֵעַ בְּקֹלֵנוּ, וְלֹא חֵרְשִׁין. מַתְרִין בּוֹ בִּפְנֵי שְׁלֹשָׁה וּמַלְקִין אוֹתוֹ. חָזַר וְקִלְקֵל, נִדּוֹן בְּעֶשְׂרִים וּשְׁלֹשָׁה. וְאֵינוֹ נִסְקָל עַד שֶׁיְּהוּ שָׁם שְׁלֹשָׁה הָרִאשׁוֹנִים, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) בְּנֵנוּ זֶה, זֶהוּ שֶׁלָּקָה בִּפְנֵיכֶם. בָּרַח עַד שֶׁלֹּא נִגְמַר דִּינוֹ וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, פָּטוּר. וְאִם מִשֶּׁנִּגְמַר דִּינוֹ בָּרַח וְאַחַר כָּךְ הִקִּיף זָקָן הַתַּחְתּוֹן, חַיָּב: \n", 9.5. "מִי שֶׁלָּקָה וְשָׁנָה, בֵּית דִּין מַכְנִיסִים אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ שְׂעֹרִין עַד שֶׁכְּרֵסוֹ מִתְבַּקָּעַת. הַהוֹרֵג נֶפֶשׁ שֶׁלֹּא בְעֵדִים, מַכְנִיסִין אוֹתוֹ לְכִפָּה וּמַאֲכִילִין אוֹתוֹ לֶחֶם צַר וּמַיִם לָחַץ: \n", 10.1. "כָּל יִשְׂרָאֵל יֵשׁ לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (ישעיה ס) וְעַמֵּךְ כֻּלָּם צַדִּיקִים לְעוֹלָם יִירְשׁוּ אָרֶץ נֵצֶר מַטָּעַי מַעֲשֵׂה יָדַי לְהִתְפָּאֵר. וְאֵלּוּ שֶׁאֵין לָהֶם חֵלֶק לָעוֹלָם הַבָּא, הָאוֹמֵר אֵין תְּחִיַּת הַמֵּתִים מִן הַתּוֹרָה, וְאֵין תּוֹרָה מִן הַשָּׁמָיִם, וְאֶפִּיקוֹרֶס. רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא אוֹמֵר, אַף הַקּוֹרֵא בַסְּפָרִים הַחִיצוֹנִים, וְהַלּוֹחֵשׁ עַל הַמַּכָּה וְאוֹמֵר (שמות טו) כָּל הַמַּחֲלָה אֲשֶׁר שַׂמְתִּי בְמִצְרַיִם לֹא אָשִׂים עָלֶיךָ כִּי אֲנִי ה' רֹפְאֶךָ. אַבָּא שָׁאוּל אוֹמֵר, אַף הַהוֹגֶה אֶת הַשֵּׁם בְּאוֹתִיּוֹתָיו: \n", | 1.6. "The greater Sanhedrin was made up of seventy one and the little Sanhedrin of twenty three.From where do we learn that the greater Sanhedrin should be made up of seventy one? As it says, “Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel” (Num. 11:16), and when Moses is added to them there is seventy one. Rabbi Judah says: “Seventy.” From where do we learn that the little Sanhedrin should be made up of twenty three? As it says, “The assembly shall judge”, “The assembly shall deliver” (Num. 35:24-25), an assembly that judges and an assembly that delivers, thus we have twenty. And from where do we know that an assembly has ten? As it says, “How long shall I bear this evil congregation?” (Num. 14:27) [which refers to the twelve spies] but Joshua and Caleb were not included. And from where do we learn that we should bring three others [to the twenty]? By inference from what it says, “You shall not follow after the many to do evil” (Ex. 23:2), I conclude that I must be with them to do well. Then why does it say, “[To follow] after the many to change judgment” (Ex. 23:2). [It means that] your verdict of condemnation should not be like your verdict of acquittal, for your verdict of acquittal is reached by the decision of a majority of one, but your verdict of condemnation must be reached by the decision of a majority of two. The court must not be divisible equally, therefore they add to them one more; thus they are twenty three. And how many should there be in a city that it may be fit to have a Sanhedrin? A hundred and twenty. Rabbi Nehemiah says: “Two hundred and thirty, so that [the Sanhedrin of twenty three] should correspond with them that are chiefs of [at least] groups of ten.", 3.1. "Cases concerning property [are decided] by three [judges].This [litigant] chooses one and this [litigant] chooses one and then the two of them choose another, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “The two judges choose the other judge.” This [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, and this [litigant] can invalidate this one’s judge, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid and experts, he cannot invalidate them. This [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses and this [litigant] may invalidate this one’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meir. But the Sages say: “When is this so? When they bring proof against them that they are relatives or otherwise invalid; but if they are valid, he cannot invalidate them.", 4.1. "Both non-capital and capital cases require examination and inquiry [of the witnesses], as it says, “You shall have one manner of law” (Lev. 24:22). How do non-capital cases differ from capital cases? Non-capital cases [are decided] by three and capital cases by twenty three. Non-capital cases may begin either with reasons for acquittal or for conviction; capital cases begin with reasons for acquittal and do not begin with reasons for conviction. In non-capital cases they may reach a verdict of either acquittal or conviction by the decision of a majority of one; in capital cases they may reach an acquittal by the majority of one but a verdict of conviction only by the decision of a majority of two. In non-capital cases they may reverse a verdict either [from conviction] to acquittal or [from acquittal] to conviction; in capital cases they may reverse a verdict [from conviction] to acquittal but not [from acquittal] to conviction. In non-capital cases all may argue either in favor of conviction or of acquittal; in capital cases all may argue in favor of acquittal but not all may argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal, or he that had argued in favor of acquittal may afterward argue in favor of conviction; in capital cases he that had argued in favor of conviction may afterward argue in favor of acquittal but he that had argued in favor of acquittal cannot afterward argue in favor of conviction. In non-capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict may be reached during the night; in capital cases they hold the trial during the daytime and the verdict also must be reached during the daytime. In non-capital cases the verdict, whether of acquittal or of conviction, may be reached the same day; in capital cases a verdict of acquittal may be reached on the same day, but a verdict of conviction not until the following day. Therefore trials may not be held on the eve of a Sabbath or on the eve of a Festival.", 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.", 4.5. "How did they admonish witnesses in capital cases? They brought them in and admonished them, [saying], “Perhaps you will say something that is only a supposition or hearsay or secondhand, or even from a trustworthy man. Or perhaps you do not know that we shall check you with examination and inquiry? Know, moreover, that capital cases are not like non-capital cases: in non-capital cases a man may pay money and so make atonement, but in capital cases the witness is answerable for the blood of him [that is wrongfully condemned] and the blood of his descendants [that should have been born to him] to the end of the world.” For so have we found it with Cain that murdered his brother, for it says, “The bloods of your brother cry out” (Gen. 4:10). It doesn’t say, “The blood of your brother”, but rather “The bloods of your brother” meaning his blood and the blood of his descendants. Another saying is, “The bloods of your brother” that his blood was cast over trees and stones. Therefore but a single person was created in the world, to teach that if any man has caused a single life to perish from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had caused a whole world to perish; and anyone who saves a single soul from Israel, he is deemed by Scripture as if he had saved a whole world. Again [but a single person was created] for the sake of peace among humankind, that one should not say to another, “My father was greater than your father”. Again, [but a single person was created] against the heretics so they should not say, “There are many ruling powers in heaven”. Again [but a single person was created] to proclaim the greatness of the Holy Blessed One; for humans stamp many coins with one seal and they are all like one another; but the King of kings, the Holy Blessed One, has stamped every human with the seal of the first man, yet not one of them are like another. Therefore everyone must say, “For my sake was the world created.” And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be involved with this trouble”, was it not said, “He, being a witness, whether he has seen or known, [if he does not speak it, then he shall bear his iniquity] (Lev. 5:1). And if perhaps you [witnesses] would say, “Why should we be guilty of the blood of this man?, was it not said, “When the wicked perish there is rejoicing” (Proverbs 11:10).]", 8.4. "If his father wants [to have him punished], but not his mother; or his father does not want [to have him punished] but his mother does, he is not treated as a ‘wayward a rebellious son’, unless they both desire it. Rabbi Judah said: “If his mother is not fit for his father, he does not become a ‘wayward and rebellious son”. If one of them [his father or his mother] had a hand cut off, or was lame, mute, blind or deaf, he cannot become a “wayward and rebellious son”, because it says “his father and mother shall take hold of him” (Deut. 21:19) not those with a hand cut off; “and bring him out”, not lame parents; “and they shall say”, and not mute parents; “this our son”, and not blind parents; “he will not obey our voice” (Deut. 21:20), and not deaf parents. He is warned in the presence of three and beaten. If he transgresses again after this, he is tried by a court of twenty three. He cannot be sentenced to stoning unless the first three are present, because it says, “this our son” (Deut. 21:20), [implying], this one who was whipped in your presence. If he [the rebellious son] fled before his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he is free. But if he fled after his trial was completed, and then his pubic hair grew in fully, he remains liable.", 9.5. "He who was flogged and then flogged again [for two transgressions, and then sinned again,] is placed by the court in a cell and fed with barley bread, until his stomach bursts. One who commits murder without witnesses is placed in a cell and [forcibly] fed with bread of adversity and water of affliction.", 10.1. "All Israel have a portion in the world to come, for it says, “Your people, all of them righteous, shall possess the land for ever; They are the shoot that I planted, my handiwork in which I glory” (Isaiah 60:2. And these are the ones who have no portion in the world to come: He who maintains that resurrection is not a biblical doctrine, that the torah was not divinely revealed, and an epikoros. Rabbi Akiva says: “Even one who reads non-canonical books and one who whispers [a charm] over a wound and says, “I will not bring upon you any of the diseases which i brought upon the Egyptians: for I the lord am you healer” (Exodus 15:26). Abba Shaul says: “Also one who pronounces the divine name as it is spelled.”", |
|
58. Mishnah, Nedarim, 10.8 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 10.8. "הֲפָרַת נְדָרִים, כָּל הַיּוֹם. יֵשׁ בַּדָּבָר לְהָקֵל וּלְהַחֲמִיר. כֵּיצַד. נָדְרָה בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת, יָפֵר בְּלֵילֵי שַׁבָּת וּבְיוֹם הַשַּׁבָּת עַד שֶׁתֶּחְשָׁךְ. נָדְרָה עִם חֲשֵׁכָה, מֵפֵר עַד שֶׁלֹּא תֶחְשַׁךְ. שֶׁאִם חָשְׁכָה וְלֹא הֵפֵר, אֵינוֹ יָכוֹל לְהָפֵר: \n", | 10.8. "The annulment of vows is the whole day. This may result in a stringency or in a leniency. How is this so? If she vowed on the eve of the Sabbath, he can annul on the eve of the sabbath and on the Sabbath day until nightfall. If she vowed just before nightfall, he can annul only until nightfall: for if night fell and he had not annulled it, he can no longer annul it.", |
|
59. Mishnah, Gittin, 4.3 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140| 4.3. "אֵין אַלְמָנָה נִפְרַעַת מִנִּכְסֵי יְתוֹמִים אֶלָּא בִשְׁבוּעָה. נִמְנְעוּ מִלְּהַשְׁבִּיעָהּ, הִתְקִין רַבָּן גַּמְלִיאֵל הַזָּקֵן שֶׁתְּהֵא נוֹדֶרֶת לַיְתוֹמִים כָּל מַה שֶּׁיִּרְצוּ, וְגוֹבָה כְתֻבָּתָהּ. הָעֵדִים חוֹתְמִין עַל הַגֵּט, מִפְּנֵי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם. הִלֵּל הִתְקִין פְּרוֹזְבּוּל מִפְּנֵּי תִקּוּן הָעוֹלָם: \n", | 4.3. "A widow is paid back [her kethubah] from the property of orphans only by taking an oath. [When the court] refrained from imposing an oath on her, Rabban Gamaliel the Elder established that she could take any vow which the orphans wanted and collect her kethubah. Witnesses sign their names on a get because of tikkun olam. Hillel instituted the prosbul because of tikkun olam.", |
|
60. Mishnah, Berachot, 7.3, 9.5 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 135, 196| 7.3. "כֵּיצַד מְזַמְּנִין, בִּשְׁלשָׁה אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ. בִּשְׁלשָׁה וְהוּא, אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה, אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ לֵאלֹהֵינוּ. בַּעֲשָׂרָה וָהוּא, אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. אֶחָד עֲשָׂרָה וְאֶחָד עֲשָׂרָה רִבּוֹא. בְּמֵאָה אוֹמֵר, נְבָרֵךְ לַייָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ. בְּמֵאָה וְהוּא, אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בְּאֶלֶף, אוֹמֵר נְבָרֵךְ לַייָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל. בְּאֶלֶף וְהוּא, אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. בְּרִבּוֹא, אוֹמֵר, נְבָרֵךְ לַייָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת יוֹשֵׁב הַכְּרוּבִים עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכָלְנוּ. בְּרִבּוֹא וְהוּא, אוֹמֵר בָּרְכוּ. כְּעִנְיָן שֶׁהוּא מְבָרֵךְ, כָּךְ עוֹנִין אַחֲרָיו, בָּרוּךְ יְיָ אֱלֹהֵינוּ אֱלֹהֵי יִשְׂרָאֵל אֱלֹהֵי הַצְּבָאוֹת יוֹשֵׁב הַכְּרוּבִים עַל הַמָּזוֹן שֶׁאָכָלְנוּ. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי הַגְּלִילִי אוֹמֵר, לְפִי רֹב הַקָּהָל הֵן מְבָרְכִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר בְּמַקְהֵלוֹת בָּרְכוּ אֱלֹהִים, יְיָ מִמְּקוֹר יִשְׂרָאֵל (תהלים סח). אָמַר רַבִּי עֲקִיבָא, מַה מָּצִינוּ בְּבֵית הַכְּנֶסֶת, אֶחָד מְרֻבִּין וְאֶחָד מֻעָטִין אוֹמֵר, בָּרְכוּ אֶת יְיָ. רַבִּי יִשְׁמָעֵאל אוֹמֵר, בָּרְכוּ אֶת יְיָ הַמְבֹרָךְ: \n", 9.5. "חַיָּב אָדָם לְבָרֵךְ עַל הָרָעָה כְּשֵׁם שֶׁהוּא מְבָרֵךְ עַל הַטּוֹבָה, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (דברים ו) וְאָהַבְתָּ אֵת יְיָ אֱלֹהֶיךָ בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ. בְּכָל לְבָבְךָ, בִּשְׁנֵי יְצָרֶיךָ, בְּיֵצֶר טוֹב וּבְיֵצֶר רָע. וּבְכָל נַפְשְׁךָ, אֲפִלּוּ הוּא נוֹטֵל אֶת נַפְשֶׁךָ. וּבְכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מָמוֹנֶךָ. דָּבָר אַחֵר בְּכָל מְאֹדֶךָ, בְּכָל מִדָּה וּמִדָּה שֶׁהוּא מוֹדֵד לְךָ הֱוֵי מוֹדֶה לוֹ בִּמְאֹד מְאֹד. לֹא יָקֵל אָדָם אֶת רֹאשׁוֹ כְּנֶגֶד שַׁעַר הַמִּזְרָח, שֶׁהוּא מְכֻוָּן כְּנֶגֶד בֵּית קָדְשֵׁי הַקָּדָשִׁים. לֹא יִכָּנֵס לְהַר הַבַּיִת בְּמַקְלוֹ, וּבְמִנְעָלוֹ, וּבְפֻנְדָּתוֹ, וּבְאָבָק שֶׁעַל רַגְלָיו, וְלֹא יַעֲשֶׂנּוּ קַפַּנְדַּרְיָא, וּרְקִיקָה מִקַּל וָחֹמֶר. כָּל חוֹתְמֵי בְרָכוֹת שֶׁהָיוּ בַמִּקְדָּשׁ, הָיוּ אוֹמְרִים מִן הָעוֹלָם. מִשֶּׁקִּלְקְלוּ הַמִּינִין, וְאָמְרוּ, אֵין עוֹלָם אֶלָּא אֶחָד, הִתְקִינוּ שֶׁיְּהוּ אוֹמְרִים, מִן הָעוֹלָם וְעַד הָעוֹלָם. וְהִתְקִינוּ, שֶׁיְּהֵא אָדָם שׁוֹאֵל אֶת שְׁלוֹם חֲבֵרוֹ בַּשֵּׁם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (רות ב) וְהִנֵּה בֹעַז בָּא מִבֵּית לֶחֶם, וַיֹּאמֶר לַקּוֹצְרִים יְיָ עִמָּכֶם, וַיֹּאמְרוּ לוֹ, יְבָרֶכְךָ יְיָ. וְאוֹמֵר (שופטים ו) יְיָ עִמְּךָ גִּבּוֹר הֶחָיִל. וְאוֹמֵר (משלי כג) אַל תָּבוּז כִּי זָקְנָה אִמֶּךָ. וְאוֹמֵר (תהלים קיט) עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ. רַבִּי נָתָן אוֹמֵר, הֵפֵרוּ תוֹרָתֶךָ עֵת לַעֲשׂוֹת לַייָ: \n", | 7.3. "How do they invite [one another to recite the Birkat Hamazon]?If there are three, he [the one saying Birkat Hamazon] says, “Let us bless [Him of whose food we have eaten].” If there are three and him he says, “Bless [Him of whose food we have eaten]” If there are ten, he says, “Let us bless our God [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are ten and he says, “Bless.” It is the same whether there are ten or ten myriads (ten ten thousands). If there are a hundred he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God [of whose food we have eaten]. If there are a hundred and him he says, “Bless.” If there are a thousand he says “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel [of whose food we have eaten].” If there are a thousand and him he says “Bless.” If there are ten thousand he says, “Let us bless the Lord our God, the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” If there are ten thousand and him he says, “Bless.” Corresponding to his blessing the others answer after him, “Blessed be the Lord our God the God of Israel, the God of hosts, who dwells among the cherubim, for the food which we have eaten.” Rabbi Yose the Galilean says: According to the number of the congregation, they bless, as it says, “In assemblies bless God, the Lord, O you who are from the fountain of Israel.” Rabbi Akiba said: What do we find in the synagogue? Whether there are many or few the he says, “Bless the Lord your God.” Rabbi Ishmael says: “Bless the Lord your God who is blessed.”", 9.5. "One must bless [God] for the evil in the same way as one blesses for the good, as it says, “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul and with all your might” (Deuteronomy 6:5). “With all your heart,” with your two impulses, the evil impulse as well as the good impulse. “With all your soul” even though he takes your soul [life] away from you. “With all your might” with all your money. Another explanation, “With all your might” whatever treatment he metes out to you. One should not show disrespect to the Eastern Gate, because it is in a direct line with the Holy of Holies. One should not enter the Temple Mount with a staff, or with shoes on, or with a wallet, or with dusty feet; nor should one make it a short cut, all the more spitting [is forbidden]. All the conclusions of blessings that were in the Temple they would say, “forever [lit. as long as the world is].” When the sectarians perverted their ways and said that there was only one world, they decreed that they should say, “for ever and ever [lit. from the end of the world to the end of the world]. They also decreed that a person should greet his fellow in God’s name, as it says, “And behold Boaz came from Bethlehem and said to the reapers, ‘May the Lord be with you.’ And they answered him, “May the Lord bless you’” (Ruth 2:. And it also says, “The Lord is with your, you valiant warrior” (Judges 6:12). And it also says, “And do not despise your mother when she grows old” (Proverbs 23:22). And it also says, “It is time to act on behalf of the Lord, for they have violated Your teaching” (Psalms 119:126). Rabbi Natan says: [this means] “They have violated your teaching It is time to act on behalf of the Lord.”", |
|
61. Mishnah, Horayot, 1.4, 2.7 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 37, 48, 129| 1.4. "הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין, וְיָדַע אֶחָד מֵהֶן שֶׁטָּעוּ, וְאָמַר לָהֶן טוֹעִין אַתֶּם, אוֹ שֶׁלֹּא הָיָה מֻפְלָא שֶׁל בֵּית דִּין שָׁם, אוֹ שֶׁהָיָה אַחַד מֵהֶן גֵּר אוֹ מַמְזֵר אוֹ נָתִין אוֹ זָקֵן שֶׁלֹּא רָאָה לוֹ בָנִים, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר כָּאן עֵדָה (ויקרא ד) וְנֶאֱמַר לְהַלָּן (במדבר לה) עֵדָה, מָה עֵדָה הָאֲמוּר לְהַלָּן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִין לְהוֹרָאָה, אַף עֵדָה הָאֲמוּרָה כָאן עַד שֶׁיִּהְיוּ כֻלָּם רְאוּיִים לְהוֹרָאָה. הוֹרוּ בֵית דִּין שׁוֹגְגִים וְעָשׂוּ כָל הַקָּהָל שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין פָּר. מְזִידִין וְעָשׂוּ שׁוֹגְגִין, מְבִיאִין כִּשְׂבָּה וּשְׂעִירָה. שׁוֹגְגִין וְעָשׂוּ מְזִידִין, הֲרֵי אֵלּוּ פְטוּרִין: \n", 2.7. "אָשָׁם תָּלוּי, הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא חַיָּבִין, וּמָשִׁיחַ וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִים. אָשָׁם וַדַּאי, הַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּבִין, וּבֵית דִּין פְּטוּרִין. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם וְעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, בֵּית דִּין פְּטוּרִין, וְהַיָּחִיד וְהַנָּשִׂיא וְהַמָּשִׁיחַ חַיָּבִין, אֶלָּא שֶׁאֵין כֹּהֵן גָּדוֹל חַיָּב עַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, דִּבְרֵי רַבִּי שִׁמְעוֹן. וּמָה הֵן מְבִיאִין, קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. רַבִּי אֱלִיעֶזֶר אוֹמֵר, הַנָּשִׂיא מֵבִיא שָׂעִיר: \n", | 1.4. "If the court ruled and one of them knew that they had erred and said to the others, “You are making a mistake”, or if the mufla of the court was not there, or if one of them was a proselyte or a mamzer or a nathin or an elder who did not have children, they are exempt, for it says here (Lev 4:13) “congregation” and it says later on (Num 35:24) “congregation”; just as the “congregation” further on must be fit to issue rulings, so too the “congregation” mentioned here must be fit to issue rulingsIf the court issued a [wrong] decision unwittingly and all the people acted unwittingly, they bring a bull. [If the court ruled wrong] intentionally and [the people] acted unwillingly, they bring a lamb or a goat. [If the court ruled] unwittingly and [the people] acted willingly accordingly, they are exempt.", 2.7. "The individual and the ruler are both obligated to bring an asham talui, but the anointed priest and the court are exempt. The individual and the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated to bring an asham vadai, but the court is exempt. For the hearing of the voice [of adjuration]; for an oath made by an expression, or for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things, the court is not obligated but the individual, the ruler and the anointed priest are obligated. Except that the anointed priest is not liable for impurity relating to the Temple and its holy things; these are the words of Rabbi Shimon.What do they bring? A sliding scale sacrifice. Rabbi Eliezer says: the ruler brings a goat.", |
|
62. Mishnah, Keritot, 2.4 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129| 2.4. "הָאִשָּׁה שֶׁיָּלְדָה וְלָדוֹת הַרְבֵּה, הִפִּילָה בְתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה וְחָזְרָה וְהִפִּילָה בְתוֹךְ שְׁמוֹנִים נְקֵבָה, וְהַמַּפֶּלֶת תְּאוֹמִים, רַבִּי יְהוּדָה אוֹמֵר, מְבִיאָה עַל הָרִאשׁוֹן וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הַשֵּׁנִי. מְבִיאָה עַל הַשְּׁלִישִׁי וְאֵינָהּ מְבִיאָה עַל הָרְבִיעִי. אֵלּוּ מְבִיאִין קָרְבָּן עוֹלֶה וְיוֹרֵד. עַל שְׁמִיעַת הַקּוֹל, וְעַל בִּטּוּי שְׂפָתַיִם, וְעַל טֻמְאַת מִקְדָּשׁ וְקָדָשָׁיו, וְהַיֹּלֶדֶת, וְהַמְצֹרָע. וּמַה בֵּין הַשִּׁפְחָה לְבֵין כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת. שֶׁלֹּא שָׁוְתָה לָהֶן לֹא בָעֹנֶשׁ וְלֹא בַקָּרְבָּן, שֶׁכָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת בְּחַטָּאת וְהַשִּׁפְחָה בְּאָשָׁם. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת בִּנְקֵבָה, וְשִׁפְחָה בְּזָכָר. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת, אֶחָד הָאִישׁ וְאֶחָד הָאִשָּׁה שָׁוִין בַּמַּכּוֹת וּבַקָּרְבָּן, וּבַשִּׁפְחָה לֹא הִשְׁוָה אֶת הָאִישׁ לָאִשָּׁה בַּמַּכּוֹת וְלֹא אֶת הָאִשָּׁה לָאִישׁ בַּקָּרְבָּן. כָּל הָעֲרָיוֹת, עָשָׂה בָהֶן אֶת הַמְעָרֶה כַגּוֹמֵר, וְחַיָּב עַל כָּל בִּיאָה וּבִיאָה. זֶה חֹמֶר הֶחְמִיר בַּשִּׁפְחָה, שֶׁעָשָׂה בָהּ אֶת הַמֵּזִיד כַּשּׁוֹגֵג: \n", | 2.4. "A woman who has had several births. If she miscarried a female within eighty days of the birth of a girl, and then she again miscarried a female within eighty days of the previous [miscarriage]; or if she miscarried twins. Rabbi Judah says: she brings an offering for the first and not for the second, for the third again but not for the fourth. The following persons bring an offering of higher or lesser value: One who hears the voice (see Leviticus 5:1); One who has broken the word of his lips (Leviticus 5:4); One who while unclean has entered the sanctuary or [has partaken] of holy things, A woman after childbirth And a metzora. What is the difference between [intercourse] with a female slave and the other forbidden sexual relations? For they are not equivalent in regard to the punishment nor the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations a hatat is brought, in that of a female slave an asham; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations a female animal is brought, in that of the female slave a male; In the case of the other forbidden sexual relations man and woman are alike with respect to lashes and the sacrifice; in that of the female slave the man is unlike the woman regarding the lashes, and the woman is unlike the man regarding the sacrifice. In the case of all other forbidden sexual relations sexual contact is punishable as well as consummation, and one is liable for each act of intercourse separately. For in this the case of the female slave is more stringent in that intentional transgression is of the same status as unwitting transgression.", |
|
63. Mishnah, Makkot, 1.6, 1.9 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 79, 91, 104| 1.6. "אֵין הָעֵדִים זוֹמְמִין נֶהֱרָגִין, עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין, שֶׁהֲרֵי הַצְּדוֹקִין אוֹמְרִים, עַד שֶׁיֵּהָרֵג, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ. אָמְרוּ לָהֶם חֲכָמִים, וַהֲלֹא כְבָר נֶאֱמַר (דברים יט) וַעֲשִׂיתֶם לוֹ כַּאֲשֶׁר זָמַם לַעֲשׂוֹת לְאָחִיו, וַהֲרֵי אָחִיו קַיָּם. וְאִם כֵּן לָמָּה נֶאֱמַר נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, יָכוֹל מִשָּׁעָה שֶׁקִּבְּלוּ עֵדוּתָן יֵהָרֵגוּ, תַּלְמוּד לוֹמַר, נֶפֶשׁ תַּחַת נָפֶשׁ, הָא אֵינָן נֶהֱרָגִין עַד שֶׁיִּגָּמֵר הַדִּין: \n", 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", | 1.6. "Perjuring witnesses are not to be put to death until [after] the end of the trial. Because the Sadducees say: “[Perjurers were put to death] only after the accused had [actually] been executed, as it says, “ A life for a life” (Deuteronomy 19:21). The [Pharisaic] Sages said to them: “But has not it already been said “You shall do to him as he schemed to do to his fellow” (Deuteronomy 19:19) which implies when his brother is still alive? If so, why does it say “A life for life”? For it might have been that perjurers are liable to be put to death from the moment their testimony had been taken, therefore the Torah states “A life for a life” that is to say that they are not executed until [after] the termination of the trial.", 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.", |
|
| 64. Josephus Flavius, Life, 49 (1st cent. CE - 1st cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75 |
65. Mishnah, Bava Qamma, 9.12 (1st cent. CE - 3rd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 119| 9.12. "נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לְאַנְשֵׁי מִשְׁמָר, וּמֵת, אֵין הַיּוֹרְשִׁים יְכוֹלִין לְהוֹצִיא מִיָּדָם, שֶׁנֶּאֱמַר (שם) אִישׁ אֲשֶׁר יִתֵּן לַכֹּהֵן לוֹ יִהְיֶה. נָתַן הַכֶּסֶף לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְאָשָׁם לִידַעְיָה, יָצָא. אָשָׁם לִיהוֹיָרִיב וְכֶסֶף לִידַעְיָה, אִם קַיָּם הָאָשָׁם, יַקְרִיבוּהוּ בְנֵי יְדַעְיָה, וְאִם לֹא, יַחֲזִיר וְיָבִיא אָשָׁם אַחֵר, שֶׁהַמֵּבִיא גְזֵלוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ, יָצָא. הֵבִיא אֲשָׁמוֹ עַד שֶׁלֹּא הֵבִיא גְזֵלוֹ, לֹא יָצָא. נָתַן אֶת הַקֶּרֶן וְלֹא נָתַן אֶת הַחֹמֶשׁ, אֵין הַחֹמֶשׁ מְעַכֵּב: \n", | 9.12. "If he [who had stolen from the convert] gave the money to the men of the priestly watch and then died, his inheritors cannot recover it from their [the priests] hands, as it says, “Whatsoever a man gives to a priest shall be his” (Numbers 5:10). If he gave the money to Yehoyariv, and the Guilt-offering to Yedayah, he has fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the Guilt-offering to Yehoyariv and the money to Yedayah: if the Guilt-offering still remains, the sons of Yedayah shall offer it; otherwise, he must bring another Guilt-offering. For if a man brought what he had stolen before he offered his Guilt-offering, he has fulfilled his obligation. But if he brought his Guilt-offering before he brought what he had stolen, he has not yet fulfilled his obligation. If he gave the value but not the [added] fifth, the [added] fifth does not prevent [him from offering the Guilt-offering].", |
|
66. Tosefta, Bava Metzia, 2.6 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 132| 2.6. "בראשונה כל הבא ונותן סימניה היה נוטלה משרבו הרמאין התקינו שיהא זה נותן סימניה ומביא ראיה שאינו רמאי בראשונה היו מכריזין עליה ג' רגלים ואחר הרגל האחרון ז' ימים ומשחרב בית המקדש התקינו שיהו מכריזין עליה ל' יום ומן הסכנה ואילך התקינו שיהא מודיע לשכניו ולקרוביו ולמיודעיו ולאנשי עירו ודיו.", | |
|
67. Tosefta, Nedarim, 1.1, 6.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103, 136, 148| 1.1. "חומר [בנדרים מבשבועות] שהנדרים נוהגין ברשות ובמצוה משא\"כ בשבועות [חומר] בשבועות מבנדרים שהשבועות [נוהגת] בדבר שיש בו ממש ובדבר שאין בו ממש משא\"כ בנדרים בנדרים כיצד אמר קונם סוכה [שאיני] עושה לולב [שאיני] נוטל תפילין [שאיני] נותן [אסור] בנדרים [ומותר בשבועות] כיצד אמר קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר [שאיני] מהלך [אסור] בשבועות [ומותר בנדרים]. קונם פי מדבר עמך ידי עושה עמך רגלי מהלכת עמך אסור בנדרים [ואסור בשבועות].", 1.1. "האומר ימינה הרי זו שבועה שמאלה הרי זו שבועה בשם ה\"ז שבועה לשם ה\"ז קרבן.", 6.1. "ר' יוסי בר' יהודה ור' אלעזר בר' שמעון [אומר הפרת נדרים] מעת לעת כיצד היו על אשתו חמשה נדרים או שהיו לו חמש נשים ונדרו כולן ואמר כולן מופרין מופר ליך נדר זה לא הופר אלא נדר זה [לא היפר לה אלא נדר זה] מה ראית שתדורי אי אפשי שתדורי אין זה נדר לא אמר כלום מופר מבוטל זה הרי זה בטל קיים ליך יפה עשית אף אני כמותיך אם לא נדרת [מדירך אני] אין יכול להפר.", | |
|
| 68. Tosefta, Yadayim, 2.13-2.14 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 148 |
69. Tosefta, Kippurim, 1.1 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 148| 1.1. "מעשה בשני כהנים שהיו רצין ועולין בכבש [דחף] אחד מהן את חבירו לתוך ד\"א נטל סכין ותקע לו בלבו בא רבי צדוק ועמד על מעלות האולם ואמר שמעוני אחינו בית ישראל הרי הוא אומר (דברים כא) כי ימצא חלל וגו' ויצאו זקניך ושופטיך ומדדו בואו ונמדוד על מי ראוי להביא עגלה על ההיכל או על העזרות געו כל העם אחריו בבכיה ואח\"כ בא אביו של תינוק אמר להם אחינו אני כפרתכם עדיין בני מפרפר וסכין לא נטמא ללמדך שטומאת סכין קשה להם לישראל יותר משפיכות דמים וכן הוא אומר (מלכים ב כא) וגם דם נקי שפך מנשה הרבה מאוד עד אשר מלא את ירושלים פה לפה מכאן אמרו בעון שפיכות דמים שכינה נעלית ומקדש נטמא.", 1.1. "למה מפרישין כהן גדול מביתו ללשכת [פרהדרין] פירש רבי יהודה בן בתירה [שאם] תמצא אשתו ספק נדה [ויבא עליה] ונמצא טמא שבעת ימים רבי יהודה [היה קורא אותה] לשכת בלווטין.", | 1.1. "Why do they separate the Kohen Gadol from his household to Lishkat Parhedrin. The explanation of Rabbi Yehuda Ben Betira is that he may be with his wife, and there is a doubt as to whether she is a Niddah and he would become impure in the seven days before Yom Kippur. There was another reading that he was taken to Lishkat Barvatan.", |
|
70. Tosefta, Yevamot, 4.7 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126| 4.7. "חכם שדן את הדין טימא וטיהר אסר והתיר וכן העדים שהעידו הרי אלו מותרין [ליקח] אבל אמרו חכמים [רחק] מן הכיעור ומן הדומה לכיעור יש זריז ונשכר [יש] זריז ונפסד שפל ונשכר שפל ונפסד שפל לערב שבת [לשבת] למוצאי שבת לערב שביעית [לשביעית] למוצאי שביעית לימי חולי של מועד וכ\"מ שיש בו נדנוד עבירה ה\"ז שפל ונשכר. ", | |
|
71. Tosefta, Sotah, 7.2-7.4, 13.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 134, 140| 7.2. "אם אמר איני נשבע פוטרין אותו ואם אמר [נשבע אני] אומרים זה לזה (במדבר טז) סורו נא מעל אהלי האנשים הרשעים האלה.", 7.3. "[משביעין] אותו בשבועה האמורה בתורה שנאמר (בראשית כ״ד:ג׳) ואשביעך בה' אלהי השמים ואלהי הארץ אומרין לו הוי יודע שלא על [תנאי שבלבך] אנו משביעין אותך אלא על [תנאי שבלבנו וכן] מצינו כשהשביע [משה] את [בני] ישראל [בערבות מואב] אמר להם [לא על תנאי שבלבבכם אני משביע אתכם אלא על תנאי שבלבבנו שנאמר] (דברים כ״ט:י״ד) ולא אתכם לבדכם וגו' כי את אשר ישנו פה [וגו'] אין לי אלא אתכם מנין לדורות הבאים אחריכם ולגרים שנתוספו עליכם תלמוד לומר [ולא אתכם לבדכם אלא] (שם) ואת אשר איננו פה עמנו היום [אין] לי אלא מצות [שנצטוו ישראל על הר סיני מנין לרבות מקרא מגילה] ת\"ל (אסתר ט׳:כ״ז) קימו וקבלו וגו' ולא יעבור.", 7.4. "ברכת הלל ושמע ותפלה נאמרין בכל לשון רבי אומר אומר אני שאין שמע נאמר אלא בלשון הקדש שנאמר (דברים ו׳:ו׳) והיו הדברים האלה וגו'.", 13.8. "שנה שמת בה שמעון הצדיק [אמר להם בשנה זו אני] מת אמרו לו מנין אתה יודע אמר להם כל ימות הכפורים היה זקן [אחד לובש] בגדים לבנים ומתכסה לבנים נכנס עמי [ויוצא] עמי שנה זו נכנס עמי ולא יצא לאחר הרגל חלה שבעת ימים ומת משמת שמעון הצדיק פסקו מלברך בשם <ס\"א> [נמנעו אחיו מלברך בשם].", | 13.8. "The year in which Shimon the Righteous died [he said to them] \"in this year I will die\" \"how do you know this?\" they responded. He (Shimon the Righteous) responded: \"all of the Yom Kippur days there was an old man dressed in all white who would go with me into the holy of holies and leave with me, on this year he went in with me but did not come out with me.\" Seven days passed after the holiday and he died. From the time of the death of Rebbi Shimon the Righteous they ceased blessing in the name of Hashem.", |
|
72. Tosefta, Bava Qamma, 3.4 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 128| 3.4. "כיצד משלם במותר חצי נזק שור שוה מנה שנגח שור שוה מאתים הכחישו חמשים זוז חזר האחרון הכחישו שלשה של זהב האחרון משלם לראשון חצי דינר זהב שור שוה מאתים שנגח שור שוה מאתים וחבל בו חמשים זוז חזר האחרון והכחישו השביח הניזק היה יפה ד' מאות זוז שאלמלא לא הזיקו היה יפה שמנה מאות זוז עד שלא עמד בב\"ד השביח המזיק אם עד שלא עמד בדין השביח אין לו אלא כשעת נזקו הכחיש אין לו אלא כשעת עמידתו בב\"ד השביח המזיק אם עד שלא עמד בב\"ד השביח אין לו אלא כשעת נזקו הכחיש אין לו אלא כשעת עמידתו בב\"ד אם משעמד בב\"ד השביח אין לו אלא כשעת עמידתו בב\"ד הרג שורו של חבירו הוקרה בהמתו או שהוזלה הדליק גדיש של חבירו והוקרה תבואה או שהוזלה בין משעמד בב\"ד ובין עד שלא עמד בבית דין אין לו אלא כשעת נזקו.", | |
|
73. Tosefta, Shevuot, 3.1-3.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 128, 129| 3.1. "המשביע את חבירו על דבר שיש בו שוה פרוטה וכפר ה\"ז משלם קרן וחומש ואשם. המשביע את העדים על דבר שיש בו שוה פרוטה וכפרו הרי אלו חייבין קרבן ופטורין מן הממון שנאמר ונשא עונו קרבן ר' יהודה בן בתירה אומר נאמר כאן ונשא עונו ונאמר להלן עונו ישא מה עונו ישא האמור להלן נטילת נשמה אף עונו ישא האמור כאן נטילת נשמה ונשא עונו מלמד שבכלל נשיאת עון קרבן." 3.2. "ר' יהושע אומר ד' אין חייבין לשלם מן הדין ואין השמים מוחלין להם עד שישלמו. היודע עדות לחבירו ואינו מעיד אינו חייב לשלם מן הדין ואין השמים מוחלין לו עד שישלם. השוכר עדי שקר וגבה אינו חייב לשלם מן הדין ואין השמים מוחלין לו. הכובש קמה לפני האור והפורץ גדר לפני בהמה אין חייבין לו מן הדין ואין השמים מוחלין להן עד שישלם.", | |
|
74. Tosefta, Berachot, 5.23 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 196| 5.23. "היה מקריב זבחים בירושלים אומר ברוך שהגיענו לזמן הזה כשהוא מקריבם אומר בא\"י אקב\"ו להקריב זבחים כשהוא אוכלם אומר בא\"י אקב\"ו לאכול זבחים.", | |
|
75. Tosefta, Demai, 2.1-2.2 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 82| 2.1. "אורז במקומו מותר שבתחילת אנטכיא ר' אליעזר בר' יוסי אומר אורז [שבתחילת] אנטכיא מותר הוא עד בורו.", 2.1. "הבא לקבל עליו אפילו תלמיד חכם צריך לקבל עליו אבל חכם היושב בישיבה אין צריך לקבל עליו שכבר קבל עליו משעה שישב אבא שאול אומר אף ת\"ח אין צריך לקבל עליו ולא עוד אלא אף אחרים מקבלין בפניו חבורה אין בניו ועבדיו צריכין לקבל בפני חבורה אלא מקבלין בפניו חבורה ר\"ש בן גמליאל אומר אינו דומה חבר שקלקל לבן חבר שקלקל.", 2.2. "המקבל עליו ארבעה דברים מקבלין אותו להיות חבר שלא ליתן תרומות ומעשרות לעם הארץ ושלא יעשה טהרות אצל עם הארץ ושיהא אוכל חולין בטהרה.", | |
|
| 76. Tosefta, Hulin, 2.24 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66 |
77. Tosefta, Sanhedrin, 5.5, 6.6, 7.5, 11.6-11.7, 12.7-12.8 (1st cent. CE - 2nd cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 48, 79, 84, 87, 104| 5.5. "הוסיפו עליהן הרועין והגזלנין החמסנין וכל החשודין על הממון עדותן פסולה לעולם.", 6.6. "יש לך עדים אחרים ואמר אין לי אלא אלו יש לך ראיות אחרות ואמר אין לי אלא אלו ואחר זמן מצא עדים אחרים ומצא ראיות אחרות הרי זה אין מקבלין הימנו עד שיביא ראיה שלא היה יודע בהן לעולם אין העדים יכולין לחזור בהן עד שתחקר עדותן לב\"ד נחקרה עדותן לב\"ד אין יכולין לחזור בהן וזהו כללו של דבר עדים שהעידו לטמא ולטהר לרחק ולקרב לאסור ולהתיר לפטור ולחייב <לפטור ולחייב> עד שלא נחקרה עדותן ואמרו מבודין אנו הרי אלו נאמנים משנחקרה עדותן ואמרו מבודין אנו אין נאמנין לעולם אין העדים נעשים זוממין עד שיגמר הדין לא לוקין ולא משלמין ולא נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין לעולם אין אחד מן העדים נעשה זומם עד שיהיו שניהם זוממין ואין לוקה עד שיהיו שניהם לוקין ואין נהרג עד שיהיו שניהם נהרגים ולא משלם עד שיהיו שניהם משלמין אמר ר' יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם בשביל לעקור מלבן של בייתוסין שהיו אומרים עד שיהרג הנדון אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרה תורה (דברים י״ז:ו׳) על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת בעדים ב' ובזוממין ב' מה עדים שנים אף זוממין ב' באותה שעה קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שלא יהיה מורה הלכה אלא ע\"פ שמעון בן שטח. ", 7.5. "בדיני ממונות אומרין נזדקק הדין בדיני נפשות אין אומרין נזדקק הדין והגדול שבדיינים אומר נזדקק הדין אין שואלין מעומד ואין משיבין מעומד לא מגבוה ולא מרחוק ולא מאחורי הזקנים אין שואלין אלא בענין ואין משיבין אלא במדע ולא ישאל השואל בענין יתיר משלש הלכות אחד שואל ואחד אומר שלא לשאול נזקקין לשואל והשואל מעשה צריך שיאמר מעשה אני שואל והשואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין משיבין את השואל כענין והשואל שלא כענין צריך שיאמר שלא כענין שאלתי דברי ר\"מ וחכ\"א א\"צ שכל התורה ענין אחד. ענין ושאינו ענין נזקקין לענין מעשה ושאינו מעשה נזקקין למעשה הלכה ומדרש נזקקין להלכה מדרש ואגדה נזקקין למדרש מדרש וק\"ו נזקקין לק\"ו ק\"ו וגזירה שוה נזקקין לק\"ו חכם ותלמיד נזקקין לחכם תלמיד ועם הארץ נזקקין לתלמיד היו שניהם חכמים ושניהם תלמידים ושניהם עמי הארץ שתי הלכות ושתי שאלות ושתי תשובות ושני מעשים הרשות ביד התורגמן מעתה כשהנשיא נכנס כל העם עומדים והן ישבו עד שאמר להם שבו כשאב ב\"ד נכנס עושים לו שתי שורות מכאן ומכאן עד שנכנס וישב במקומו חכם שנכנס אחד עומד ואחד יושב עד שנכנס וישב במקומו בני חכמים ותלמידי חכמים בזמן שהרבים צריכים להם מקפצן אפילו על ראשי העם ואע\"פ שאמרו אין שבח לתלמיד שיכנס באחרונה יצא לצורך נכנס ויושב במקומו בני חכמים תלמידי חכמים בזמן שיש בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי אביהם אין בהם דעת לשמוע הופכין את פניהם כלפי העם ר' אלעזר בר' צדוק אומר בבית המשתה עושים אותן סניפין חכם שנכנס אין שואלין אותו עד שתתישב דעתו נכנס ומצאם כשהם עוסקים בהלכה לא יהא קופץ לתוך דבריהם עד שיודע באיזה ענין הן עוסקים ואם עשה כן על זה נאמר שבעה דברים בגולם. שבע מדות דרש הלל לפני זקני בתירה ק\"ו וגזרה שוה ובנין אב וכתוב אחד ובנין אב ושני כתובים וכלל ופרט וכלל וכיוצא בו ממקום אחר דבר הלמד מענינו אלו שבע מדות שדרש הלל הזקן לפני זקני בתירה. ", | 7.5. "...Hillel the elder expounded seven hermeneutical principles before the elders of Betheira: kal vachomer, gezeirah shavah, shnei kethuvim, kllal ufrat, kayotze bo bemakom acher (\"the same applies elsewhere\" — i.e., binyan av), davar halamed me'inyano (and davar halamed misofo)." |
|
| 78. Palestinian Talmud, Peah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 189 |
| 79. Palestinian Talmud, Qiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
| 80. Palestinian Talmud, Demai, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 81. Anon., Sifre Numbers, 150, 156, 7, 92, 95 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45 |
| 82. Palestinian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 48, 59 |
| 83. Anon., Sifra, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 128, 189 |
| 84. Palestinian Talmud, Sotah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66 |
| 85. Anon., Mekhilta Derabbi Yishmael, None (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 80, 104, 144 |
| 86. Palestinian Talmud, Sheqalim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 87. Palestinian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 132 |
| 88. Palestinian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87 |
89. Anon., Leviticus Rabba, 6.4 (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126| 6.4. רַבִּי יוֹסֵי בַּר חֲנִינָא פָּתַר קְרָיָא בַּסּוֹטָה, וְנֶפֶשׁ כִּי תֶחֱטָא, הִיא שֶׁחָטְאָה עַל בַּעֲלָהּ שֶׁהוּא זָנָהּ וּמְפַרְנְסָהּ וְהִיא הוֹלֶכֶת וּמְקַלְקֶלֶת עִם אַחֵר, וְשָׁמְעָה קוֹל אָלָה (במדבר ה, כא): וְהִשְׁבִּיעַ הַכֹּהֵן אֶת הָאִשָּׁה בִּשְׁבֻעַת הָאָלָה. וְהוּא עֵד (במדבר ה, יג): וְעֵד אֵין בָּהּ. אוֹ רָאָה (במדבר ה, יג): וְנֶעֱלַם מֵעֵינֵי אִישָּׁהּ וְלֹא מֵעֵינֵי הַקָּדוֹשׁ בָּרוּךְ הוּא. אוֹ יָדָע (במדבר ה, יג): וְנִסְתְּרָה וְהִיא נִטְמָאָה. אִם לוֹא יַגִּיד וְנָשָׂא עֲוֹנוֹ, אִם לֹא תַגִּיד לַכֹּהֵן (במדבר ה, כז): וְצָבְתָה בִטְנָהּ וְנָפְלָה יְרֵכָהּ. | |
|
| 90. Palestinian Talmud, Kiddushin, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40 |
| 91. Palestinian Talmud, Nedarim, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 92. Palestinian Talmud, Niddah, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 93. Anon., Sifre Deuteronomy, 153, 190, 219, 15 (2nd cent. CE - 4th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45 |
| 94. Palestinian Talmud, Shevuot, None (2nd cent. CE - 5th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 128 |
95. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Metzia, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 129, 132| 22b. אינן בכי יותן,טעמא מאי לאו משום דלא אמרינן כיון דאיגלאי מילתא דהשתא ניחא ליה מעיקרא נמי ניחא ליה שאני התם דכתיב כי יתן עד שיתן,אי הכי רישא נמי התם כדרב פפא דרב פפא רמי כתיב כי יתן וקרינן כי יותן הא כיצד,בעינן כי יותן דומיא דכי יתן מה יתן לדעת אף כי יותן נמי לדעת,ת"ש דא"ר יוחנן משום רבי ישמעאל בן יהוצדק מנין לאבידה ששטפה נהר שהיא מותרת דכתיב (דברים כב, ג) וכן תעשה לחמורו וכן תעשה לשמלתו וכן תעשה לכל אבידת אחיך אשר תאבד ממנו ומצאתה מי שאבודה הימנו ומצויה אצל כל אדם יצאתה זו שאבודה ממנו ואינה מצויה אצל כל אדם,ואיסורא דומיא דהיתירא מה היתירא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן שרא אף איסורא בין דאית בה סימן ובין דלית בה סימן אסורה תיובתא דרבא תיובתא,והלכתא כוותיה דאביי ביע"ל קג"ם,א"ל רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי וכי מאחר דאיתותב רבא הני תמרי דזיקא היכי אכלינן להו אמר ליה כיון דאיכא שקצים ורמשים דקא אכלי להו מעיקרא יאושי מיאש מנייהו,יתמי דלאו בני מחילה נינהו מאי אמר ליה באגא בארעא דיתמי לא מחזקינן,מוחזק ועומד מאי כרכתא מאי אמר ליה אסירן:,כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו: אמר רבה ואפילו בדבר שיש בו סימן אלמא קסבר רבה סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן רבא אמר לא שנו אלא בדבר שאין בו סימן אבל בדבר שיש בו סימן חייב להכריז אלמא קסבר רבא סימן העשוי לידרס הוי סימן,ואיכא דמתני להא שמעתא באנפי נפשה סימן העשוי לידרס רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן,תנן כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז ה"ד אי דלית בהו סימן ברה"י מאי מכריז אלא לאו דאית בהו סימן וקתני ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו אלמא סימן העשוי לידרס לא הוי סימן תיובתא דרבא,אמר לך רבא לעולם דלית בהו סימן ודקא אמרת ברה"י מאי מכריז מכריז מקום ורבה אמר מקום לא הוי סימן דאיתמר מקום רבה אמר לא הוי סימן ורבא אמר הוי סימן,ת"ש כריכות ברה"ר הרי אלו שלו ברה"י נוטל ומכריז והאלומות בין ברה"ר ובין ברה"י נוטל ומכריז רבה היכי מתרץ לה ורבא היכי מתרץ לה רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן ורבא מתרץ לטעמיה במקום,רבה מתרץ לטעמיה בסימן כריכות ברשות הרבים הרי אלו שלו משום | 22b. the produce b is not /b in the category of: “But b when /b water b is placed [ i khi yuttan /i ] /b upon the seed,” and the produce is not susceptible to contracting ritual impurity., b What is the reason /b that if the produce dried, the fact that the owner is glad does not render it susceptible to ritual impurity? Is it b not due to /b the fact b that we do not say: Since the matter was revealed that he is amenable /b to the moisture b now, he was also amenable from the outset? /b The same should be true with regard to despair that is not conscious. The fact that when he becomes aware of his loss he despairs of its recovery does not indicate that he despaired from the outset, contrary to the opinion of Rava. The Gemara rejects the proof: It b is different there, as /b although the phrase is vocalized to mean: “When it is placed,” b it is written: When one places [ i ki yitten /i ], /b from which it is derived that the produce is rendered susceptible to ritual impurity b only /b if the owner b places /b the liquid on the produce.,The Gemara asks: b If so, /b in b the first clause /b of the i baraita /i , b too, /b the produce should not be rendered susceptible to contracting impurity, because the dew fell on the produce and was not placed there by the owner. The Gemara answers: b There, /b the explanation is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rav Pappa, as Rav Pappa raised a contradiction: /b The verse states: “But when water is placed [ i vekhi yuttan /i ] upon the seed, and any part of a carcass falls thereon, it is ritually impure unto you” (Leviticus 11:38). The word “ i yuttan /i ” b is written /b in the defective form, as if it says b “ i ki yitten /i .” /b Accordingly, this would mean that one must actively place the water on the produce. Yet, b we read /b it, based on the tradition as to its correct pronunciation, as if it is written b “ i ki yuttan /i ,” /b which includes any situation where the produce becomes wet. b How so? /b How can the way the verse is written and the way it is read be reconciled?,Rav Pappa explains that b we require /b that the situation described by the words b “when water is placed [ i ki yuttan /i ]” /b be b similar to /b the situation described by the words: b When one places [ i dekhi yitten /i ]: Just as /b the term b places [ i yitten /i ] /b indicates b that /b it is b with the knowledge of /b the owner that the produce becomes wet, as he himself is placing the water, b so too, /b the term b “is placed [ i yuttan /i ]” /b means b that /b it is b with his knowledge /b that the produce becomes wet, despite the fact that he did not place the water himself. Therefore, no proof may be cited with regard to the matter of despair, where there is no Torah derivation requiring awareness from the outset.,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from that b which Rabbi Yoḥa says in the name of Rabbi Yishmael ben Yehotzadak: From where /b is it derived b with regard to a lost item that the river swept away that it is permitted /b for its finder to keep it? It is derived from this verse, b as it is written: “And so shall you do with his donkey; and so shall you do with his garment; and so shall you do with every lost item of your brother, which shall be lost from him, and you have found it” /b (Deuteronomy 22:3). The verse states that one must return b that which is lost from him, /b the owner, b but is /b available to be b found by any person. Excluded /b from that obligation is b that which is lost from him and is not /b available to be b found by any person; /b it is ownerless property and anyone who finds it may keep it., b And the prohibition /b written in the verse against keeping an item that is lost only to its owner is b similar to the allowance /b to keep an item lost to all people that is inferred from the verse; b just as /b in the case of b the allowance, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, /b it is permitted for the finder to keep it, b so too /b in the case of b the prohibition, whether there is a distinguishing mark and whether there is no distinguishing mark, /b it is b prohibited /b for the finder to keep it, until there is proof that the owner despaired of its recovery. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rava is /b indeed a conclusive b refutation. /b , b And /b although in disputes between Abaye and Rava, the i halakha /i is typically ruled in accordance with the opinion of Rava, the b i halakha /i /b is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Abaye in /b the disputes represented by the mnemonic: b i Yod /i , i ayin /i , i lamed /i ; i kuf /i , i gimmel /i , i mem /i . /b , b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: And now that /b the opinion of b Rava was conclusively refuted, /b and the i halakha /i is that despair that is not conscious is not considered despair, if b those dates /b are blown off the tree b by the wind, how do we eat them? /b Perhaps their owner did not despair of their recovery. Rav Ashi b said to him: Since there are repugt creatures and creeping animals that eat /b the dates after they fall, the owner b despairs of their /b recovery b from the outset. /b Therefore, one who finds the dates may keep them.,Rav Aḥa asked: Perhaps the tree belonged to b minor /b orphans b who, /b because b they are not capable of relinquishing /b property, cannot despair of recovering the dates from the outset. Accordingly, b what /b is the justification for eating found dates? Rav Ashi b said to him: We do not presume a valley to /b be b land /b belonging b to orphans, /b and therefore that is not a concern.,Rav Aḥa asked: If the b presumptive status /b of the trees was b previously /b established as belonging to orphans, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? If the trees are surrounded by b fences /b that prevent repugt creatures and creeping animals from gaining access, b what /b is the i halakha /i ? Rav Ashi b said to him: /b The dates b are forbidden /b in those cases.,§ The mishna teaches that if one found b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him. Rabba says /b with regard to this ruling: b And /b this is the i halakha /i b even with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark. /b The Gemara comments: b Apparently, Rabba holds /b that the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not /b that of b a distinguishing mark. /b Since the owner of the lost item knows that the mark is prone to be trampled, he does not rely on it and he despairs of recovering the item. b Rava said: /b The Sages b taught /b this i halakha /i b only with regard to an item on which there is no distinguishing mark, but with regard to an item on which there is a distinguishing mark, /b the one who finds it is b obligated to proclaim /b his find. The Gemara comments: b Apparently, Rava holds /b that the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is /b that of b a distinguishing mark. /b , b And there are /b those b who teach /b the dispute with regard to b this i halakha /i independent /b of the mishna. With regard to the legal status of b a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark. And Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark. /b ,The Gemara cites proof from that which b we learned /b in a i baraita /i : If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him; /b if he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b What are the circumstances? If /b it is a case b where there is no distinguishing mark /b on the bundles, when one finds them b in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? Rather, is it not /b a case b where there is a distinguishing mark /b on the bundles, and there is then a reason for him to proclaim his find. b And /b yet, b it is taught /b in the i baraita /i that if he finds the bundles b in a public area those /b bundles belong b to him. Apparently, a distinguishing mark that is prone to be trampled is not a distinguishing mark. /b This is b a conclusive refutation of /b the opinion of b Rava. /b , b Rava /b could have b said to you: Actually, /b it is a case b where there is no distinguishing mark on /b the bundles. b And /b with regard to that b which you said: /b When one finds them b in a secluded area, what does he proclaim? He proclaims /b that the owner should provide the b location /b where he lost the bundles and thereby recover his bundles. b And Rabba said: /b The b location, /b provided by the owner, b is not a distinguishing mark /b that would enable the return of an item to its owner. b As it was stated /b that the i amora’im /i disputed this matter: With regard to b location, Rabba says: It is not a distinguishing mark, and Rava says: It is a distinguishing mark. /b ,The Gemara suggests: b Come /b and b hear /b a proof from a i baraita /i : If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him; /b if he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b And /b with regard to b the sheaves, /b i.e., large bundles, b whether /b he finds them b in a public area /b or b whether /b he finds them b in a secluded area, /b the finder b takes /b them b and proclaims /b his find. b How does Rabba explain /b the i baraita /i , b and how does Rava explain /b the i baraita /i ? b Rabba explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b with a distinguishing mark. And Rava explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b whose location /b is their distinguishing mark.,The Gemara elaborates. b Rabba explains, according to his /b line of b reasoning, /b that the i baraita /i is referring to bundles b with a distinguishing mark: /b If one finds b bundles /b of grain b in a public area, these /b belong b to him due to /b the fact |
|
96. Babylonian Talmud, Niddah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 23b. אף אנן נמי תנינא המפלת כמין בהמה חיה ועוף (ולד מעליא הוא) דברי ר"מ וחכ"א עד שיהא בו מצורת אדם,והמפלת סנדל או שליא או שפיר מרוקם והיוצא מחותך הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה ואינו בכור לכהן ואי ס"ד דחיי הבא אחריו בכור לנחלה מי הוי,אמר רבא לעולם דחיי ושאני התם דאמר קרא {דברים כח } ראשית אונו מי שלבו דוה עליו יצא זה שאין לבו דוה עליו,בעא מיניה רב אדא בר אהבה מאביי לרבי מאיר דאמר בהמה במעי אשה ולד מעליא הוא אדם במעי בהמה מאי למאי נפקא מיניה לאשתרויי באכילה,ותפשוט ליה מהא דר' יוחנן דא"ר יוחנן השוחט את הבהמה ומצא בה דמות יונה אסורה באכילה,הכי השתא התם לא פרסות איכא ולא פרסה איכא הכא נהי דפרסות ליכא פרסה מיהא איכא,וחכ"א כל שאין בו כו' אמר רב ירמיה בר אבא אמר רב הכל מודים גופו תייש ופניו אדם אדם גופו אדם ופניו תייש ולא כלום,לא נחלקו אלא שפניו אדם ונברא בעין אחת כבהמה שרבי מאיר אומר מצורת אדם וחכ"א כל צורת אדם,אמר לו לרב ירמיה בר אבא והא איפכא תניא ר"מ אומר כל צורת וחכ"א מצורת אמר להו אי תניא תניא,אמר ר' ירמיה בר אבא אמר רבי יוחנן מצח והגבינים והעינים והלסתות וגבות הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחד רבא אמר חסא מצח והגבן והעין והלסת וגבת הזקן עד שיהו כולם כאחת,ולא פליגי הא כמ"ד כל צורת הא כמ"ד מצורת,מיתיבי צורת פנים שאמרו אפילו פרצוף אחד מן הפרצופין חוץ מן האוזן למימרא דמחד נמי סגי,אמר אביי כי תניא ההיא לעכב תניא וכמ"ד כל צורת ואיבעית אימא לעולם כמ"ד מצורת ומאי אחד אחד אחד,אמר רבא נברא בעין אחת ובירך אחד מן הצד אמו טמאה באמצע אמו טהורה,אמר רבא ושטו נקוב אמו טמאה ושטו אטום אמו טהורה,ת"ר המפלת גוף אטום אין אמו טמאה לידה ואיזהו גוף אטום רבי אומר כדי שינטל מן החי וימות,וכמה ינטל מן החי וימות רבי זכאי אומר | 23b. b We, too, learn /b in a mishna ( i Bekhorot /i 46a) that the fetus of a woman that has the form of an animal cannot survive: In the case of a woman b who /b had previously b discharged a fetus /b with the appearance b similar to /b that b of a domesticated animal, an undomesticated animal, or bird /b before giving birth to any children, and subsequently she gives birth to a son, the son is considered a firstborn with regard to the i halakhot /i of inheritance, but he does not require redemption, as the fetus is considered a full-fledged offspring in that regard. This is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say: /b The son is not exempted from the requirement of redemption from a priest b unless /b it follows the birth of a fetus b that takes the form of a person; /b otherwise, it is not considered the offspring that “opens the womb” (Exodus 13:2), and the son requires redemption as a firstborn., b And /b in the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus in the form of b a sandal fish, or /b from whom b an afterbirth or a gestational sac /b in which b tissue developed /b emerged, b or /b who delivered a fetus b that emerged in pieces, /b the son b that follows them is /b considered b a firstborn with regard to inheritance but is not a firstborn with regard to /b redemption from b a priest. /b The Gemara explains the proof: b And if it enters your mind that /b a fetus that has the form of an animal b can survive, is the /b son b that follows it a firstborn with regard to inheritance? /b , b Rava said, /b in rejection of this proof: b Actually, /b it is possible b that /b a fetus shaped like an animal b can survive; but it is different there, /b with regard to inheritance. The son that follows such a fetus has the status of a firstborn, b as the verse states /b with regard to the inheritance of a firstborn: “By giving him a double portion of all that he has; for he is b the first fruits of his strength [ i ono /i ]; /b the right of the firstborn is his” (Deuteronomy 21:17). It is derived from the verse that the status of a firstborn applies only to a son b over whose /b death a father would b mourn. /b The word i ono /i is interpreted homiletically based on its similarity to the word i onen /i , acute mourner. b This /b offspring that has the form of an animal is therefore b excluded, as /b its father b would not mourn over its /b death.,§ b Rav Adda bar Ahava asked Abaye: According to Rabbi Meir, who said /b that an item that is similar to b an animal in the womb of a woman is /b considered b a full-fledged offspring, what /b is the i halakha /i with regard to b a human /b fetus b in the womb of an animal? /b The Gemara explains: b What is the /b practical b difference /b of this inquiry? The difference is b with regard to permitting /b the fetus b in consumption. /b A full-fledged fetus found inside its slaughtered mother is permitted to be eaten, despite the fact that it was not slaughtered itself.,The Gemara suggests: b But /b one can b resolve /b the dilemma b from that /b statement b of Rabbi Yoḥa, as Rabbi Yoḥa said: /b In the case of b one who slaughters an animal and finds in it /b an item that has b the form of a pigeon, /b the pigeon b is prohibited for consumption. /b Evidently, the ritual slaughter of a pregt animal renders its fetus permitted to be eaten only if the fetus is of the same species as the mother. Accordingly, if the fetus has the form of a human, it is prohibited for consumption.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b with regard to a pigeon fetus, b there are no /b split b hooves, and there is not /b even b a hoof /b at all. Since a pigeon is completely different from the slaughtered animal, the fetus is forbidden. By contrast, b here, /b in the case of a human fetus, b although there are no /b split b hooves, there is at least a hoof, /b i.e., solid feet. Therefore, it is possible that the human fetus is permitted for consumption, and the dilemma remains unresolved.,§ The mishna teaches: b And the Rabbis say: Any /b discharged entity b that is not /b of human form does not render the woman impure. b Rav Yirmeya bar Abba says /b that b Rav says: All concede /b that if a woman discharged an entity b whose body is /b that of b a goat and whose face is /b that of b a human, /b it is considered b a human /b offspring, i.e., even the Rabbis rule that the woman is impure in this case. Likewise, if b its body is /b that of b a human and its face is /b that of b a goat, /b Rabbi Meir concedes that b it is nothing, /b and the woman is pure., b They disagree only /b in a case b where its face is /b that of b a human, but it was created with /b one human eye and b one eye like /b that of b an animal. As Rabbi Meir says /b that if the offspring has part b of the form of a human /b face, even if one eye is not like that of a human, it is considered a human offspring, and the woman is impure. b And the Rabbis say /b that it must have b the entire form of a human /b face to be considered a human offspring, and otherwise the woman is not impure.,One of the Sages b said to Rav Yirmeya bar Abba: But isn’t the opposite taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Meir says /b that a woman who discharged is impure if the fetus has b any /b part of the b form /b of a human face, b and the Rabbis say /b that the woman is impure only if the fetus has a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face, e.g., half of a human face? According to this i baraita /i , Rabbi Meir does not even require that a significant part of it must look human. In his opinion, even if it has only one human eye or one human cheek and the rest of the face is like that of an animal, the woman is impure. Rav Yirmeya bar Abba b said to /b the Sages: b If this /b i baraita /i b is taught, it is taught, /b and I cannot take issue with it. I have my tradition from Rav, and you should rule in accordance with the i baraita /i that you received., b Rabbi Yirmeya bar Abba says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b A woman who discharges an entity is impure only if the entire face of the fetus has a human form. This includes its b forehead, and the eyebrows, and the eyes, and the cheeks, and /b its b chin. /b The woman is not impure b unless /b these facial features b all as one /b have the human form. b Rava /b says that b Ḥasa says: /b It is sufficient for the fetus to have the appearance of a human on one side of its face; its b forehead, and /b one b eyebrow, and /b one b eye, and /b one b cheek, and /b its b chin /b are enough. The woman is not impure b unless /b these facial features b all as one /b have the human form., b And /b Rabbi Yoḥa and Ḥasa b do not disagree /b about whether the i halakha /i is in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Meir or that of the Rabbis, as they both accept the opinion of the Rabbis. The difference between them is that b this /b i amora /i , Rabbi Yoḥa, holds b like the one who says /b that the Rabbis require b the entire form of /b the face to be human, and b that /b i amora /i , Ḥasa, holds b like the one who says /b that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face.,Ḥasa evidently interprets the version of the Rabbis’ statement that only part of a human face is required as referring to half of a human face. The Gemara b raises an objection /b to this interpretation from a i baraita /i : The miscarriage of a fetus with b the form of /b a human b face, which /b the Rabbis b said /b renders the woman impure, includes b even one of the facial features, apart from the ear. /b Apparently, b that is to say that /b even b if /b the fetus has only b one /b facial feature of a human, this b is also sufficient /b to render the woman impure., b Abaye says: When that /b i baraita /i b is taught, it is taught with regard to /b the i halakha /i of b rendering /b all of the facial features b indispensable /b for the fetus to be defined as human, except for the ear. b And /b this ruling b is in accordance with the one who says /b that the Rabbis require that b the entire form of /b the face must be human. b And if you wish, say /b that b actually /b this ruling b is in accordance with the one who says /b that the Rabbis require only a recognizable part b of the form of /b a human face. b And what /b is the meaning of the claim that it is sufficient for the fetus to have b one /b facial feature of a human? It means b one of each /b facial feature of which a human has two, i.e., one eye, one eyebrow, and so on., b Rava says: /b In a case where a fetus b was created with one eye or with one thigh, /b if the eye is located b to the side /b on the middle of the face, or the thigh is located at the side of the hip, where a human eye or thigh is normally located, the fetus is considered human, and b its mother is impure. /b If it appears b in the middle /b of the face or hip, the fetus is not considered human, and b its mother is pure. /b , b Rava says: /b If b its esophagus is punctured, /b although the fetus is considered a i tereifa /i , i.e., one that has a wound that will cause it to die within twelve months, b its mother is impure. /b But if b its esophagus is sealed, /b i.e., it is closed at one end, it does not have the status of a human fetus, and therefore b its mother is pure. /b ,§ b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : In the case of a woman b who discharges /b a fetus that has b a sealed body, its mother is not impure /b with the impurity of a woman after b childbirth. And what is a sealed body? Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: /b It is a body which is lacking a limb that b when removed from a living /b person would cause him to b die. /b , b And how much /b of the lower part of a person’s body b when removed from a living /b person would cause him to b die, /b because one cannot survive such a wound? b Rabbi Zakkai says: /b |
|
97. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Batra, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87| 56b. משלשין ביניהם,שלשה אחים ואחד מצטרף עמהם הרי אלו שלש עדיות והן עדות אחת להזמה: , big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מתניתין דלא כרבי עקיבא דתניא א"ר יוסי כשהלך אבא חלפתא אצל רבי יוחנן בן נורי ללמוד תורה ואמרי לה ר' יוחנן בן נורי אצל אבא חלפתא ללמוד תורה אמר לו הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים שניה בפני שנים שלישית בפני שנים מהו אמר לו הרי זו חזקה,אמר לו אף אני אומר כן אלא שר"ע חולק בדבר זה שהיה ר"ע אומר (דברים יט, טו) דבר ולא חצי דבר,ורבנן האי דבר ולא חצי דבר מאי עבדי ליה אילימא למעוטי אחד אומר אחת בגבה ואחד אומר אחת בכריסה האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות היא,אלא למעוטי שנים אומרים אחת בגבה ושנים אומרים אחת בכריסה,אמר רב יהודה אחד אומר אכלה חטים ואחד אומר אכלה שעורים הרי זו חזקה מתקיף לה רב נחמן אלא מעתה אחד אומר אכלה ראשונה שלישית וחמישית ואחד אומר אכלה שניה רביעית וששית הכי נמי דהויא חזקה,א"ל רב יהודה הכי השתא התם בשתא דקא מסהיד מר לא קא מסהיד מר הכא תרוייהו בחדא שתא קא מסהדי מאי איכא למימר בין חיטי לשערי לאו אדעתייהו דאינשי:,שלשה אחין ואחד מצטרף עמהן הרי אלו שלש עדיות והן עדות אחת להזמה: | 56b. payment of the value of the field to the owner is b divided among them. /b ,If the testimony was given by b three brothers, /b each of whom testify about one year, b and another /b unrelated individual b joined with /b each of the brothers as the second witness, b these are three /b distinct b testimonies /b and they are accepted by the court. If they were to be considered one testimony, it would not be accepted, as brothers may not testify together. b But they are one testimony for /b the purpose of rendering them as b conspiring /b witnesses, and the payment is divided among them., strong GEMARA: /strong The Gemara notes: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, as it is taught /b in a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i , 2:10) that b Rabbi Yosei said: When Abba Ḥalafta, /b Rabbi Yosei’s father, b went to Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri to study Torah, and some say: /b When b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri /b went b to Abba Ḥalafta to study Torah, he said to him: What is /b the i halakha /i if b there is /b one b who /b worked and b profited /b from a field b in the presence of two /b witnesses during the b first year, /b then b in the presence of two /b other witnesses during the b second /b year, and finally b in the presence of two /b other witnesses during the b third /b year? He b said to him: This is /b sufficient for establishing the b presumption /b of ownership.,The latter b said to him: I say this as well, but Rabbi Akiva disagrees with regard to this matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say /b that since the verse states: “At the mouth of two witnesses, or at the mouth of three witnesses, shall a matter be established” (Deuteronomy 19:15), one can derive that testimony is accepted only with regard to a complete b matter, and not /b with regard to b half /b of b a matter. /b In this mishna, although presumptive ownership requires testimony that the property had been worked and profited from for three years, testimony is accepted from each pair of witnesses with regard to one year. Consequently, the ruling of the mishna does not accord with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.,The Gemara asks: b And /b with regard to b the Rabbis, /b who accept the testimony of each of the three pairs of witnesses, b what do they do with this /b derivation of: A complete b matter, and not half /b of b a matter, /b i.e., what type of testimony is disqualified based on this derivation? b If we say /b that it serves b to exclude /b a case where two witnesses testify that a young woman has two pubic hairs and has therefore reached maturity, where b one says /b she has b one /b hair b on her back and one says /b she has b one /b hair b on her /b lower b abdomen, /b i.e., they are testifying to two different pubic hairs, and in this case the Rabbis say this testimony is not accepted, since they each testify with regard to only half of the matter, that is difficult. But b this is /b both b half /b of b a matter and half /b of b a testimony, /b as there is only one witness with regard to each pubic hair. This testimony would not be valid even without the derivation., b Rather, /b in the opinion of the Rabbis the derivation serves b to exclude /b a case where b two /b witnesses b say /b she has b one /b hair b on her back and two /b witnesses b say /b she has b one /b hair b on her /b lower b abdomen. /b In this case, each group of witnesses gives full testimony with regard to half of a matter, i.e., one pubic hair, as both hairs must be present concurrently in order for her to assume the status of an adult. By contrast, in the case of the mishna, the years are by definition not concurrent. Therefore, the Rabbis rule that testimony with regard to one year is accepted.,§ In a related matter, b Rav Yehuda says: /b If two witnesses testify that one had worked and profited from a field for three years, where b one /b witness b says he consumed wheat /b from the field, b and one says he consumed barley /b from b it, this is /b sufficient for establishing the b presumption /b of ownership. b Rav Naḥman objects to this /b ruling: b If that is so, /b then if b one /b witness b says /b he worked and b profited /b from the field during the b first, third, and fifth /b years; b and one /b witness b says he /b worked and b profited /b from b it /b during the b second, fourth, and sixth /b years, would you b also /b say b that /b this b is /b sufficient for establishing the b presumption /b of ownership? What is the difference between testifying about different crops and testifying about different years?, b Rav Yehuda said to him: How can /b these cases b be compared? There, /b i.e., in your example, b with regard to the year /b about which one b Master, /b i.e., witness, b is testifying, /b the other b Master is not testifying /b about it, while b here, both are testifying with regard to one year. What is there to say, /b that there is a contradiction in their testimonies b between wheat and barley? It does not enter people’s minds /b to note this distinction. Two witnesses did, however, testify that he worked and profited from the field for three years.,§ The mishna teaches that if the testimony was given by b three brothers, /b each of whom testified about one year, b and another, /b unrelated individual b joined with /b each of the brothers as the second witness, b these are three /b distinct b testimonies /b and they are accepted by the court. b But they are one testimony for /b the purpose of rendering them as b conspiring /b witnesses. |
|
98. Babylonian Talmud, Bava Qamma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 87| 70b. חלפתא אמר לו,הרי שאכלה שנה ראשונה בפני שנים שניה בפני שנים שלישית בפני שנים מהו,אמר לו הרי זו חזקה אמר לו אף אני אומר כן אלא שרבי עקיבא חולק בדבר שהיה רבי עקיבא אומר (דברים יט, טו) דבר ולא חצי דבר,אמר אביי אפילו תימא רבי עקיבא מי לא מודה רבי עקיבא בשנים אומרים קידש ושנים אומרים בעל,דאע"ג דעדי ביאה צריכי לעדי קדושין כיון דעדי קדושין לא צריכי לעדי ביאה דבר קרינא ביה,ה"נ אע"ג דעדי טביחה צריכי לעדי גניבה כיון דעדי גניבה לא צריכי לעדי טביחה דבר קרינא ביה,ורבנן האי דבר ולא חצי דבר למעוטי מאי למעוטי אחד אומר אחד בגבה ואחד אומר אחד בכריסה,האי חצי דבר וחצי עדות הוא,אלא למעוטי שנים אומרים אחד בגבה ושנים אומרים אחד בכריסה הני אמרי קטנה היא והני אמרי קטנה היא:,גנב ומכר בשבת [וכו']: והתניא פטור,אמר רמי בר חמא כי תניא ההיא דפטור באומר לו עקוץ (לך) תאינה מתאינתי ותיקני לי גניבותיך,אמרי וכיון דכי תבע ליה קמן בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים דמחייב בנפשו הוא הא מכירה נמי לאו מכירה היא,אלא אמר רב פפא באומר לו זרוק גניבותיך לחצרי ותיקני לי גניבותיך,כמאן כר"ע דאמר קלוטה כמי שהונחה דמיא,דאי כרבנן כיון דמטיא לחצר ביתו קנה לענין שבת לא מחייב עד דמטיא לארעא,באומר לא תיקני לי גניבותיך עד שתנוח,רבא אמר לעולם כרמי בר חמא אתנן אסרה תורה ואפילו בא על אמו ואי תבעה ליה קמן בדינא מי אמרינן ליה קום הב לה אתנן,אלא אע"ג דכי קא תבעה ליה בדינא לא אמרינן ליה זיל הב לה כיון דכי יהיב לה הוי אתנן הכא נמי אע"ג דלענין תשלומין אי תבע בדינא קמן לא אמרינן ליה זיל שלים | 70b. b Ḥalafta, /b he b said to him /b the following in the course of their discussion of the i halakhot /i of possession.,If one has been in possession of real estate for three years, this serves as proof of his claim that he is the legal owner. One who is able to prove uninterrupted possession for the necessary period is not required to produce documentary evidence of his legal title to the property. Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri or father Ḥalafta asked: b If /b one harvested and b ate /b the produce of a field that he claims as his own the b first year /b of the three years required for establishing possession of the land b in the presence of two /b witnesses, and subsequently ate the produce of the b second /b year b in the presence of two /b other witnesses, and finally ate the produce of the b third /b year b in the presence of /b yet b two /b other witnesses, b what is /b the i halakha /i ? Can the three testimonies combine to establish full testimony that he ate the produce of three years, thereby confirming his ownership of the field?,Rabbi Ḥalafta b said to /b Rabbi Yoḥa ben Nuri, or vice versa: b This is /b considered to establish b presumptive ownership /b by the one who ate the produce. The other Sage b said to him: I too say /b that this is b so, but Rabbi Akiva disputes /b this b matter, as Rabbi Akiva would say: /b The Torah requires that witnesses must testify with regard to a complete b matter and not part of a matter. /b Since there must be testimony concerning consumption of the produce over three years, and each set of witnesses establishes only that it took place for one year, their separate testimonies do not combine. If so, the mishna is apparently not in accordance with the opinion of Rabbi Akiva.,The Gemara rejects this assertion. b Abaye said: You /b can b even say /b that the mishna is in accordance with the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva. Doesn’t Rabbi Akiva concede /b that b in /b a case where b two /b witnesses b say: /b So-and-so b betrothed /b a certain woman, b and two /b other witnesses b say: /b Someone else subsequently b engaged in sexual intercourse /b with that same woman, this is proof that the act of intercourse was adulterous?,The reason for this is b that even though the witnesses /b testifying about the b intercourse require the witnesses /b who testify about the b betrothal, /b i.e., the testimony of the second set of witnesses is meaningless without the testimony of the first witnesses, nevertheless, b since the witnesses /b testifying about the b betrothal do not require the witnesses /b who testify about the b intercourse, /b i.e., their testimony by itself establishes a halakhic status, b we call /b the testimony of each pair a complete b matter. /b , b Here too, /b the same logic applies in the case of a thief who steals an animal and subsequently slaughters or sells it: b Even though the witnesses /b who testify about the b slaughter require the /b testimony of the b witnesses /b about the b theft /b in order for their testimony to have any halakhic significance, b since the witnesses /b testifying about the b theft do not require the /b testimony of the b witnesses /b who testify about the b slaughter, /b as their testimony alone establishes that person as a thief who is liable to pay the double payment, b we call /b the testimony of each pair a complete b matter. /b ,The Gemara asks: b And /b according to the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who disagree with Rabbi Akiva that the Torah stipulates that testimony must be about b a matter and not half of a matter, /b the term “matter” (Deuteronomy 19:15) serves b to exclude what? /b The Gemara answers: It serves b to exclude /b a case involving testimony that a girl has reached majority, in which b one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair on b her /b lower b back, and one /b witness b says /b that he saw b one /b hair on b her /b lower b abdomen. /b A girl is considered to have reached maturity when she has two pubic hairs. In this case, two witnesses separately testify that they have each seen one hair, and therefore each testimony is halakhically meaningless on its own. The Rabbis derive from the verse that these testimonies do not combine.,The Gemara raises a difficulty: In b this /b case each testimony is obviously invalid, as it is b half a matter and /b also b half a testimony. /b Not only does each testimony refer to one hair, which is half a matter, it is submitted by one witness, which is half a testimony. Consequently, it is obvious that the girl is not considered of age in this case.,The Gemara therefore rejects this explanation. b Rather, /b the Rabbis maintain that the term “matter” serves b to exclude /b a case in which b two /b witnesses b say /b that they saw b one /b hair on a girl’s b back, and two /b other witnesses b say /b that they saw b one /b hair b on her /b lower b abdomen. /b In this case the testimony of either set of witnesses concerns only one hair, and therefore b these /b witnesses b are /b essentially b saying /b that b she is /b still b a minor and those /b witnesses b are saying /b that b she is /b still b a minor. /b Therefore, each testimony concerns only half of a matter.,§ The mishna teaches: If one b stole /b an animal b and sold /b it b on Shabbat, /b he pays the fourfold or fivefold payment. The Gemara asks: b But isn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i that in this case he is b exempt /b from the fourfold or fivefold payment?, b Rami bar Ḥama said: When it is taught /b in b that /b i baraita /i b that /b he is b exempt, /b this is referring to a case b where /b the purchaser b says to /b the thief: b Pick off a fig for yourself from my fig tree /b on Shabbat, b and /b through performing this act b your stolen /b animal shall be b acquired by me. /b Since the act of acquisition of the animal involved the type of Shabbat desecration for which one is liable to receive the death penalty, the thief is exempt from the monetary obligations he would ordinarily incur from this act, i.e., the fourfold or fivefold payment to the animal’s prior owner. This is in accordance with the principle that one who commits two or more transgressions by means of a single act, both of which entail punishment, is exempt from the lesser punishment.,The Sages b say, /b questioning this explanation of the i baraita /i : b But since, if /b the purchaser b would bring a legal claim against /b the thief b before us, /b to force him to deliver the animal acquired by means of picking the fig, the court b would not say to /b the thief: b Go /b and b pay /b him the animal you owe him, b because /b the thief b is liable to /b receive the b death /b penalty for his desecration of Shabbat, this shows that b the sale is not /b a valid b sale /b at all. Therefore, the i baraita /i would not call this exchange a sale and this interpretation of the i baraita /i cannot be correct., b Rather, Rav Pappa said: /b The i baraita /i is discussing a case b where /b the purchaser b said to /b the thief: b Throw your stolen /b animal from the public domain b into my /b enclosed b courtyard, and your stolen /b animal b will /b thereby b be acquired by me. /b One can acquire an item if it is placed on his property. In this case, when the thief places the animal on the purchaser’s property he moves it from the public domain into the private domain, which is a desecration of Shabbat that entails the death penalty. Consequently, he is exempt from the fourfold or fivefold payment.,The Gemara asks: If this is the correct explanation of the i baraita /i , b in accordance with whose /b opinion is the i baraita /i taught? It is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who says: /b An item b in /b the b airspace /b of a certain area b is considered /b as though it were b at rest /b in that area., b As, if /b the i baraita /i is b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who hold that an item in the airspace of a certain area is not considered as though it were at rest in that area, b once /b the animal b reaches the /b airspace b of the courtyard /b of the purchaser’s b house /b he has acquired it, as one can acquire items that are in the airspace of his courtyard just like those on its ground, whereas b with regard to /b moving an item from one domain to another on b Shabbat /b the thief b is not liable /b for Shabbat desecration b until it reaches the ground. /b Since the thief’s monetary liability is not simultaneous with his incurring of the death penalty, he would not be exempt from payment.,The Gemara answers: It is possible that the i baraita /i is in accordance with the opinion of the Rabbis as well, as one can explain that it is speaking of a case b in /b which the purchaser b says /b to the thief: b Your stolen /b animal b shall not be acquired by me until it rests /b on the ground. In that case, the acquisition of the animal and the Shabbat desecration are simultaneous., b Rava said: Actually, /b it is possible to explain the b i baraita /i as Rami bar Ḥama /b did, that the animal was acquired through the picking of a fig on Shabbat. And the objection raised earlier, that this act should not be considered a sale at all, is incorrect. This can be demonstrated by the fact that the b Torah prohibits /b one to bring as an offering an animal given as the b payment /b to a prostitute for services rendered (Deuteronomy 23:19). b And /b this prohibition applies b even /b if the man in question b engaged in intercourse with his own mother, /b which is a capital offense. b But if she /b would bring b a legal claim before us, demanding /b the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee, b would we say to him: Arise and pay her /b the animal? The court would not say this, as the monetary liability was incurred simultaneously with the commission of a capital crime., b Rather, /b one must say that b even though if she /b brings b a legal claim /b against b him demanding /b the payment of the animal that was agreed upon as her fee b we do not say to him: Go and pay her, /b nevertheless, b since if /b he does b give /b it b to her it is /b considered b payment /b to a prostitute, it cannot be used as an offering. b Here too, /b in the case of the acquisition of the animal through picking a fig, b even though with regard to payment, if /b the purchaser would bring b a legal claim before us /b against the thief, b seeking /b to force him to deliver the animal, b we would not say to him: Go pay, /b |
|
99. Babylonian Talmud, Gittin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 84| 2b. לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה,רבא אמר לפי שאין עדים מצויין לקיימו,מאי בינייהו איכא בינייהו דאתיוהו בי תרי אי נמי ממדינה למדינה בארץ ישראל,אי נמי באותה מדינה במדינת הים,ולרבה דאמר לפי שאין בקיאין לשמה ליבעי תרי מידי דהוה אכל עדיות שבתורה עד אחד נאמן באיסורין,אימור דאמרינן עד אחד נאמן באיסורין כגון חתיכה ספק של חלב ספק של שומן דלא איתחזק איסורא,אבל הכא דאיתחזק איסורא דאשת איש הוי דבר שבערוה ואין דבר שבערוה פחות משנים,רוב בקיאין הן ואפילו לר"מ דחייש למיעוטא סתם ספרי דדייני מיגמר גמירי ורבנן הוא דאצרוך והכא | 2b. It is b because /b the people who live overseas b are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake. /b It is not sufficient for a bill of divorce to be written in a technically correct manner. It must also be written for the sake of the man and the woman who are divorcing. Therefore, when the witness comes before the court and says that it was written and signed in his presence, he is testifying that the writing and the signing of the bill of divorce were performed for the sake of the man and woman in question., b Rava says /b a different reason: It is b because there are no witnesses available to ratify it. /b Since the bill of divorce was written in a distant place, it is possible that the husband, or someone else, might later claim that the bill of divorce is a forgery. For this reason the agent must say that the bill of divorce was written and signed in his presence, a declaration that bars any subsequent objection on the part of the husband.,The Gemara asks: b What is /b the difference b between /b these two explanations? The Gemara answers: b There is /b a difference b between them /b with regard to a case b where two /b people b brought /b the bill of divorce. In this case, two witnesses are available to ratify the bill of divorce if someone objects to its validity. b Alternatively, /b the difference concerns a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b from /b one b region to /b another b region within Eretz Yisrael. /b Here there is no concern that the bill of divorce might not have been written for her sake, as the residents of Eretz Yisrael are aware of this requirement. However, witnesses are not necessarily available to confirm the document., b Alternatively, /b there is a difference between the two explanations in a case where the agent brings the bill of divorce b within that /b same b region in a country overseas. /b According to the opinion of Rabba, who says the concern is that the people there might not know that the document must be written for her sake, this problem is equally relevant in this case. However, according to the opinion of Rava, who says that the reason is because witnesses are not available, if the bill of divorce is brought in the same region then the witnesses will be available to ratify it.,The Gemara asks: b And according to /b the opinion of b Rabba, who said /b that the reason is b because they are not experts /b in writing a bill of divorce b for her sake, let us require two /b witnesses to testify about this, b just as is /b the case b with regard to all testimonies in the Torah. /b The Gemara answers: b One witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions. /b In other words, if there is uncertainty as to whether a matter is prohibited or permitted, in the case of the heretofore married woman, the testimony of one witnesses is sufficient.,The Gemara asks: One can b say that we say one witness is deemed credible with regard to prohibitions /b in a case b such as /b where there is b a piece /b of fat, and it is b uncertain /b if it is forbidden b fat /b [ b i ḥelev /i /b ] and b uncertain /b if it is permitted b fat. /b In this situation the piece can be rendered permitted by a single witness, b as there is no presumption /b that it is b forbidden. /b Therefore, as there is an uncertainty, and one witness said it is permitted fat, he is deemed credible., b However, here, where there is a presumption /b that this woman is b forbidden, as /b she is b a married woman, /b a status she retains until it is established that she has received a bill of divorce, if so, this b is a matter of forbidden sexual relations, and /b the general principle is that b there is no matter /b of testimony b for forbidden sexual relations /b that can be attested to by b fewer than two /b witnesses.,The Gemara answers: Rabba’s concern is not equivalent to a case of uncertainty, as b most /b Jewish people b are experts /b in the requirement that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And /b this is so b even according to /b the opinion of b Rabbi Meir, who is /b generally b concerned about a minority /b in a matter of forbidden sexual relations. In this case Rabbi Meir concedes that one need not be concerned for the minority, as b ordinary judicial scribes, /b who write bills of divorce, b are learned /b in this i halakha /i , and know that a bill of divorce must be written for the woman’s sake. b And it is the Sages who required /b testimony about this matter, as an extra precaution. b And here, /b with regard to this testimony, |
|
100. Babylonian Talmud, Hagigah, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 104| 16b. הראשונים היו נשיאים ושניים להם אב ב"ד:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר שלשה מזוגות הראשונים שאמרו שלא לסמוך ושנים מזוגות האחרונים שאמרו לסמוך (הראשונים) היו נשיאים ושניים להם אבות ב"ד דברי רבי מאיר וחכמים אומרים יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד ושמעון בן שטח נשיא,מאן תנא להא דתנו רבנן אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקין שהיו אומרים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנידון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין עדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין משלמין ממון עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הלכה אלא בפני שמעון בן שטח,כל ימיו של יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו הרוג והיה קולו נשמע כסבורין העם לומר שקולו של הרוג הוא אמר להם קולי הוא תדעו שלמחר הוא מת ואין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי ודלמא פיוסי פייסיה או בדינא תבעי',מני הא אי אמרת בשלמא רבי מאיר דאמר שמעון בן שטח אב ב"ד ר"י בן טבאי נשיא היינו דקא מורי הלכה בפני שמעון בן שטח אלא אי אמרת רבנן דאמרי יהודה בן טבאי אב ב"ד שמעון בן שטח נשיא אב ב"ד בפני נשיא מי מורה הלכה,לא מאי קבל עליו דקאמר לאצטרופי דאפי' אצטרופי נמי לא מצטריפנא:,יצא מנחם ונכנס שמאי כו': להיכן יצא אביי אמר יצא לתרבות רעה רבא אמר יצא לעבודת המלך תניא נמי הכי יצא מנחם לעבודת המלך ויצאו עמו שמונים זוגות תלמידים לבושין סיריקון,אמר רב שמן בר אבא א"ר יוחנן לעולם אל תהא שבות קלה בעיניך שהרי סמיכה אינה אלא משום שבות ונחלקו בה גדולי הדור,פשיטא שבות מצוה אצטריכא ליה,הא נמי פשיטא לאפוקי ממאן דאמר בסמיכה גופה פליגי קא משמע לן בשבות הוא דפליגי,אמר רמי בר חמא שמע מינה סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן דאי ס"ד לא בעינן בכל כחו מאי קא עביד ליסמוך,מיתיבי (ויקרא א, ב) דבר אל בני ישראל וסמך בני ישראל סומכין ואין בנות ישראל סומכות רבי יוסי ור' (ישמעאל) [שמעון] אומרים בנות ישראל סומכות רשות,אמר רבי יוסי סח לי אבא אלעזר פעם אחת היה לנו עגל של זבחי שלמים והביאנוהו לעזרת נשים וסמכו עליו נשים לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים אלא כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים ואי ס"ד סמיכה בכל כחו בעינן משום נחת רוח דנשים עבדינן עבודה בקדשים אלא לאו ש"מ לא בעינן בכל כחו,לעולם אימא לך בעינן בכל כחו דאמר להו אקפו ידייכו אי הכי לא מפני שסמיכה בנשים תיפוק ליה דאינה לסמיכה כלל,א"ר אמי חדא ועוד קאמר חדא דליתא לסמיכה כלל ועוד כדי לעשות נחת רוח לנשים,אמר רב פפא שמע מינה צדדין אסורין דאי ס"ד צדדין מותרין לסמוך לצדדין אלא לאו שמע מינה צדדין אסורין | 16b. b The first /b members of each pair b served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i . /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught: Three of the first pairs who say not to place hands and two of the last pairs who say to place hands served as i Nasi /i , and their counterparts /b served as b deputy i Nasi /i ; /b this is b the statement of Rabbi Meir. And the Rabbis say /b the opposite: b Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i and Shimon ben Shataḥ /b was the b i Nasi /i . /b ,The Gemara asks: b Who is the i tanna /i /b who taught b that which the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai said: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if I did not kill a conspiring witness. /b This means that Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai sentenced a conspiring witness to death, in order b to counter the views of the Sadducees, who would say: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless the sentenced one has been executed. /b Their views opposed the traditional view, which maintains that conspiring witnesses are executed only if the one sentenced by their testimony has not yet been executed., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: /b I swear that b I will /b not b see the consolation /b of Israel b if you did not shed innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless they are both found to be conspirators; /b if only one is found to be a conspirator, he is not executed. b And they are not flogged /b if they are liable to such a penalty, b unless they are both found to be conspirators. And /b if they testified falsely that someone owed money, b they do not pay money unless they are both found to be conspirators. /b ,Hearing this, b Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted upon himself not to rule /b on any matter of b law unless he was in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b as he realized he could not rely on his own judgment.,The i baraita /i further relates: b All of Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days, he would prostrate himself on the grave of that executed /b individual, to request forgiveness, b and his voice was heard /b weeping. b The people thought that it was the voice of that executed /b person, rising from his grave. Yehuda ben Tabbai b said to them: It is my voice, /b and b you /b shall b know /b that it is so, b for tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he will die, and his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b Yehuda ben Tabbai was referring to himself, but he did not want to mention something negative about himself in direct terms., b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b This provides no conclusive proof that the voice was not that of the executed man, as b perhaps /b ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed individual in the World-to-Come. b Or, /b alternatively, the latter may have b prosecuted him by the law /b of Heaven, and that is why his voice can no longer be heard.,The Gemara returns to its original question: b Whose /b opinion does b this /b i baraita /i follow? b Granted, if you say /b it is in accordance b with /b that of b Rabbi Meir, /b who b said /b that b Shimon ben Shataḥ was deputy i Nasi /i /b while b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai was i Nasi /i , that /b explains why b he /b had previously b issued a halakhic ruling in the presence of Shimon ben Shataḥ /b to execute the conspiring witness, and only after that unfortunate incident did he undertake to issue rulings only in the presence of his colleague. b But if you say /b that the i baraita /i is in accordance with b the Sages, who said: Yehuda ben Tabbai /b was b deputy i Nasi /i /b and b Shimon ben Shataḥ /b the b i Nasi /i , /b why did he need to make such a commitment? b May /b the b deputy i Nasi /i issue a halakhic ruling in the presence of /b the b i Nasi /i ? /b ,The Gemara refutes this: b No; what /b did he mean by b accepting upon himself /b not to rule on his own? b He spoke /b with regard b to joining /b the ruling of others: b Even /b with regard to b joining /b the ruling of others, b I will also not join /b until I have first heard the view of Shimon ben Shataḥ.,§ It is taught in the mishna: b Menaḥem departed and Shammai entered. /b The Gemara asks: b To where did /b Menaḥem b depart? Abaye said: He departed and went astray. /b Therefore, the mishna did not wish to delve into the details of his case. b Rava said: He departed for the king’s service. /b He received a post from the king and had to leave the court. b This is also taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Menaḥem departed for the king’s service, and eighty pairs of students dressed in silk robes left with him /b to work for the king, and that they no longer studied Torah.,§ b Rav Shemen bar Abba said /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa said: A rabbinic decree [ i shevut /i ] should never be taken lightly in your eyes, since placing hands /b on the head of an offering on a Festival b is prohibited only as a rabbinic decree /b because it is considered making use of an animal, which is not considered a prohibited labor but merely resembles one, and yet b the greatest /b scholars b of each generation disputed it. /b ,The Gemara is puzzled by this statement: This b is obvious. /b Since it is an accepted rabbinic decree, why should people take it lightly? The Gemara answers: It was b necessary for him /b to state it because it is b a rabbinic decree related to a mitzva. /b In other words, although this rabbinic decree of placing the hands on an animal is not performed for one’s own sake but for the purpose of a mitzva, it was nevertheless a serious matter in the eyes of the Sages.,The Gemara remains puzzled: b This too is obvious. /b In that case as well, the act is prohibited by the Sages. The Gemara responds: Rabbi Yoḥa’s statement comes b to exclude /b the opinion b of the one who said /b that b they disagree with regard to the actual /b obligation of b placing hands, /b i.e., whether or not obligatory peace-offerings require placing the hands. b He /b therefore b teaches us /b that b it is a rabbinic decree /b that is the subject b of their dispute, /b not the requirement itself., b Rami bar Ḥama said: /b You can b learn from here, /b from this dispute, that the mitzva of b placing hands /b requires not only placing one’s hands on the animal’s head, but b we also require /b that one places his hands b with all his strength. For if it enters your mind /b that b we do not require all his strength, what /b prohibition b does one violate /b by placing his hands? b Let him place /b them on a Festival as well, as this does not resemble a prohibited action at all., b The Gemara raises an objection /b to this from a i baraita /i : b “Speak to the children of [ i benei /i ] Israel” /b (Leviticus 1:2). The word i benei /i literally means: Sons of. And it states nearby: b “And he shall place /b his hand on the head of the burnt-offering” (Leviticus 1:4), from which we learn that b the sons of Israel place /b their hands, b but the daughters of Israel do not place /b them. b Rabbi Yosei and Rabbi Yishmael say: It is optional for the daughters of Israel to place /b their hands. They may place their hands if they so choose, although they are not obligated to do so., b Rabbi Yosei said: /b The Sage b Abba Elazar related to me /b the following incident: b On one occasion, we had a calf for a peace-offering, and we brought it to the Women’s Courtyard, and women placed /b their hands b on it. /b We did this b not because there /b is an obligation of b placing hands in /b the case of b women, but in order to please the women, /b by allowing them to sacrifice an offering, in all of its particulars, as men do. Now, b if it enters your mind /b that b we require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b would b we perform work with consecrated /b offerings b in order to please /b the b women? /b Placing one’s hands forcefully on an animal is considered performing work with it, and if one does it without being obligated to do so, he has thereby performed work with an offering. b Rather, isn’t it /b correct to b conclude from this /b that b we do not require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength? /b ,The Gemara rejects this: b Actually, I /b could b say to you /b that b we do require /b placing hands b with all one’s strength, /b but here they allowed women to place their hands b by saying to them: Ease your hands /b and do not press forcefully, so that their hand placing should not constitute work. The Gemara retorts: b If so, /b then the reason formulated as: b Not because there /b is an obligation to b place hands in /b the case of b women, /b is irrelevant to this law. b Let him derive /b the permission for women to do so from the reason that b it is not /b considered b placing hands at all. /b If placing hands must be performed with all one’s strength, this action the women are performing does not constitute placing hands., b Rabbi Ami said: He stated one /b reason b and another. One /b reason is b that it is not /b considered b placing hands at all, /b as it is not performed with all of one’s strength; b and another /b reason is that they allowed it b in order to please the women. /b , b Rav Pappa said: Learn from this /b that anything upon which one may not place objects or upon which one may not sit on Shabbat, its b sides are /b likewise b prohibited, for if it enters your mind /b to say that the b sides are permitted, /b they could have told the women b to place /b their hands b on the sides, /b i.e., on the head of the animal rather than on its back, as the head of the animal is considered as if it were one of its sides. b Rather, /b must one b not conclude from this /b that the b sides are prohibited? /b |
|
101. Babylonian Talmud, Hulin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 59| 24b. (דברי הימים ב ה, יג) ויהי כאחד למחצצרים ולמשוררים להשמיע קול אחד:,עד שיזקין עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר ר' חנינא עד שירתת,תנן התם בעל קרי שטבל ולא הטיל מים לכשיטיל טמא ר' יוסי אומר בחולה ובזקן טמא בילד ובבריא טהור,ילד עד כמה אמר רבי אלעא אמר רבי חנינא כל שעומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמרו עליו על רבי חנינא שהיה בן שמונים שנה והיה עומד על רגלו אחת וחולץ מנעלו ונועל מנעלו אמר רבי חנינא חמין ושמן שסכתני אמי בילדותי הן עמדו לי בעת זקנותי,ת"ר נתמלא זקנו ראוי ליעשות שליח ציבור ולירד לפני התיבה ולישא את כפיו מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות רבי אומר אומר אני עד שיהא בן עשרים,א"ר חסדא מ"ט דרבי דכתיב (עזרא ג, ח) ויעמידו [את] הלוים מבן עשרים שנה ומעלה לנצח על מלאכת בית ה' ואידך לנצח שאני,והא האי קרא בלוים כתיב כדר' יהושע בן לוי דאמר רבי יהושע בן לוי בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהן (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ת"ר (ויקרא כא, יז) איש מזרעך לדורותם מכאן אמר רבי אלעזר קטן פסול לעבודה ואפי' תם מאימתי כשר לעבודה משיביא שתי שערות אבל אחיו הכהנים אין מניחין אותו לעבוד עד שיהא בן כ',איכא דאמרי הא רבי היא ואפי' פסול דרבנן לית ליה ואיכא דאמרי רבי אית ליה פסול מדרבנן והא רבנן היא ולכתחלה הוא דלא אבל דיעבד עבודתו כשרה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big ת"ר אויר כלי חרש טמא וגבו טהור אויר כל הכלים טהור וגבן טמא נמצא טהור בכלי חרש טמא בכל הכלים טהור בכל הכלים טמא בכלי חרש,מנהני מילי דת"ר תוכו ואע"פ שלא נגע,אתה אומר אע"פ שלא נגע או אינו אלא אם כן נגע רבי יונתן בן אבטולמוס אומר נאמר (ויקרא יא, לג) תוכו לטמא ונאמר תוכו ליטמא מה תוכו האמור לטמא אע"פ שלא נגע אף תוכו האמור ליטמא אע"פ שלא נגע,והתם מנלן אמר רבי יונתן התורה העידה על כלי חרס | 24b. b “It came to pass, when the trumpeters and singers were as one, to make one sound to be heard” /b (II Chronicles 5:13). This indicates that the Levites must be capable of singing in one voice, and one who is unable to do so is unfit for service.,The i baraita /i teaches that the priest is eligible for service b until he ages. /b The Gemara asks: b Until when, /b i.e., what is the definition of aging in this context? b Rabbi Ela says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Until /b his hands and feet begin to b tremble. /b , b We learned /b in a mishna b there /b ( i Mikvaot /i 8:4): With regard to b one who experienced a seminal emission who /b then b immersed /b in a ritual bath b and did not urinate /b before immersing, b when he urinates he is ritually impure, /b because residue of the semen remain in his body and was discharged with the urine, rendering him impure. b Rabbi Yosei says: In /b the case of b an ill /b person b and an elderly /b person, he is b ritually impure; in /b the case of b a young /b person b and a healthy /b person, he is b ritually pure, /b as the semen was presumably discharged in its entirety at the outset., b Until when /b is one considered b a young /b person? b Rabbi Ela says /b that b Rabbi Ḥanina says: Anyone who /b is able to b stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe /b is considered young. b They said about Rabbi Ḥanina that he was eighty years old and would stand on one of his legs and remove his shoe or put on his shoe. Rabbi Ḥanina says: /b The b hot water and oil that my mother smeared on me in my youth benefited me in my old age. /b , b The Sages taught: /b If b one’s beard /b is b fully /b grown, b he is fit to be appointed an emissary of the community /b for various matters, b and to descend before the ark /b as a prayer leader, b and to lift his hands /b for the Priestly Benediction. b From when /b is a priest b fit for /b Temple b service? /b It is b from /b the time he reaches puberty and b grows two /b pubic b hairs. Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b says: I say /b that he is not fit for Temple service b until he is twenty /b years of b age. /b , b Rav Ḥisda said: What is the reason /b for the opinion b of Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi? The reason is b as it is written: “And appointed the Levites, from twenty years old and upward, to oversee of the work of the House of the Lord” /b (Ezra 3:8). b And /b what does b the other /b i tanna /i hold? He holds that b to oversee is different /b and requires an older priest.,The Gemara asks: b But /b what proof can be cited from this verse with regard to priests; b isn’t that verse written with regard to Levites? /b The Gemara answers: It is understood b in accordance with /b the statement b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi says: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15). The verse in Ezra is another one of the verses., b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i with regard to the verse: b “Any man of your descendants throughout their generations /b that has a blemish shall not approach to offer the bread of his God” (Leviticus 21:17); b from here Rabbi Elazar says: A minor /b priest is b unfit for /b Temple b service, even /b if he is b unblemished, /b as he is not a man. b From when /b is b he fit for service? From /b the time he reaches puberty and b grows two /b pubic b hairs. But his brethren the priests do not allow him to perform the service until he is twenty /b years of b age. /b , b There are /b those b who say: This is /b the opinion of b Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi, b and he is /b of the opinion that there is b no disqualification /b for one between puberty and twenty years of age b even by rabbinic law. /b The other priests simply do not allow priests of that age to perform the Temple service i ab initio /i . b And there are /b those b who say: Rabbi /b Yehuda HaNasi b is of /b the opinion that there is b disqualification by rabbinic law /b in that case, b and this /b statement in the i baraita /i b is /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, and /b they hold that b it is i ab initio /i that /b one may b not /b perform the service, b but after the fact, his service is valid. /b , strong MISHNA: /strong That which is b ritually pure in an earthenware vessel /b is b ritually impure in all the /b other types of b vessels; /b that which is b ritually pure in all the /b other types of b vessels /b is b ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b The Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i explaining the mishna: If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the b airspace of an earthenware vessel /b the vessel is b ritually impure, and /b if it fell on b its outer side, /b the vessel is b ritually pure. /b If a primary source of ritual impurity fell into the b airspace of all the /b other types of b vessels, /b the vessels are b ritually pure, and /b if it fell on b their outer side, /b they are b ritually impure. It is found /b that that which is b ritually pure in an earthenware vessel /b is b ritually impure in all the /b other b vessels, /b and that which is b ritually pure in all the /b other b vessels /b is b ritually impure in an earthenware vessel. /b ,The Gemara asks: b From where are these matters /b derived? It is b as the Sages taught /b in a i baraita /i based on the verse: “And every earthenware vessel into which [ i tokho /i ] any of them falls, whatever is in it [ i tokho /i ] shall be impure, and it you shall break” (Leviticus 11:33); if an impure item fell b “in it [ i tokho /i ],” and even /b in a case b where /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, the vessel becomes impure.,The i baraita /i continues: b Do you say /b that it is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, b or /b perhaps b it is /b impure b only if it did come into contact /b with the vessel? b Rabbi Yonatan ben Avtolemos says: i Tokho /i is stated /b with regard b to transmitting impurity /b to food in its airspace, as it is stated: “Whatever is in it [ i tokho /i ] shall be impure,” b and i tokho /i is stated /b with regard b to becoming impure, /b as it is stated: “Into which [ i tokho /i ] any of them falls”; b just as /b in the case of b i tokho /i that is stated /b with regard b to transmitting impurity /b to food in its airspace, the food is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with the vessel, b so too, /b in the case of b i tokho /i that is stated /b with regard b to /b the vessel b becoming impure, /b the vessel is impure b even if /b the impure item b did not come into contact /b with it.,The Gemara asks: b And there, /b with regard to rendering food impure in its airspace, b from where do we /b derive that the food becomes impure even if it did not come into contact with the impure vessel? b Rabbi Yonatan said: The Torah testified about an earthenware vessel /b |
|
102. Babylonian Talmud, Ketuvot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period 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 |
|
103. Babylonian Talmud, Makkot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 104| 5b. אי איסטטית היא זו אפי' כת ראשונה נמי לא אמר ר' אבהו שקדמו והרגו,מאי דהוה הוה אלא אמר רבא הכי קאמר אם אינה אלא כת אחת נהרגת אי איכא טפי אין נהרגין הא בלבד קאמר קשיא,ההיא איתתא דאתאי סהדי ואישתקור אייתי סהדי ואישתקור אזלה אייתי סהדי אחריני דלא אישתקור אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל ר' אלעזר אם היא הוחזקה כל ישראל מי הוחזקו,זימנין הוו יתבי קמיה דרבי יוחנן אתא כי האי מעשה לקמייהו אמר ריש לקיש הוחזקה זו א"ל רבי יוחנן אם הוחזקה זו כל ישראל מי הוחזקו הדר חזיה לרבי אלעזר בישות אמר ליה שמעת מילי מבר נפחא ולא אמרת לי משמיה,לימא ריש לקיש דאמר כרבי יהודה ורבי יוחנן דאמר כרבנן,אמר לך ריש לקיש אנא דאמרי לך אפי' לרבנן עד כאן לא קא אמרי רבנן התם דליכא דקא מהדר אבל הכא איכא הא דקא מהדרא,ורבי יוחנן אמר לך אנא דאמרי אפי' לרבי יהודה עד כאן לא קאמר רבי יהודה התם דאמרינן אטו כולי עלמא גבי הני הוו קיימי אבל הכא הני ידעי בסהדותא והני לא ידעי בסהדותא:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין שהרי הצדוקין אומרים עד שיהרג שנאמר (שמות כא, כג) נפש תחת נפש,אמרו להם חכמים והלא כבר נאמר (דברים יט, יט) ועשיתם לו כאשר זמם לעשות לאחיו והרי אחיו קיים ואם כן למה נאמר נפש תחת נפש יכול משעה שקבלו עדותן יהרגו תלמוד לומר נפש תחת נפש הא אינן נהרגין עד שיגמר הדין:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא בריבי אומר לא הרגו נהרגין הרגו אין נהרגין אמר אביו בני לאו קל וחומר הוא,אמר לו לימדתנו רבינו שאין עונשין מן הדין דתניא (ויקרא כ, יז) איש אשר יקח [את] אחותו בת אביו או בת אמו אין לי אלא בת אביו שלא בת אמו ובת אמו שלא בת אביו בת אמו ובת אביו מנין ת"ל ערות אחותו גילה,עד שלא יאמר יש לי בדין אם ענש על בת אביו שלא בת אמו ובת אמו שלא בת אביו בת אביו ובת אמו לא כל שכן הא למדת שאין עונשין מן הדין,עונש שמענו אזהרה מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, ט) ערות אחותך בת אביך או בת אמך אין לי אלא בת אביו שלא בת אמו ובת אמו שלא בת אביו בת אביו ובת אמו מנין תלמוד לומר (ויקרא יח, יא) ערות בת אשת אביך מולדת אביך אחותך היא,עד שלא יאמר יש לי מן הדין מה אם הוזהר על בת אמו שלא בת אביו ובת אביו שלא בת אמו בת אביו ובת אמו לא כל שכן הא למדת שאין מזהירין מן הדין,חייבי מלקיות מנין תלמוד לומר רשע רשע,חייבי גליות מנין אתיא רוצח רוצח,תניא אמר רבי יהודה בן טבאי אראה בנחמה אם לא הרגתי עד זומם להוציא מלבן של צדוקים שהיו אומרים אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיהרג הנדון,אמר לו שמעון בן שטח אראה בנחמה אם לא שפכת דם נקי שהרי אמרו חכמים אין העדים זוממין נהרגין עד שיזומו שניהם ואין לוקין עד שיזומו שניהם,מיד קבל עליו ר' יהודה בן טבאי שאינו מורה הוראה אלא לפני שמעון בן שטח וכל ימיו של ר' יהודה בן טבאי היה משתטח על קברו של אותו העד והיה קולו נשמע וכסבורין העם לומר קולו של הרוג אמר קולי שלי הוא תדעו למחר הוא מת אין קולו נשמע,אמר ליה רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי דלמא בדינא קם בהדיה אי נמי פיוסי פייסיה:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big (דברים יז, ו) על פי שנים עדים או שלשה עדים יומת המת אם מתקיימת העדות בשנים למה פרט הכתוב בשלשה אלא להקיש (שלשה לשנים) מה שלשה מזימין את השנים אף השנים יזומו את הג' ומנין אפי' מאה ת"ל עדים,ר' שמעון אומר מה שנים אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שניהם זוממין אף שלשה אינן נהרגין עד שיהיו שלשתן זוממין ומנין אפי' מאה ת"ל עדים,רבי עקיבא אומר לא בא השלישי להקל אלא להחמיר עליו ולעשות דינו כיוצא באלו,ואם כן ענש הכתוב לנטפל לעוברי עבירה כעוברי עבירה על אחת כמה וכמה ישלם שכר לנטפל לעושי מצוה כעושי מצוה,ומה שנים נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה אף שלשה נמצא אחד מהן קרוב או פסול עדותן בטלה מנין אפי' מאה ת"ל עדים | 5b. The Gemara asks: b If /b Rabbi Yehuda states that b this /b situation b is a conspiracy, /b and there is suspicion that the second set is not truthful, let b even /b the b first set /b of witnesses who were rendered conspiring witnesses based on their testimony b also not /b be executed. b Rabbi Abbahu said: /b The mishna is referring to a case b where /b the judges b already executed /b the first set of witnesses. Rabbi Yehuda is saying that no witnesses are executed other than the first set of witnesses, who were already executed.,The Gemara challenges: If so, b what was, /b already b was; /b there is no point in stating it as a i halakha /i . b Rather, Rava said this /b is what Rabbi Yehuda b is saying: If it is only one set /b of witnesses that is rendered conspiring witnesses by the second set, the witnesses b are executed; if there is more /b than one set b they are not executed /b at all. The Gemara asks: b But doesn’t /b Rabbi Yehuda b say: /b It is only the first set b alone /b that is executed? This indicates that contrary to Rava’s explanation, it is a case involving more than one set of witnesses. The Gemara notes: Indeed, this matter is b difficult. /b ,Apropos the dispute in the mishna, the Gemara relates: There was b a certain woman who brought witnesses /b to testify on her behalf, b and they were /b proven to be b liars. She brought /b other b witnesses, and they /b too b were /b proven to be b liars. She went /b and b brought /b yet b other witnesses, who were not /b proven to be b liars. /b There is an amoraic dispute whether the testimony of the third set of witnesses is accepted. b Reish Lakish said: This /b woman b has assumed the presumptive status /b of dishonesty because of her repeated reliance on false witnesses; therefore, the testimony of the third set is rejected. b Rabbi Elazar said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status /b of dishonesty, b has the entire Jewish people assumed /b that b presumptive status? /b Why assume that these witnesses are dishonest?,The Gemara relates: On another b occasion, /b Reish Lakish and Rabbi Elazar b were sitting before Rabbi Yoḥa /b and b an incident similar to this /b one b came before them /b for judgment. b Reish Lakish said: This /b woman b has assumed the presumptive status /b of dishonesty. b Rabbi Yoḥa said to him: If she has assumed the presumptive status /b of dishonesty, b has the entire Jewish people assumed /b that b presumptive status? /b When Reish Lakish heard Rabbi Yoḥa respond in a manner identical to the earlier response of Rabbi Elazar, b he turned /b his head and b glared angrily at Rabbi Elazar, /b and b he said to him: You heard /b this b matter from bar Nappaḥa, /b i.e., Rabbi Yoḥa, b and you did not say /b it b to me in his name? /b Had I known that you were stating Rabbi Yoḥa’s opinion I would have accepted it.,The Gemara suggests: b Let us say /b that b Reish Lakish stated /b his opinion that this woman has assumed the presumptive status of dishonesty b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who invalidates the testimony of witnesses based on suspicion that arises due to the circumstances even though there is no proof that they lied. b And Rabbi Yoḥa stated /b his opinion b in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b who do not invalidate testimony based on unsubstantiated suspicion.,The Gemara rejects this suggestion: b Reish Lakish /b could b say to you: I state /b my opinion b even in accordance with /b the opinion of b the Rabbis, /b as b the Rabbis say /b that one relies on witnesses who render multiple sets of witnesses conspiring witnesses b only there, /b in the mishna, in a case b where there is no one who is seeking /b to hire witnesses to testify on his behalf, and one could assert that their testimony is true. b But here, there is this /b woman b who is seeking /b to hire witnesses to testify on her behalf, which arouses suspicion that she hired them to lie on her behalf., b And Rabbi Yoḥa /b could b say to you: I state /b my opinion b even in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Yehuda, /b as b Rabbi Yehuda says /b that the testimony of the second set is invalid based on unsubstantiated suspicion b only there, /b in the mishna, where circumstances exacerbate the suspicion that they are lying, b as we say: Is that to say /b that b everyone, /b the numerous sets of witnesses, b was standing near these /b witnesses who testify in order to render them conspiring witnesses? b But here, /b perhaps b these /b witnesses who came last and were not proven to be liars b know /b the content b of the testimony, and these /b witnesses who were proven to be liars b do not know /b the content b of the testimony. /b The fact that the testimony of the first sets of witnesses was rendered void has no bearing on the status of other witnesses., strong MISHNA: /strong b The conspiring witnesses are executed only /b if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after b the verdict /b of the accused b is concluded. /b This is in contrast to the opinion of the Sadducees, b as the Sadducees say: /b Conspiring witnesses are executed b only /b if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused b is killed /b on the basis of their testimony, b as it is stated: “A life for a life” /b (Exodus 21:23; see Deuteronomy 19:21)., b The Rabbis said to /b the Sadducees: b But wasn’t it already stated: “And you shall do to him as he conspired to do to his brother” /b (Deuteronomy 19:19), b and /b this latter verse indicates that b his /b accused b brother is alive? And if so, why is it stated: “A life for a life”? /b One b might /b have thought that if they are rendered conspiring witnesses b from the moment /b the judges b accepted their testimony /b in court, b they will be executed, /b even though no verdict was concluded. Therefore, b the verse states: “A life for a life,” /b teaching that b they are executed only /b if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after b the verdict /b of the accused b will be concluded, /b from the moment that the court is on the verge of taking his life., strong GEMARA: /strong It is b taught /b with regard to the i halakha /i in the mishna that a Sage referred to as b the Distinguished /b [ b i Beribbi /i /b ] b says: /b If the conspiring witnesses have b not /b yet b killed /b the accused with their testimony b they are executed, /b but if b they killed /b the accused with their testimony b they are not executed. The father of /b that Sage, who was also a prominent Sage, b said /b to him: b My son, is /b this matter b not /b derived through b an i a fortiori /i /b inference? If, when they were unsuccessful in their attempt to kill the accused they are executed, all the more so if they were successful in killing him should they be executed., b He said to /b his father: b You have taught us, our teacher, that one does not administer punishment /b based b on /b an i a fortiori /i b inference. /b The punishment must be stated in the Torah. b As it is taught /b in a i baraita /i that among the relatives with whom engaging in intercourse is forbidden it states: b “A man who takes his sister, the daughter of his father or the daughter of his mother” /b (Leviticus 20:17): b I have /b derived b only the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where /b is it derived that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both b the daughter of his mother and the daughter of his father? /b It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: “He has uncovered the nakedness of his sister” /b (Leviticus 20:17), indicating that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with any sister.,The i baraita /i continues: Even b if /b the verse b had not stated /b that one is liable for engaging in intercourse with his sister, i.e., one’s sister with whom he has both parents in common, b I have /b proof b from /b an i a fortiori /i b inference: If /b the Torah b punished /b an individual for engaging in intercourse b with the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or /b for engaging in intercourse with b the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, /b is it b not all the more so /b clear that he should be punished for engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both b the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? /b From the fact that the Torah explicitly prohibited intercourse in that case and did not rely on the inference, b you learn that one does not administer punishment /b based b on /b an i a fortiori /i b inference. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b We heard /b from that verse (Leviticus 20:17) the b punishment /b for engaging in intercourse with one’s sister with whom he has both parents in common. b From where /b is the b prohibition /b against engaging in those acts of intercourse derived? It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: “The nakedness of your sister, the daughter of your father or the daughter of your mother… /b you shall not uncover” (Leviticus 18:9). b I have /b derived the prohibition against engaging in intercourse b only /b with b the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, or /b with b the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father. From where /b do I derive a prohibition against engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both b the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? /b It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: “The nakedness of the daughter of your father’s wife, born of your father; she is your sister” /b (Leviticus 18:11), indicating that engaging in intercourse with any sister is prohibited.,The i baraita /i continues: Even b if /b the verse b had not stated /b that engaging in intercourse with one’s sister with whom he has both parents in common is forbidden, b I have /b proof for this b from /b an i a fortiori /i b inference: If one was prohibited /b from engaging in intercourse b with the daughter of his mother who is not the daughter of his father, and /b with b the daughter of his father who is not the daughter of his mother, /b is it b not all the more so /b clear that he is prohibited from engaging in intercourse with his sister who is both b the daughter of his father and the daughter of his mother? You learn /b from this b that one does not /b derive b a prohibition /b based b on /b an i a fortiori /i b inference. /b ,The i baraita /i continues: b From where /b is it derived that one does not administer punishment to b those liable /b to receive b lashes /b based on an i a fortiori /i inference, and that the principle is not limited to capital punishment? b The verse states /b a verbal analogy between the term “wicked” written with regard to those liable to be executed and the term “wicked” written with regard to those liable to receive lashes. With regard to those liable to be executed, it is written: “Who is b wicked /b and deserves to die” (Numbers 35:31). With regard to those liable to receive lashes, it is written: “And it shall be if the b wicked /b is deserving of lashes” (Deuteronomy 25:2)., b From where /b is it derived that one does not administer punishment to b those liable to be exiled /b based on an i a fortiori /i inference? It is b derived /b by means of a verbal analogy between the term b “murderer” /b written with regard to those who kill intentionally (see Numbers 35:21) and the term b “murderer” /b written with regard to those who kill unwittingly (see Numbers 35:11). The conclusion is that one does not administer any punishment based on an i a fortiori /i inference.,§ Apropos the dispute between the Sadducees and the Sages, b it is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai says /b in the form of an oath: b I will /b not b see the /b future b consolation /b of the Jewish people b if I did not /b as a member of the court b kill /b a single b conspiring witness, /b in order b to eradicate /b this reasoning b from the hearts of the Sadducees, who would say: The conspiring witnesses are executed only /b if they are rendered conspiring witnesses after the accused b will be killed. /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai killed the conspiring witness while the accused remained alive., b Shimon ben Shataḥ said to him: I will /b not b see the consolation /b of the Jewish people b if you did not shed /b thereby b innocent blood, as the Sages said: Conspiring witnesses are not executed unless both of them are rendered conspiring /b witnesses, b and they are not flogged unless both of them are rendered conspiring /b witnesses. In this case, only one was rendered a conspiring witness., b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai immediately accepted /b a commitment b upon himself that he would issue a halakhic ruling only /b when he was b before Shimon ben Shataḥ, /b to avoid mistakes in the future. b And /b throughout b all of Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai’s days he would /b tearfully b prostrate himself on the grave of that witness /b whom he executed, to request forgiveness for having done so, b and his voice was heard /b from a distance. b And the people thought to say /b that it was b the voice of /b the b executed /b witness that was heard. Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai b said /b to them: b It is my voice. Know /b that this is so, as b tomorrow, /b i.e., sometime in the future, b he, /b referring to himself, b will die, /b and b his voice will no /b longer b be heard. /b , b Rav Aḥa, son of Rava, said to Rav Ashi: /b The fact that the voice will cease after Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai’s death is inconclusive as proof that the voice is not that of the executed witness. b Perhaps /b the reason that the voice of the executed person will no longer be heard is that b he confronted /b Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai b in trial /b before the heavenly court, obviating the need for crying from his grave. b Alternatively, /b perhaps Rabbi Yehuda ben Tabbai b appeased /b the executed witness in the World-to-Come, and there is silence because no grievances remained., strong MISHNA: /strong It is written: b “At the mouth of two witnesses or three witnesses shall he who is to die be executed” /b (Deuteronomy 17:6). The question is: b If the testimony is valid with two /b witnesses, b why did the verse specify /b that it is valid b with three? Rather, /b it is b to juxtapose /b and liken b three to two: Just as three /b witnesses b can render the two /b witnesses b conspiring /b witnesses, b so too, the two /b witnesses b can render the three /b wit-nesses b conspiring /b witnesses. b And from where /b is it derived that two witnesses can render b even one hundred /b witnesses conspiring witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: /b “Three b witnesses.” /b Since the verse is obviously discussing witnesses, the term witnesses is superfluous, as it could have stated: Two or three. The term “witnesses” teaches that two witnesses can render a set of witnesses conspiring witnesses irrespective of their number., b Rabbi Shimon says /b that three witnesses are mentioned in the verse in order to teach: b Just as two /b witnesses who testified that a person is liable to be executed b are not killed /b for this testimony b unless both of them are /b found to be b conspiring /b witnesses, b so too, three /b witnesses who testified together b are not killed unless /b all b three of them are /b found to be b conspiring /b witnesses. b And from where /b is it derived that the same i halakha /i applies b even /b to b one hundred /b witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: /b “Three b witnesses.” /b The superfluous term “witnesses” teaches that the status of all witnesses who come to court as a single set of witnesses is that of one testimony with regard to this i halakha /i ., b Rabbi Akiva says: The third /b witness mentioned in this verse b does not come /b for the judges b to be lenient /b concerning him; b rather, /b its mention comes for the judges b to be stringent concerning him and to render his halakhic status like /b that of b these /b two witnesses who testified with him. One could claim that since the testimony of the third witness is superfluous, as the testimony of the other two witnesses sufficed, the third witness and any other witnesses beyond the first two should be exempt. Therefore, the verse teaches that since he testified with them and was rendered a conspiring witness with them, he too is executed.,One can learn a moral from this i halakha /i : b And if the verse punished one who associates with transgressors /b with a punishment b like /b the one received by the b transgressors, /b even though his role in the transgression is ancillary, b all the more so will /b God b pay a reward to one who associates with those who perform a mitzva like /b the reward of those b who perform /b the b mitzva /b themselves, even though his role in performing the mitzva is ancillary.,The mishna cites another derivation based on the juxtaposition of two to three: b And just as /b with regard to b two /b witnesses, if b one of them is found /b to be b a relative or /b is otherwise b disqualified, their /b entire b testimony is voided, /b as it is no longer the testimony of two witnesses, b so too, /b with regard to b three /b witnesses who came to testify as one set, if b one of them is found /b to be b a relative or /b is otherwise b disqualified, their /b entire b testimony is voided, /b even though two valid witnesses remain. b From where /b is it derived that the same i halakha /i applies b even /b in the case of b one hundred /b witnesses? It is derived from a verse, as b the verse states: “Witnesses.” /b |
|
104. Babylonian Talmud, Nedarim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 138| 14b. תניא הנודר בתורה לא אמר כלום במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין,קתני במה שכתוב בה דבריו קיימין בה ובמה שכתוב בה צריך למימר,אמר רב נחמן לא קשיא הא דמחתא אורייתא אארעא הא דנקיט לה בידיה מחתא על ארעא דעתיה אגווילי נקט לה בידיה דעתיה על האזכרות שבה,ואיבעית אימא דמחתא על ארעא והא קא משמע לן דאף על גב דמחתא על ארעא כיוון דאמר במה שכתוב בה מהני וזו ואין צריך לומר זו קתני,ואי בעית אימא כולה מציעתא נמי דנקיט ליה בידיה והא קא משמע לן כיוון דנקיט ליה בידיה אף על גב דלא אמר אלא בה כמאן דאמר במה שכתוב בה דמי:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big קונם שאני ישן שאני מדבר שאני מהלך האומר לאשה קונם שאני משמשך הרי זה בלא יחל דברו:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big איתמר קונם עיני בשינה היום אם אישן למחר אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אל יישן היום שמא יישן למחר ורב נחמן אמר יישן היום ולא חיישינן שמא יישן למחר ומודה רב יהודה באומר קונם עיני בשינה למחר אם אישן היום שישן היום | 14b. § b It is taught /b in a i baraita /i : b One who takes a vow /b by associating an item b with a Torah /b scroll b has not said anything, /b and the vow does not take effect. However, he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. /b Since the name of God is written in the Torah, he has invoked God’s name in his vow. If he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it, his statement is upheld. /b ,The Gemara asks: b It is taught /b that if he associates the item b with what is written in /b the Torah scroll, b his statement is upheld. Need it be said /b that the i halakha /i is the same if he associates the item b with it and with what is written in it? /b That is obvious., b Rav Naḥman said: /b This is b not difficult. This /b case, in which the item is associated with it and with what is written in it, is referring to b where the Torah /b scroll b is placed on the ground, /b while b that /b case, in which the item is associated with what is written in it, is referring to b where he is holding it in his hands. /b If b it is placed on the ground, /b whether one mentions the Torah scroll or what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the parchment, /b i.e., the physical scroll, as he naturally assumes that since the scroll is placed on the ground, the parchment must be blank. Therefore, the vow takes effect only if he mentions both it and what is written in it, indicating that he is aware that it is a Torah scroll. However, where b he is holding it in his hands /b and associates the item with what is written in it, b his thoughts are concerning the mentions [ i azkarot /i ] /b of the name of God b that are in it, /b and the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that the entire i baraita /i is referring to a case b where it is placed on the ground, and this /b middle clause of: With what is written in the Torah scroll, b teaches us that even though it is placed on the ground, since he said: With what is written in it, it is /b an b effective /b vow, as he was clearly referring to the names of God. b And /b the i tanna /i of the i baraita /i b teaches /b employing the style: b This, and it is unnecessary to say that. /b The i baraita /i teaches the i halakha /i where he said: What is written in it, which has a novel element, and then states a more obvious ruling, i.e., it goes without saying that if he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, the vow takes effect., b And if you wish, say /b instead that b the entire middle clause, /b i.e., the latter clause, where he associates the item with it and with what is written in it, is referring to a case b where he is holding /b the Torah scroll b in his hands. And /b the i baraita /i b teaches us this: Since he is holding it in his hands, even though he said only: With /b the Torah scroll, and did not explicitly state: With what is written in it, he is b considered /b to be b like one who said: With what is written in it. /b Therefore, the item is prohibited., strong MISHNA: /strong With regard to one who says: b Sleeping is /b forbidden b for me as if /b it were b an offering [ i konam /i ], /b thereby prohibiting himself from sleeping; or: b Speaking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or: b Walking is /b i konam /i b for me; /b or b one who says to his wife: Engaging in sexual intercourse with you is i konam /i for me, /b if he violates the vow b he is in /b violation of the prohibition b “He shall not profane his word” /b (Numbers 30:3)., strong GEMARA: /strong b It was stated /b that with regard to one who says: b Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes today if I will sleep tomorrow, Rav Yehuda said /b that b Rav said: He may not sleep today, lest he sleep tomorrow /b and thereby cause the vow to have been violated today, retroactively. b And Rav Naḥman said: He may sleep today, /b as there is currently no prohibition, b and we are not concerned that he will perhaps sleep tomorrow, /b as he will be careful not to sleep. b And Rav Yehuda concedes /b that b in /b a case where b he says: Sleeping is i konam /i for my eyes tomorrow if I sleep today, he may sleep today. /b |
|
105. Babylonian Talmud, Pesahim, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103| 113b. תני תנא קמיה דרבא ורב ספרא צהבו פניו דרב ספרא אמר לו רבא לאו כגון מר אלא כגון רב חנינא ורב אושעיא דהוו אושכפי בארעא דישראל והוו יתבי בשוקא דזונות ועבדי להו מסאני לזונות ועיילי להו אינהו מסתכלי בהו ואינהו לא מדלן עינייהו לאיסתכולי בהו ומומתייהו הכי בחייהן רבנן קדישי דבארעא דישראל:,שלשה הקדוש ברוך הוא אוהבן מי שאינו כועס ומי שאינו משתכר ומי שאינו מעמיד על מדותיו שלשה הקדוש ברוך הוא שונאן המדבר א' בפה ואחד בלב והיודע עדות בחבירו ואינו מעיד לו והרואה דבר ערוה בחבירו ומעיד בו יחידי,כי הא דטוביה חטא ואתא זיגוד לחודיה ואסהיד ביה קמיה דרב פפא נגדיה לזיגוד א"ל טוביה חטא וזיגוד מינגד אמר ליה אין דכתיב (דברים יט, טו) לא יקום עד אחד באיש ואת לחודך אסהדת ביה שם רע בעלמא קא מפקת ביה,אמר רבי שמואל בר רב יצחק אמר רב מותר לשנאתו שנאמר (שמות כג, ה) כי תראה חמור שנאך רובץ תחת משאו מאי שונא אילימא שונא נכרי והא תניא שונא שאמרו שונא ישראל ולא שונא נכרי,אלא פשיטא שונא ישראל ומי שריא למסניה והכתיב (ויקרא יט, יז) לא תשנא את אחיך בלבבך אלא דאיכא סהדי דעביד איסורא כולי עלמא נמי מיסני סני ליה מאי שנא האי אלא לאו כי האי גוונא דחזיא ביה איהו דבר ערוה,רב נחמן בר יצחק אמר מצוה לשנאתו שנאמר (משלי ח, יג) יראת ה' (שונאי) רע אמר רב אחא בריה דרבא לרב אשי מהו למימרא ליה לרביה למשנייה אמר ליה אי ידע דמהימן לרביה כבי תרי לימא ליה ואי לא לא לימא ליה,תנו רבנן שלשה חייהן אינם חיים הרחמנין והרתחנין ואניני הדעת ואמר רב יוסף כולהו איתנהו בי,תנו רבנן שלשה שונאין זה את זה אלו הן הכלבים והתרנגולין והחברין וי"א אף הזונות וי"א אף תלמידי חכמים שבבבל,ת"ר שלשה אוהבין זה את זה אלו הן הגרים ועבדים ועורבין,ארבעה אין הדעת סובלתן אלו הן דל גאה ועשיר מכחש וזקן מנאף ופרנס מתגאה על הציבור בחנם ויש אומרים אף המגרש את אשתו פעם ראשונה ושניה ומחזירה,ותנא קמא זימנא דכתובתה מרובה אי נמי יש לו בנים הימנה ולא מצי מגרש לה,חמשה דברים צוה כנען את בניו אהבו זה את זה ואהבו את הגזל ואהבו את הזמה ושנאו את אדוניכם ואל תדברו אמת,ששה דברים נאמרים בסוס אוהב את הזנות ואוהב את המלחמה ורוחו גסה ומואס את השינה ואוכל הרבה ומוציא קמעה וי"א אף מבקש להרוג בעליו במלחמה,שבעה מנודין לשמים אלו הן יהודי שאין לו אשה ושיש לו אשה ואין לו בנים ומי שיש לו בנים ואין מגדלן לתלמוד תורה ומי שאין לו תפילין בראשו ותפילין בזרועו וציצית בבגדו ומזוזה בפתחו והמונע מנעלים מרגליו וי"א אף מי שאין מיסב בחבורה של מצוה,אמר רבה בר בר חנה אמר רבי שמואל בר מרתא אמר רב משום רבי יוסי איש הוצל מניין שאין שואלין בכלדיים שנאמר (דברים יח, יג) תמים תהיה עם ה' אלהיך,ומניין היודע בחבירו שהוא גדול ממנו אפילו בדבר אחד שחייב לנהוג בו כבוד שנאמר (דניאל ו, ד) כל קבל די רוח יתירא ביה [ומלכא עשית להקמותיה על כל מלכותא],והיושבת על דם טהור אסורה לשמש עד כמה אמר רב עונה,תנא הוא יוסף איש הוצל הוא יוסף הבבלי הוא איסי בן גור אריה הוא איסי בן יהודה הוא איסי בן גמליאל הוא איסי בן מהללאל ומה שמו איסי בן עקביה שמו הוא רבי יצחק בן טבלא הוא רבי יצחק בן חקלא הוא רבי יצחק בן אלעא הוא | 113b. When b the i tanna /i taught /b this i baraita /i b before Rava and Rav Safra, Rav Safra’s face lit up /b with joy, as he was listed among those praised by God. b Rava said to him: /b This does not refer to someone b like the Master. Rather, /b the statement applies to people like b Rav Ḥanina and Rav Oshaya, who were cobblers in Eretz Yisrael, and they would sit in the marketplace of prostitutes and fashion shoes for prostitutes. And /b the prostitutes b would enter /b their shops and b look at them. /b However, due to their piety, these Sages b did not raise their eyes to look at /b the women. And those prostitutes were so impressed with this behavior that when they b swore, /b they would say b as follows: By the lives of the holy Sages of Eretz Yisrael. /b It is this type of bachelor who is praised by Heaven.,The Gemara cites a similar statement. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, loves three /b people: b One who does not get angry; one who does not get drunk; and one who is forgiving. The Holy One, Blessed be He, hates three /b people: b One who says one /b statement b with his mouth and /b means b another in his heart, /b i.e., a hypocrite; b one who knows testimony about another /b person b and does not testify on his behalf; and one who observes a licentious matter /b performed b by another /b person b and testifies against him alone. /b His testimony is meaningless, as he is the only witness; consequently, he merely gives the individual a bad reputation.,The Gemara comments: This is b like /b that incident b where Tuveya sinned /b with immorality, b and Zigud came alone to testify about him before Rav Pappa. /b Rav Pappa instructed that b Zigud be lashed. /b Zigud b said to him: Tuveya sinned and Zigud is lashed, /b an objection that became a popular saying. b He said to him: Yes, as it is written: “One witness shall not rise up against a man” /b (Deuteronomy 19:15), b and you testified against him alone. You have merely given him a bad reputation. /b , b Rabbi Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said /b that b Rav said: /b Although one who sees another committing a sin should not testify against him by himself, b he is /b nonetheless b permitted to hate him, as it is stated: “If you see the donkey of he who hates you lying under its load” /b (Exodus 23:5). The Gemara clarifies this verse: b What /b is the meaning of he b who hates you /b mentioned in the verse? b If you say /b it is referring to b a gentile who hates /b you, b but wasn’t /b it b taught /b in a i baraita /i that the phrase: b He who hates, of /b which the Torah b spoke, is a Jew who hates /b you, b not a gentile who hates /b you?, b Rather, /b it is b obvious /b that the verse is referring to b a Jew who hates /b you. b But is one permitted to hate /b a fellow Jew? b But isn’t it written: “You shall not hate your brother in your heart” /b (Leviticus 19:17), which clearly prohibits the hatred of another Jew? b Rather, /b perhaps you will say that the verse is referring to a situation b where there are witnesses that he performed a sin. /b However, in that case, b everyone /b else should b also hate him. What is different /b about this particular person who hates him? b Rather, is it not /b referring b to a case like this, when he saw him /b perform b a licentious matter? /b He is therefore permitted to hate him for his evil behavior, whereas others who are unaware of his actions may not hate him., b Rav Naḥman bar Yitzḥak said: /b Not only is this permitted, it is even b a mitzva to hate him, as it is stated: “The fear of God is to hate evil” /b (Proverbs 8:13). b Rav Aḥa, son /b of b Rava, said to Rav Ashi: What is /b the i halakha /i with regard b to /b whether one who saw someone sin may b tell his teacher /b so that b he /b too b will hate him? /b Rav Ashi b said to him: If /b the student b knows /b that he is b trusted by his teacher as two /b witnesses, and therefore his statement will be accepted, b he /b should b tell him, and if /b he is b not /b trusted by his teacher as two witnesses, he should b not tell him. /b , b The Sages taught: /b There are b three /b types of people b whose lives are not lives, /b due to their constant suffering: b The compassionate, the hot tempered, and the delicate. Rav Yosef said: All of these /b attributes b are /b found b in me. /b ,Furthermore, b the Sages taught: /b Members of b three /b groups b hate other /b members of the same group: b Dogs, roosters, and the Persian priests. And some say: Also prostitutes. And some say: Also Torah scholars in Babylonia. /b ,Likewise, b the Sages taught: /b Members of b three /b groups b love one another: Converts, slaves, and ravens. /b , b Four /b types of people b cannot be endured /b by anyone: b An arrogant pauper; a wealthy person who denies /b monetary claims against him; b a lecherous old man; and a leader who lords over the community for no cause. And some say: Also one who divorces his wife once and twice and takes her back /b a third time. He should decide definitively whether or not he wants her.,The Gemara asks: b And /b why didn’t b the first i tanna /i /b mention this case of a man who remarries his wife after two divorces? The Gemara answers: b Sometimes /b the husband’s payment to her in the event of divorce, as stipulated in b her marriage contract, is large, /b and since he is unable to pay he is forced to take her back. b Alternatively, he has children with her and cannot divorce her, /b as he wants someone to care for them.,The Gemara continues: b Canaan commanded his sons /b with regard to b five matters /b that are apparently normal behavior for slaves: b Love one another, love robbery, love promiscuity, hate your masters, and do not speak the truth. /b , b Six matters are said with regard to a horse: /b It b loves promiscuity, /b it b loves war, its demeanor is arrogant, it despises sleep, it eats much, and it excretes little. And some say: /b Just as a horse always rushes straight into the heat of a battle, it b also attempts to kill its master in war. /b , b Seven /b are b ostracized by Heaven, /b despite the fact that they have not been ostracized in any court: b A Jew who does not have a wife; and one who has a wife but has no sons; and one who has sons whom he does not raise to /b engage in b Torah study; and one who does not have phylacteries on his head, and phylacteries on his arm, and ritual fringes on his garment, and a i mezuza /i in his doorway; and one who withholds shoes from his feet. And some say: Also one who does not sit with a group /b that is partaking of a feast in celebration b of a mitzva. /b , b Rabba bar bar Ḥana said /b that b Rabbi Shmuel bar Marta said /b that Rav said, citing b Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal: From where /b is it derived b that one /b may b not consult astrologers? As it is stated: “You shall be wholehearted with the Lord your God” /b (Deuteronomy 18:13). The Torah demands absolute faith in God and acceptance of His justice, without attempting to predict the future., b And from where /b is it derived concerning b one who knows about another that he is greater than him, even in one matter, that he must treat him with respect? As it is stated: “Because a surpassing spirit was in him, the king thought to set him over the whole realm” /b (Daniel 6:4). This verse teaches that one who is in any way greater than another person is worthy of his respect., b And /b it was also stated by Rabba bar bar Ḥana: With regard to a woman who was b observing /b her days of ritually b pure blood, /b and those days have ended, she b is prohibited to engage in intimacy /b immediately, lest she see ritually impure blood. Any blood emitted by a woman within forty days after giving birth to a male child or eighty days after giving birth to a female child is ritually pure. After this period of time has passed, a woman should not have relations with her husband immediately. The Gemara asks: b Until when /b is she prohibited to her husband? b Rav said: /b She must wait b a set interval of time /b for the ritual impurity of a i nidda /i , i.e., either one day or one night.,With regard to Rabbi Yosei of Hutzal, it was b taught: /b The b Yosef of Hutzal /b mentioned in other places in the Gemara b is /b the same person as b Yosef the Babylonian. /b Yosef is the full name of Yosei. Furthermore, b he is /b also known as b Isi ben Gur Arye, he is Isi ben Yehuda, he is Isi ben Gamliel, /b and b he is Isi ben Mahalalel. And what is his /b real b name? His /b real b name /b is b Isi ben Akavya. /b Similarly, the Sage b Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Tavla is /b also known as b Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ḥakla, /b who b is Rabbi Yitzḥak ben Ela. /b These are two cases of one Sage with several names. |
|
106. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45| 17a. עמך עמך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה עמך משום שכינה,ורבנן אמר קרא (במדבר יא, יז) ונשאו אתך במשא העם אתך ואת בהדייהו ורבי יהודה אתך בדומין לך,ורבנן (שמות יח, כב) מוהקל מעליך ונשאו אתך נפקא וילפא סנהדרי גדולה מסנהדרי קטנה,ת"ר (במדבר יא, כו) וישארו שני אנשים במחנה יש אומרים בקלפי נשתיירו,שבשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש מזקני ישראל אמר משה כיצד אעשה אברור ששה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו שנים יתירים אברור חמשה חמשה מכל שבט ושבט נמצאו עשרה חסרים אברור ששה משבט זה וחמשה משבט זה הריני מטיל קנאה בין השבטים,מה עשה בירר ששה ששה והביא שבעים ושנים פיתקין על שבעים כתב זקן ושנים הניח חלק בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להם בואו וטלו פיתקיכם כל מי שעלה בידו זקן אמר כבר קידשך שמים מי שעלה בידו חלק אמר המקום לא חפץ בך אני מה אעשה לך,כיוצא בדבר אתה אומר (במדבר ג, מז) ולקחת חמשת חמשת שקלים לגולגולת אמר משה כיצד אעשה להן לישראל אם אומר לו תן לי פדיונך וצא יאמר לי כבר פדאני בן לוי,מה עשה הביא עשרים ושנים אלפים פיתקין וכתב עליהן בן לוי ועל שלשה ושבעים ומאתים כתב עליהן חמשה שקלים בללן ונתנן בקלפי אמר להן טלו פיתקיכם מי שעלה בידו בן לוי אמר לו כבר פדאך בן לוי מי שעלה בידו חמשת שקלים אמר לו תן פדיונך וצא,רבי שמעון אומר במחנה נשתיירו בשעה שאמר לו הקב"ה למשה אספה לי שבעים איש אמרו אלדד ומידד אין אנו ראויין לאותה גדולה אמר הקב"ה הואיל ומיעטתם עצמכם הריני מוסיף גדולה על גדולתכם ומה גדולה הוסיף להם שהנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והם נתנבאו ולא פסקו,ומה נבואה נתנבאו אמרו משה מת יהושע מכניס את ישראל לארץ אבא חנין אומר משום רבי אליעזר על עסקי שליו הן מתנבאים עלי שליו עלי שליו,רב נחמן אמר על עסקי גוג ומגוג היו מתנבאין שנאמר (יחזקאל לח, ג) כה אמר ה' אלהים האתה הוא אשר דברתי בימים קדמונים ביד עבדי נביאי ישראל הנבאים בימים ההם שנים להביא אותך עליהם וגו' אל תיקרי שנים אלא שנים ואיזו הן שנים נביאים שנתנבאו בפרק אחד נבואה אחת הוי אומר אלדד ומידד,אמר מר כל הנביאים כולן נתנבאו ופסקו והן נתנבאו ולא פסקו מנא לן דפסקו אילימא מדכתיב (במדבר יא, כה) ויתנבאו ולא יספו אלא מעתה (דברים ה, יח) קול גדול ולא יסף ה"נ דלא אוסיף הוא אלא דלא פסק הוא,אלא הכא כתיב ויתנבאו התם כתיב (במדבר יא, כז) מתנבאים עדיין מתנבאים והולכים,בשלמא למ"ד משה מת היינו דכתיב (במדבר יא, כח) אדוני משה כלאם אלא למ"ד הנך תרתי מאי אדני משה כלאם דלאו אורח ארעא דהוה ליה כתלמיד המורה הלכה לפני רבו,בשלמא למ"ד הנך תרתי היינו דכתיב מי יתן אלא למ"ד משה מת מינח הוה ניחא ליה לא סיימוה קמיה,מאי כלאם א"ל הטל עליהן צרכי ציבור והן כלין מאיליהן:,מניין להביא עוד שלשה:,סוף סוף לרעה ע"פ שנים לא משכחת לה אי אחד עשר מזכין ושנים עשר מחייבין אכתי חד הוא אי עשרה מזכין ושלשה עשר מחייבין תלתא הוו א"ר אבהו אי אתה מוצא אלא במוסיפין ודברי הכל ובסנהדרי גדולה ואליבא דרבי יהודה דאמר שבעים,וא"ר אבהו במוסיפין עושין ב"ד שקול לכתחילה פשיטא מהו דתימא האי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דאיתיה דמי ואי אמר מילתא שמעינן ליה קמ"ל דהאי דקאמר איני יודע כמאן דליתיה דמי ואי אמר טעמא לא שמעינן ליה,אמר רב כהנא סנהדרי שראו כולן לחובה פוטרין אותו מ"ט כיון דגמירי הלנת דין למעבד ליה זכותא והני תו לא חזו ליה,א"ר יוחנן אין מושיבין בסנהדרי אלא בעלי קומה ובעלי חכמה ובעלי מראה ובעלי זקנה ובעלי כשפים ויודעים בע' לשון שלא תהא סנהדרי שומעת מפי המתורגמן,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אין מושיבין בסנהדרין אלא מי שיודע לטהר את השרץ מה"ת אמר רב אני אדון ואטהרנו | 17a. b with you” /b (Numbers 11:16), i.e., they will stand b “with you,” and you /b are to be counted b with them, /b leading to a total number of seventy-one. b And Rabbi Yehuda /b holds that the term b “with you” /b is mentioned b due to the Divine Presence /b that rested on Moses. According to Rabbi Yehuda, Moses was instructed to remain with the seventy Elders in order for the Divine Presence to rest upon them as well. He was not formally part of their court and therefore the number of Sages on the Great Sanhedrin is seventy.,The Gemara asks: b And /b how would b the Rabbis /b respond to this line of reasoning? The Gemara answers: b The verse states: “And they shall bear the burden of the people with you” /b (Numbers 11:17), which indicates: b “With you,” and you /b are to be counted b with them. And /b how would b Rabbi Yehuda /b respond to that? He would explain that the term b “with you” /b means b similar to you, /b meaning, that the Elders appointed to the court had to be of fit lineage and free of blemish, like Moses., b And /b from where do b the Rabbis /b derive that i halakha /i ? They b derive it from /b what was stated with regard to the appointment of the ministers of thousands and the ministers of hundreds: b “And they shall make it easier for you, and bear the burden with you” /b (Exodus 18:22), understanding the term “with you” to mean: Similar to you. b And /b the i halakha /i of the judges of b the Great Sanhedrin /b of seventy b is derived from /b the i halakha /i of the judges of b the lesser Sanhedrin, /b i.e., those ministers, that Moses appointed.,§ Apropos the appointment of the Elders by Moses, the Gemara discusses additional aspects of that event. There were seventy-two candidates for Elder but only seventy were needed. They were chosen by lots with their names put into a box. b The Sages taught: /b The verse states: b “And there remained two men in the camp; /b the name of one was Eldad and the name of the other Medad, and the spirit rested upon them, and they were among those who were written but who did not go out to the tent, and they prophesied in the camp” (Numbers 11:26). Where did they remain? b Some say /b this means b they, /b i.e., their names, b remained /b excluded from those selected from the lots b in the box. /b ,The i baraita /i explains: b At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: “Gather for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel” /b (Numbers 11:16), b Moses said: How shall I do /b it? If b I select six from each and every tribe, there will be /b a total of seventy-two, which will be b two extra. /b But if b I select five from each and every tribe, there will be /b a total of sixty, b lacking ten. /b And if b I select six from this tribe and five from that tribe, I will bring about envy between the tribes, /b as those with fewer representatives will resent the others., b What did he do? He selected six /b from every tribe b and he brought seventy-two slips [ i pitakin /i ]. On seventy /b of them b he wrote: Elder, and he left two /b of them b blank. He mixed them and placed them in the box. He /b then b said to /b the seventy-two chosen candidates: b Come and draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up /b a slip that said: b Elder, he said /b to him: b Heaven has already sanctified you. /b And b everyone whose hand drew up /b a b blank /b slip, b he said /b to him: b The Omnipresent does not desire you; what can I do for you? /b ,The Gemara comments: b You /b can b say /b something b similar to this /b to explain the verse about the redemption of the firstborn by the Levites: “Take the Levites in place of all of the firstborn of the children of Israel…and as for the redemption of the 273 of the firstborn of the children of Israel who are in excess over the number of the Levites… b you shall take five shekels per head” /b (Numbers 3:45–47). It can be explained that b Moses said: How shall I do /b this b for the Jews? If I say to /b one of the firstborns: b Give me /b money for b your redemption and /b you may b leave, /b as you are among the 273 extra firstborns, b he will say to me: A Levite already redeemed me; /b what is the reason you think that I am among those who were not redeemed?, b What did he do? He brought 22,000 slips ( /b see Numbers 3:39), b and he wrote on them: Levite, and on 273 /b additional ones b he wrote: Five shekels. He mixed them up and placed them in a box. He said to them: Draw your slips. Everyone whose hand drew up /b a slip that said: b Levite, he said to him: A Levite already redeemed you. Everyone whose hand drew up /b a slip that said: b Five shekels, he said to him: Pay your redemption /b money and you may b leave. /b , b Rabbi Shimon says: /b Eldad and Medad b remained in the camp, /b as they did not want to come to the lottery for the Elders. b At the time that the Holy One, Blessed be He, said to Moses: Gather for me seventy Elders, Eldad and Medad said: We are not fitting for that /b level of b greatness; /b we are not worthy of being appointed among the Elders. b The Holy One, Blessed be He, said: Since you have made yourselves humble, I will add greatness to your greatness. And what is /b the b greatness /b that b he added to them? /b It was b that all of the prophets, /b meaning the other Elders, who were given prophecy, b prophesied /b for a time b and /b then b stopped /b prophesying, b but they prophesied and did not stop. /b ,Apropos Eldad and Medad being prophets, the Gemara asks: b And what prophecy did they prophesy? They said: Moses will die, /b and b Joshua will bring the Jewish people into Eretz /b Yisrael. b Abba Ḥanin says in the name of Rabbi Eliezer: They prophesied about the matter of the quail /b that came afterward (Numbers 11:31–33), saying: b Arise quail, arise quail, /b and then the quail came., b Rav Naḥman says: They were prophesying about the matter of Gog and Magog, as it is stated /b with regard to Gog and Magog: b “So says the Lord God: Are you the one of whom I spoke in ancient days, through my servants, the prophets of Israel, who prophesied in those days for many years [ i shanim /i ] that I would bring you against them?” /b (Ezekiel 38:17). b Do not read /b it as: b “Years [ i shanim /i ]”; rather, /b read it as: b Two [ i shenayim /i ]. And who are the two prophets who prophesied the same prophecy at the same time? You must say: Eldad and Medad. /b , b The Master says: /b The i baraita /i said: b All of the prophets prophesied and /b then b stopped, but /b Eldad and Medad b prophesied and did not stop. /b The Gemara asks: b From where do we /b derive b that /b the other prophets b stopped /b prophesying? b If we say /b it is b from that which is written /b about them: b “And they prophesied but they did so no more [ i velo yasafu /i ]” /b (Numbers 11:25), that is difficult: b But if that is so, /b then concerning that which is stated in relation to the giving of the Torah: “These words the Lord spoke to all your assembly…with b a great voice, and it went on no more [ i velo yasaf /i ]” /b (Deuteronomy 5:19), b so too /b shall it be understood b that /b the great voice b did not continue? Rather, /b the intention there is b that it did not stop, /b interpreting the word i yasafu /i as related to i sof /i , meaning: End. Consequently, with regard to the seventy Elders as well, the word can be interpreted to mean that they did not stop prophesying., b Rather, /b the proof is as follows: b It is written here /b with regard to the seventy Elders: b “They prophesied” /b (Numbers 11:25), and b it is written there: /b “Eldad and Medad b are prophesying /b in the camp” (Numbers 11:27), from which it can be derived that b they were continuously prophesying. /b ,With regard to the content of Eldad and Medad’s prophecy, the Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b their prophecy was that b Moses will die, this is /b the reason for that b which is written /b there: “And Joshua, son of Nun, the servant of Moses from his youth, answered and said: b My master Moses, imprison them” /b (Numbers 11:28), as their prophecy appeared to be a rebellion against Moses. b But according to the one who says those /b other b two /b opinions with regard to the content of the prophecy, according to which their prophecy had no connection to Moses, b what /b is the reason that Joshua said: b “My master Moses, imprison them”? /b The Gemara answers: He said this b because /b it is b not proper conduct /b for them to prophesy publicly in close proximity to Moses, b as /b by doing so b they are like a student who teaches a i halakha /i in his teacher’s presence, /b which is inappropriate.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says those /b other b two /b opinions, b this is /b the reason for that b which is written: /b “And Moses said to him: Are you jealous for my sake? b Would /b that all of the Lord’s people were prophets” (Numbers 11:29). b But according to the one who says /b that Eldad and Medad prophesied that b Moses will die /b and Joshua will bring Israel into the land, b would it have been satisfactory to Moses /b that all of the people of God would utter similar prophecies? The Gemara answers: b They did not conclude it before him. /b Moses was not aware of what they had said, but only that they were prophesying.,The Gemara asks: b What /b is the meaning of: b “Imprison them [ i kela’em /i ]”? /b The Gemara answers: Joshua b said to him: Place /b responsibility for the b needs of the public upon them, /b so that they will be occupied like the other Elders of Israel b and they will cease [ i kalin /i ] /b prophesying, b on their own. /b Due to the burden of public responsibility they would not be able to be prophets.,§ The mishna derives the i halakha /i that there are twenty-three judges on a lesser Sanhedrin from the verses: “And the congregation shall judge,” and: “And the congregation shall save” (Numbers 35:24–25). The mishna understands that the term “congregation” is referring to ten judges, so that the two congregations, one in each verse, total twenty judges. The mishna then asks: b From where /b is it derived b to bring three more /b judges to the court? The mishna answers: The implication of the verse: “You shall not follow a multitude to convict” (Exodus 23:2), is that your inclination after a majority to exonerate is not like your inclination after a majority to convict, and a conviction must be by a majority of two.,The Gemara objects: b Ultimately, you do not find /b an occurrence of the inclination b for evil according to /b a majority of b two /b judges. b If eleven /b judges vote to b acquit /b the defendant b and twelve /b vote to b convict, this is still /b only a majority of b one, /b and b if ten /b vote to b acquit and thirteen /b vote to b convict, they are /b a majority of b three. /b With a court of twenty-three judges, there is no possible way to convict with a majority of two. b Rabbi Abbahu says: You do not find /b such a scenario b except /b in a case b where they add /b two additional judges because one of the judges abstained from the deliberation, the other judges are split in their decisions, and the two added judges both vote to convict. b And /b this is a possibility b according to /b all i tanna’im /i , b and in /b a case tried by b the Great Sanhedrin according to /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda, who says /b there are b seventy /b judges on the Great Sanhedrin. With an even number, it is possible to have a majority of two., b And Rabbi Abbahu says: When they add /b additional judges, they b create a court /b consisting of b an even /b number of judges b i ab initio /i . /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b What is the novelty in Rabbi Abbahu’s statement? The Gemara answers: b Lest you say: This /b judge b who says: I do not know, is /b viewed b as one who is /b still b there, and if he says something /b afterward, b we listen to him /b and include him in the count, so there are actually an odd number of judges on the court; therefore, Rabbi Abbahu b teaches us that this /b judge b who says: I do not know, is /b viewed b as one who is not /b still b there, and if he says a reason /b to rule in a certain manner afterward, b we do not listen to him. /b Consequently, the court consists of an even number of judges.,§ b Rav Kahana says: /b In b a Sanhedrin where all /b the judges b saw /b fit b to convict /b the defendant in a case of capital law, they b acquit him. /b The Gemara asks: b What is the reasoning /b for this i halakha /i ? It is b since /b it b is learned /b as a tradition that b suspension of the trial /b overnight is necessary in order b to create /b a possibility of b acquittal. /b The i halakha /i is that they may not issue the guilty verdict on the same day the evidence was heard, as perhaps over the course of the night one of the judges will think of a reason to acquit the defendant. b And /b as b those /b judges all saw fit to convict him they b will not see /b any b further /b possibility to acquit b him, /b because there will not be anyone arguing for such a verdict. Consequently, he cannot be convicted.,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa says: /b They b place on the /b Great b Sanhedrin only /b men b of /b high b stature, and of wisdom, and of /b pleasant b appearance, and of /b suitable b age /b so that they will be respected. b And /b they must also be b masters of sorcery, /b i.e., they know the nature of sorcery, so that they can judge sorcerers, b and /b they must b know /b all b seventy languages /b in order b that the Sanhedrin will not /b need to b hear /b testimony b from the mouth of a translator /b in a case where a witness speaks a different language., b Rav Yehuda says /b that b Rav says: /b They b place on the Sanhedrin only one who knows /b how b to render /b a carcass of b a creeping animal pure by Torah law. /b The judges on the Sanhedrin must be so skilled at logical reasoning that they could even produce a convincing argument that creeping animals, which the Torah states explicitly are ritually impure, are actually pure. b Rav said: I will discuss /b the i halakha /i of the creeping animal b and render it pure, /b i.e., I am able to demonstrate how it is possible to construct such a proof: |
|
107. Babylonian Talmud, Yoma, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45| 26a. למאי אתא לכדתניא כיצד היה עושה נותן את הפדר אבית השחיטה ומעלהו וזה הוא דרך כבוד של מעלה, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big הפייס השלישי חדשים לקטרת באו והפיסו והרביעי חדשים עם ישנים מי מעלה אברים מן הכבש למזבח, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big תנא מעולם לא שנה אדם בה מ"ט א"ר חנינא מפני שמעשרת,א"ל רב פפא לאביי מ"ט אילימא משום דכתיב (דברים לג, י) ישימו קטורה באפך וכתיב בתריה (דברים לג, יא) ברך ה' חילו אי הכי עולה נמי הכתיב (דברים לג, י) וכליל על מזבחך,א"ל הא שכיחא והא לא שכיחא,אמר רבא לא משכחת צורבא מרבנן דמורי אלא דאתי משבט לוי או משבט יששכר לוי דכתיב (דברים לג, י) יורו משפטיך ליעקב יששכר דכתב (דברי הימים א יב, לג) (ובני) יששכר יודעי בינה לעתים לדעת מה יעשה ישראל ואימא יהודה נמי דכתיב (תהלים ס, ט) יהודה מחוקקי אסוקי שמעתא אליבא דהילכתא קאמינא,א"ר יוחנן אין מפייסין על תמיד של בין הערבים אלא כהן שזכה בו בשחרית זוכה בו ערבית מיתיבי כשם שמפייסין שחרית כך מפייסין בין הערבים כי תניא ההיא בקטורת,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית אימא לה,והתניא כשם שמפייסין לו שחרית כך מפייסין לו ערבית וכשם שמפייסין לה שחרית כך מפייסין לה ערבית,אמר רב שמואל בר רב יצחק הכא בשבת עסקינן הואיל ומשמרות מתחדשות,ולמאי דסליק אדעתין מעיקרא נפישי להו פייסות מייתי כולהו מצפרא אתו דזכי ביה שחרית זכי דזכי בערבית זכי,הרביעי חדשים עם ישנים וכו' מתניתין דלא כרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דתנן רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אומר המעלה איברים לכבש הוא מעלה אותן למזבח,במאי קמיפלגי מר סבר (משלי יד, כח) ברב עם הדרת מלך ומר סבר מקום שכינה לאו אורח ארעא,אמר רבא לא רבי אליעזר בן יעקב אית ליה דרבי יהודה ולא רבי יהודה אית ליה דרבי אליעזר בן יעקב דא"כ בצרו להו פייסות,ואי משכחת תנא דתני חמש | 26a. b what does /b that b come /b to teach us? The Gemara explains: b As it was taught /b in a i baraita /i : b In what manner would /b the priest placing the pieces on the altar b do /b so? b He /b would b place the fat /b right b over the place of slaughter, /b that is, on the cut neck, b and bring it up /b that way, b and that is the /b most b respectful way toward the Most High, /b that the bloody point of slaughter not be exposed., strong MISHNA: /strong Before b the third lottery, /b the appointee declared: Let only those priests who are b new to /b offering b the incense /b come and b participate in the lottery /b for the incense. b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine b who /b would b take the limbs up from the ramp, /b where they had been placed earlier, b to the altar. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong A Sage b taught /b in the i Tosefta /i : b No person ever performed /b the service of the incense b twice, /b as a new priest was always found for this service. The Gemara asks: b What is the reason /b that they were insistent that no priest should be assigned this task more than once in his life? b Rabbi Ḥanina said: /b It is b because it brings wealth /b to the one who performs it. Since bringing the incense was a blessing for wealth, it was decided that as many different priests as possible should have an opportunity to do this service., b Rav Pappa said to Abaye: What is the reason /b for this assertion that the one who burns the incense becomes wealthy? b If we say it is because it is written: “They shall put incense before You /b and whole burnt-offerings on Your altar” (Deuteronomy 33:10), b and it is written /b immediately b after that: “Bless, O Lord, his substance” /b (Deuteronomy 33:11), b if so, /b we should b also /b make the same assertion concerning those who perform the sacrifice of b a burnt-offering, since it is written /b in that same verse: b “And whole burnt-offerings on Your altar.” /b ,Abaye b said to him: /b There is a difference between the two: b This, /b the sacrifice of a burnt-offering, b is frequent, and that, /b the burning of incense, b is infrequent. /b There were many burnt-offerings, both obligatory and voluntary, brought during the course of a day, whereas the incense was burned only twice a day. It is logical to assume that the blessing of riches was not extended to the many priests who participated in the burnt-offerings, but to the few priests who performed the burning of the incense.,Apropos this passage in Deuteronomy, b Rava said: You do not find a young Torah scholar who gives /b halakhic b instruction unless he comes from the tribe of Levi or from the tribe of Issachar. /b The assertion with regard to the tribe of b Levi /b is b as it is written: “They shall teach Jacob Your ordices /b and Israel Your law” (Deuteronomy 33:10). And the assertion with regard to the tribe of b Issachar /b is b as it is written: “And of the children of Issachar, men that had understanding of the times, to know what Israel should do” /b (I Chronicles 12:33). The Gemara asks: b And say /b that scholars come from the tribe of b Judah also, as it is written: “Judah is my lawgiver” /b (Psalms 60:9). Rava answers: While it is true that the tribe of Judah also taught Torah, in my statement b I was speaking /b only b of those who /b can b draw conclusions according to the i halakha /i . /b Although Judah produces great scholars, men capable of translating abstract analysis of the Torah into legal principles come from the two tribes mentioned.,§ b Rabbi Yoḥa said: They did not hold /b a separate b lottery /b for the slaughtering and sacrifice of the b daily afternoon offering. Rather, /b the same b priest who won /b a particular privilege for b the morning /b offering b wins /b the privilege for the corresponding task in the b evening, /b i.e., for the b afternoon /b service. In this way, the morning lottery covered both services. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery in the afternoon. /b This shows that there was a separate lottery for the daily afternoon offering. The Gemara answers: b When that /b i baraita /i b was taught, /b it referred only b to the incense, /b which, as stated above, was given to a different priest each time it was offered.,The Gemara asks: b But wasn’t it taught /b in a i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon. /b The masculine pronoun i lo /i indicates that it is not referring to the incense, which is a feminine noun in Hebrew, but to the daily afternoon offering, which is described by a masculine noun. The Gemara answers: Change the wording of the i baraita /i and b say: i Lah /i , /b using the feminine pronoun instead of the masculine i lo /i , so that it is indeed referring to the incense.,The Gemara asks further: b But wasn’t it taught /b in another i baraita /i : b Just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lo /i ] in the afternoon; and just as they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the morning, so too, they hold a lottery for it [ i lah /i ] in the afternoon. /b This i baraita /i makes the statement twice, once using the masculine pronoun and once using the feminine pronoun, which shows that there was a separate lottery in the afternoon not only for the incense but also for the daily offering., b Rav Shmuel bar Rav Yitzḥak said: /b There is no contradiction. b Here, /b in this last i baraita /i , b we are dealing with Shabbat, /b when a second lottery in the afternoon was necessary, b since the priestly rotations are renewed /b each Shabbat. On Shabbat the outgoing watch of priests performs the morning service, and the incoming watch performs the afternoon service. Therefore, the same priest could not perform the service of both the morning and afternoon offerings, necessitating a second lottery on that day to designate priests for the various afternoon tasks.,The Gemara asks: b And /b according b to what we thought initially, /b that there was a separate lottery each day for the daily afternoon offering, b there would be /b too b many lotteries, /b as the mishna states that there were just four lotteries daily. How was it conceivable even to consider such a possibility? The Gemara answers: The thought was that b all /b the priests b would come /b and assemble just once, b in the morning, /b for both lotteries, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b morning /b offering b would win /b that privilege for the morning only, and the priest b who would win /b the lottery for sacrificing b the /b daily b afternoon /b offering b would win /b the privilege for the afternoon.,§ The mishna states: b The fourth /b lottery was open to those b new /b to the service along b with /b those b old /b hands who had already performed it, to determine who would take the limbs up from the ramp to the altar. The Gemara states: b The mishna is not in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. As we learned /b in a mishna in tractate i Tamid /i that b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov says: /b The priest b who takes the limbs up to the ramp is the one who takes them up /b from the ramp b to the altar. /b In contrast, according to the mishna discussed here, it is implied that a different priest won the privilege for the latter service in the lottery.,The Gemara asks: b With regard to what do they disagree? One Sage, /b the i tanna /i of the mishna discussed here, b holds /b that it is proper to follow the verse: b “In the multitude of people is the king’s glory” /b (Proverbs 14:28). It is a glorification of God for many priests to participate in the service, so different priests were assigned the task of taking the limbs to the ramp, and others were tasked with carrying them up the ramp to the altar. b And one Sage, /b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, b holds /b that it is b not proper conduct /b in b the place of the Divine Presence /b to have two sets of priests for these tasks, as it gives the appearance that the first set does not want to be bothered to take the limbs up to the altar., b Rava said: Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, /b who holds that the same priest who brought the limbs to the ramp also brought them up to the altar, b is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Yehuda, /b who holds that there is no separate lottery for the privilege of carrying the coal pan for the incense. b And /b conversely, b Rabbi Yehuda is not of /b the same opinion as b Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov. /b As, b if it would be so /b that these two Sages agreed with each other, b there would be too few lotteries; /b there would be only three lotteries rather than four. Rather, one must say that according to Rabbi Eliezer ben Ya’akov, who maintains that there was no lottery held for taking the limbs up to the altar, there was a fourth lottery to determine who would carry the coal pan; and according to Rabbi Yehuda, who maintains that there was no lottery for carrying the coal pan, there must have been a lottery for carrying the limbs up to the ramp., b And if you find a i tanna /i /b in a i baraita /i b who teaches /b that there were b five /b lotteries for the Temple service, |
|
108. Babylonian Talmud, Shabbat, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 36, 48| 56b. עבדך וירגל בעבדך אל אדוני המלך ואדוני המלך כמלאך האלהים ועשה הטוב בעיניך ויאמר לו המלך למה תדבר עוד דבריך אמרתי אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה ויאמר מפיבשת אל המלך גם את הכל יקח אחרי אשר בא אדוני המלך בשלום אל ביתו אמר לו אני אמרתי מתי תבא בשלום ואתה עושה לי כך לא עליך יש לי תרעומות אלא על מי שהביאך בשלום,היינו דכתיב (דברי הימים א ח, לד) ובן יהונתן מריב בעל וכי מריב בעל שמו והלא מפיבשת שמו אלא מתוך שעשה מריבה עם בעליו יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו נצא בר נצא נצא הא דאמרן בר נצא דכתיב (שמואל א טו, ה) ויבא שאול עד עיר עמלק וירב בנחל אמר רבי מני על עסקי נחל,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב בשעה שאמר דוד למפיבשת אתה וציבא תחלקו את השדה יצתה בת קול ואמרה לו רחבעם וירבעם יחלקו את המלוכה,אמר רב יהודה אמר רב אילמלי לא. קיבל דוד לשון הרע לא נחלקה מלכות בית דוד ולא עבדו ישראל ע"ז ולא גלינו מארצנו:,אמר ר' שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר שלמה חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים א יא, ד) ולא היה לבבו שלם עם ה' אלהיו כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא,אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים א יא, ד) ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ההיא כרבי נתן דר' נתן רמי כתיב ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו והכתיב כלבב דוד אביו כלבב דוד אביו הוא דלא הוה מיחטא נמי לא חטא הכי קאמר ויהי לעת זקנת שלמה נשיו הטו את לבבו ללכת אחרי אלהים אחרים ולא הלך,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ז) אז יבנה שלמה במה לכמוש שקוץ מואב שבקש לבנות ולא בנה,אלא מעתה (יהושע ח, ל) אז יבנה יהושע מזבח לה' שבקש לבנות ולא בנה אלא דבנה הכא נמי דבנה,אלא כדתניא רבי יוסי אומר (מלכים ב כג, יג) ואת הבמות אשר על פני ירושלים אשר מימין להר המשחה אשר בנה שלמה מלך ישראל לעשתרות שקוץ צדונים וגו',אפשר בא אסא ולא ביערם יהושפט ולא ביערם עד שבא יאשיה וביערם והלא כל ע"ז שבארץ ישראל אסא ויהושפט ביערום אלא מקיש ראשונים לאחרונים מה אחרונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לשבח אף ראשונים לא עשו ותלה בהן לגנאי,והכתיב (מלכים א יא, ו) ויעש שלמה הרע בעיני ה' אלא מפני שהיה לו למחות בנשיו ולא מיחה מעלה עליו הכתוב כאילו חטא,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל נוח לו לאותו צדיק שיהא שמש לדבר אחר ואל יכתב בו ויעש הרע בעיני ה',אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה הכניסה לו אלף מיני זמר ואמרה לו כך עושין לעבודה זרה פלונית וכך עושים לע"ז פלונית ולא מיחה בה,אמר רב יהודה אמר שמואל בשעה שנשא שלמה את בת פרעה ירד גבריאל ונעץ קנה בים ועלה בו שירטון ועליו נבנה כרך גדול [של רומי],במתניתא תנא אותו היום שהכניס ירבעם שני עגלי זהב אחד בבית אל ואחד בדן נבנה צריף אחד וזהו איטליאה של יון:,א"ר שמואל בר נחמני א"ר יונתן כל האומר יאשיהו חטא אינו אלא טועה שנאמר (מלכים ב כב, ב) ויעש הישר בעיני ה' וילך בכל דרך דוד אביו אלא מה אני מקיים (מלכים ב כג, כה) וכמוהו לא היה לפניו מלך אשר שב וגו',שכל דין שדן מבן שמנה עד שמנה עשרה החזירן להן שמא תאמר נטל מזה ונתן לזה תלמוד לומר בכל מאודו שנתן להם משלו,ופליגא דרב דאמר רב אין לך גדול בבעלי תשובה יותר מיאשיהו בדורו ואחד בדורנו ומנו אבא אבוה דרבי ירמיה בר אבא ואמרי לה אחא אחוה דאבא אבוה דרב ירמיה בר אבא דאמר מר רבי אבא ואחא אחי הוו,אמר רב יוסף ועוד אחד בדורנו ומנו עוקבן בר נחמיה ריש גלותא והיינו. נתן דצוציתא אמר רב יוסף הוה יתיבנא בפירקא והוה קא מנמנם וחזאי בחילמא דקא פשט ידיה וקבליה:, br br big strongהדרן עלך במה בהמה /strong /big br br | |
|
109. Babylonian Talmud, Yevamot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 45| 86b. לכהן לכהן ולא ללוי אימא אף לכהן מאי טעמא דר' עקיבא דכתיב (במדבר יח, כו) ואל הלוים תדבר ואמרת אליהם בלוים קא משתעי קרא ואידך כדר' יהושע ב"ל דאמר ר' יהושע ב"ל בעשרים וארבעה מקומות נקראו כהנים לוים וזה אחד מהם (יחזקאל מד, טו) והכהנים הלוים בני צדוק,ור"ע הכא לא מצית אמרת דכתיב (במדבר יח, לא) ואכלתם אותו בכל מקום מי שיכול לאוכלו בכל מקום יצא כהן שאין יכול לאוכלו בבית הקברות ואידך כל היכא דבעי דלא בעי חומה ואי אכיל ליה בטומאת הגוף לא לקי,ההיא גינתא דהוה שקיל רבי אלעזר בן עזריה מעשר ראשון מינה אזל ר"ע אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי אמר עקיבא בתרמילו ואנא חיי,איתמר מפני מה קנסו לוים במעשר פליגי בה רבי יונתן וסביא חד אמר שלא עלו בימי עזרא וח"א כדי שיסמכו כהנים עליו בימי טומאתן,בשלמא למאן דאמר שלא עלו משום הכי קנסינהו אלא למ"ד כדי שיסמכו עליו כהנים בימי טומאתן משום כהנים קנסינהו ללוים אלא כולי עלמא קנסא שלא עלו בימי עזרא והכא בהא קמיפלגי מר סבר קנסא לעניים ומר סבר כהנים בימי טומאתן עניים נינהו,בשלמא למאן דאמר קנסא לעניים משום הכי אהדריה ר"ע לפתחא לבי קברי אלא למאן דאמר לכהנים אמאי אהדריה לפתחא לבי קברי הכי קאמר ליה אי דקא אתית בתורת קנסא אית לך ואי קא אתית בתורת חלוקה לית לך,ומנא לן דלא סליקו בימי עזרא דכתיב (עזרא ח, טו) ואקבצם אל הנהר הבא על אהוא ונחנה שם ימים שלשה ואבינה בעם ובכהנים ומבני לוי לא מצאתי שם אמר רב חסדא בתחלה לא היו מעמידים שוטרי' אלא מן הלוים שנאמר (דברי הימים ב יט, יא) ושוטרים הלוים לפניכם עכשיו אין מעמידין שוטרים אלא מישראל שנאמר ושוטרים הרבים בראשיכם:, big strongמתני׳ /strong /big בת ישראל שניסת לכהן תאכל בתרומה מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל בתרומה ניסת ללוי תאכל במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן תאכל במעשר ניסת לישראל לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר מת ולה הימנו בן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר,מת בנה מישראל תאכל במעשר מת בנה מלוי תאכל בתרומה מת בנה מכהן לא תאכל לא בתרומה ולא במעשר | 86b. The first tithe is given b to a priest. /b The Gemara is puzzled: b To a priest and not to a Levite? /b But the Torah expressly states that the first tithe is for Levites. The Gemara answers: b Say /b he means it can be given b also to a priest. /b The Gemara clarifies: b What is the reason /b for b Rabbi Akiva’s /b opinion? b As it is written: “You shall speak to the Levites, and you shall say to them” /b (Numbers 18:26). Clearly, b the verse speaks of Levites, /b not priests. b And the other /b i tanna /i , Rabbi Eliezer, maintains b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Yehoshua ben Levi said: In twenty-four places /b in the Bible the b priests are called Levites. And this is one of those /b verses: b “And the priests the Levites, the sons of Zadok” /b (Ezekiel 44:15)., b And Rabbi Akiva /b replies: b Here you cannot say /b the verse is referring to priests, b as it is written: “And you may eat it in any place” /b (Numbers 18:31), from which we learn that the tithe is given to b one who can eat it in any place. /b This b excludes a priest, who cannot eat it in a cemetery, /b as he is prohibited from entering such a place. Consequently, the verse cannot be referring to priests. b And the other /b Sage, Rabbi Eliezer, how does he respond to this claim? He explains the verse as follows: He may eat it b anywhere that he wishes, /b that is, in any city, b as it does not require /b the b wall /b of Jerusalem, like the second tithe. b And /b we further learn from here that b if he eats it in /b a state of b bodily impurity he is not flogged. /b Consequently, we can say that tithe may be eaten by priests in any place.,The Gemara relates: There was b a certain garden from which Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya, /b a priest, b would take /b the b first tithe, /b in accordance with his opinion that priests are also entitled to this tithe. b Rabbi Akiva went, /b closed up the garden, and b changed its entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b to prevent Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya from entering the garden. Rabbi Elazar b said /b in the form of a lighthearted exaggeration: b Akiva, /b a former shepherd, comes b with his satchel, but I have to live; /b from where will I receive my livelihood if I cannot claim the first tithe? Rabbi Elazar was actually a very wealthy man and did not need the produce from this garden. However, his point was that Rabbi Akiva acted in order to stop him from receiving something that he felt was rightfully his.,§ b It was stated /b that i amora’im /i disagreed about the following question: b For what reason did /b the Sages b penalize /b the b Levites with regard to /b their b tithe, /b by declaring that it may be given to priests as well? b Rabbi Yonatan and the Elders /b who were with him b disagree /b with regard to b this /b matter. b One said /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b i.e., immigrate to the land of Israel, b in the days of Ezra. And one said /b that it was not a penalty at all, but they gave the first tithe to the priests b so that they /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity. /b Because it is prohibited for priests to consume i teruma /i while in a state of impurity, they would have had nothing to eat if they were dependent exclusively on i teruma /i . It is permitted, however, to eat the tithe while impure.,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b it was because b they did not ascend, /b we can understand that b due to that /b reason b they penalized /b the Levites by forcing them to share their tithe with the priests. b But according to the one who says /b it was done b so that the priests /b could b rely on it during their days of impurity, /b should we b penalize the Levites for /b the benefit of b priests? Rather, everyone agrees /b that it was b a penalty /b for the fact b that they did not ascend in the days of Ezra, and here they disagree about this: /b One b Sage holds /b that the b penalty /b is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, and /b one b Sage holds /b that b priests are /b classified as b poor in the days of their impurity. /b ,The Gemara asks: b Granted, according to the one who says /b that the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites is that the tithe must be given b to the poor, due to that /b reason b Rabbi Akiva changed /b the garden b entrance /b so that it would be facing b toward the cemetery, /b as Rabbi Elazar ben Azarya was a wealthy man. b But according to the one who says /b the tithe was given b to the priests, why did he change /b the b entrance /b so that it would be b toward the cemetery? /b The Gemara answers: b This is what he said to him, /b i.e., this is what he meant: b If you come /b to receive the tithe b by virtue of /b the b penalty /b imposed on the Levites, b you may have /b it, b but if you come by the /b standard i halakha /i b of distribution, /b demanding your share with the Levites, b you may not have /b the tithe. If the owner of the garden chooses to give it to you, you may accept it, but you may not take it yourself.,The Gemara asks with regard to the penalty imposed on Levites: b And from where do we /b derive b that /b the Levites b did not ascend in the days of Ezra? As it is written: “And I gathered them together to the river that runs to Ahava; and we encamped there /b for b three days; and I viewed the people, and the priests, and found there none of the sons of Levi” /b (Ezra 8:15). With regard to this, b Rav Ḥisda said: Initially they would establish officers /b over the people b only from /b among b the Levites, as it states: “And the officers, the Levites, before you” /b (II Chronicles 19:11), but b now they establish officers only from /b among the b Israelites, as it is stated: And the officers of the many at your heads. /b This indicates that officers were appointed from: The many, meaning the largest group, ordinary Israelites., strong MISHNA: /strong b An Israelite woman married to a priest may partake of i teruma /i . /b If the priest b died and she has a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of i teruma /i . /b If she subsequently b married a Levite, /b she may no longer partake of i teruma /i but b she may partake of /b the first b tithe /b on his account. If he, too, b died and she /b had b a child from him, she may /b continue to b partake of tithe /b on account of the child. If she then b married an Israelite, she may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b If her Israelite husband b died and she /b had b a child from him, she /b still b may partake of neither i teruma /i nor tithe. /b ,If b her child from the Israelite /b also b died, /b while her son from the Levite remained alive, b she may partake of tithe /b on account of the Levite’s child. If b her child from the Levite died, /b leaving her with a son from the priest, b she may /b once again b partake of i teruma /i . /b If b her child from the priest died /b as well, b she may no /b longer b partake of either i teruma /i or tithe. /b |
|
| 110. Babylonian Talmud, Shevuot, None (3rd cent. CE - 6th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 128 |
111. Anon., Exodus Rabbah, 1.30, 15.20 (4th cent. CE - 9th cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 25, 48 | 1.30. "And he said: Who made you a ruler and a judge over us? R. Yehudah says: Moshe was of twenty years at that time. They said to him: you are not yet worthy of being a ruler and a judge over as, for [it is said, Avot 5:21] \"at forty [one aquires] wisdom.\" R. Nehemia said: He [Moshe] was of forty years at that time. They said to him: surely you are a man [of age], only you are not worthy to be a ruler and a judge over us. The sages say: They said to him: are you indeed the son of Yocheved? Then why do they call you son of Batya?! and you presume to be a ruler and a judge over us?! We will let be known what you did to the Egyptian. \"Do you mean [Lit. say] to kill me?’ It is not written \"do you mean\", but \"do you say\". From this you learn, that [Moshe] uttered the proper name [of G-d] unto the Egyptian and killed him. When he [Moshe] heard this, his became fearful of Lashon Ha'ra [the evil toung]. And he [Moshe] said \"surely the thing is known\". R. Yehudah son of R. Shalom said in the name of Hanina the Great and our sages who [in turn] said in the name of R. Alexandri: Moshe would wonder to himself and say: \"what was Israel's sin, for which they became more enslaved than all other nation?\" When he heard his [the Hebrew who struck his fellow's] words, he [Moshe] said: \"such Lashon Harah [evil toung] is amongst them, how would they be worthy of redemption?\". And so he [Moshe] said: \"Surely the thing is known\" - now I know what is the cause of their enslavement.", |
|
112. Babylonian Talmud, Arakhin, None (6th cent. CE - missingth cent. CE) Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 48| 19a. שבזכר ושבנקבה מיבעי ליה,ומאי שנא נקבה דכי מיזקנא קיימא אתילתא ומאי שנא זכר דלא קאי אתילתא אמר חזקיה אמרי אינשי סבא בביתא פאחא בביתא סבתא בביתא סימא בביתא:, br br big strongהדרן עלך השג יד /strong /big br br,מתני׳ big strongהאומר /strong /big משקלי עלי נותן משקלו אם כסף כסף ואם זהב זהב מעשה באמה של ירמטיא שאמרה משקל בתי עלי ועלתה לירושלים ושקלה משקלה זהב,משקל ידי עלי רבי יהודה אומר ממלא חבית מים ומכניסה עד מרפיקו ושוקל מבשר חמור ועצמות וגידים ונותן לתוכה עד שתתמלא אמר ר' יוסי וכי היאך אפשר לכוין בשר כנגד בשר ועצמות כנגד עצמות אלא שמין את היד כמה היא ראויה לשקול:, big strongגמ׳ /strong /big מאי אם כסף כסף אם זהב זהב אמר רב יהודה פירש כסף כסף פירש זהב זהב פשיטא הא קמ"ל טעמא דפירש הא לא פירש פטר נפשיה בכל דהו,כרחבה דאמר רחבה באתרא דתקלי כופרא פטר נפשיה אפי' בכופרא פשיטא לא צריכא דאיכא דתקל ואיכא דכייל מהו דתימא כיון דכולהו לא תקלי לא קמ"ל,אמר רב פפא באתרא דתקלי שמכי פטר נפשיה אפי' בשמכי פשיטא לא צריכא דבתר דשקלי שדו תרי תלתא מהו דתימא בטיל תורת משקל קמ"ל:,מעשה באמה של ירמטיא וכו': מעשה לסתור,חסורי מחסרא והכי קתני ואם אדם חשוב הוא אף ע"ג דלא פריש לפי כבודו אמרינן ומעשה באמה של ירמטיא שאמרה משקל בתי עלי ועלתה לירושלים ושקלוה ונתנה משקלה זהב,אמר רב יהודה האומר קומתי עלי נותן שרביט שאינו נכפף מלא קומתי עלי נותן שרביט הנכפף מיתיבי קומתי עלי מלא קומתי עלי נותן שרביט שאינו נכפף,הוא דאמר כר"ע דדייק לישנא יתירא דתנן לא את הבור ולא [את] הדות אף ע"פ שכתב עומקה ורומה וצריך ליקח לו דרך דברי ר"ע,וחכ"א אינו צריך ומודה רבי עקיבא בזמן שאמר לו חוץ מאלו שאין צריך ליקח לו דרך אלמא כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מילתא קאתי הכא נמי כיון דלא צריך וקאמר לטפויי מילתא קאתי,איבעיא להו עומדי מהו | 19a. Rather, the i baraita /i b should have /b stated: b With regard to the male and with regard to the female, /b which are the terms the Torah uses with regard to valuations. The terms son and daughter are used in i Yotze Dofen /i .,With regard to valuations, the Gemara asks: b And what is different /b with regard to b a female, that when she ages /b past sixty years she b stands at /b a valuation of ten shekels, b one-third /b of her previous valuation of thirty shekels, b and what is different /b with regard to b a male, that /b when he ages past sixty, at which point he has a valuation of fifteen shekels, he does not b stand at /b even b one-third /b of his previous valuation of fifty shekels? b Ḥizkiya said /b that b people say /b a popular saying: If there is b an elderly man in the home, /b there is b a burden [ i paḥa /i ] in the home, /b as he does not help with anything; if there is b an elderly woman in the home, /b there is b a treasure in the home, /b as she assists with various domestic labors.,, strong MISHNA: /strong b One who says: /b It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b my weight, gives his weight /b to the Temple treasury; b if /b he specified b silver /b he donates b silver, and if /b he specified b gold /b he donates b gold. /b There was b an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, who said: /b It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate the b weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her /b daughter’s b weight /b in b gold /b to the Temple treasury.,In the case of one who says: It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate the b weight of my forearm, /b how does he ascertain the weight of his forearm? b Rabbi Yehuda says: He fills a barrel /b with b water and inserts /b his arm b up to his elbow /b into the water. b And /b in order to measure the displacement, b he weighs donkey flesh, and bones, and sinews and places /b it b into /b the barrel b until it fills, /b and the water level reaches the top of the barrel. He then donates the weight of the meat and the bones to the Temple treasury. b Rabbi Yosei said: /b Displacement is according to volume not according to weight, b and how then is it possible to match /b the amount of the donkey b flesh with the flesh /b of a person b and /b the volume of the donkey’s b bones with /b his b bones? Rather, /b the court b appraises how much the forearm is likely to weigh. /b , strong GEMARA: /strong b What /b is the meaning of the mishna’s statement: b If silver, silver, /b and b if gold, gold? Rav Yehuda said: /b If b one specified /b that he vows to donate his weight in b silver /b he donates b silver, /b and if b he specified gold /b he donates b gold. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b This /b is what the mishna b is teaching us: The reason /b he donates silver or gold is b that he specified /b silver or gold, from which it may be inferred that if b he did not specify /b the means of payment, he may b exempt himself with any /b material.,The Gemara adds: And this is b in accordance with /b a statement of b Raḥava, as Raḥava says: In a place where /b merchants b weigh pitch /b when selling it, one who vows his weight b may exempt himself /b by donating his weight b even in pitch. /b The Gemara asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b the statement of Raḥava is b necessary /b in a place b where there are /b merchants b who weigh /b pitch b and there are /b others who b measure /b its volume. b Lest you say: Since not all /b merchants b weigh /b pitch one may b not /b fulfill his vow by donating his weight in pitch, Raḥava b teaches us /b that as there are merchants there who sell pitch by weight, one can fulfill his vow in that manner., b Rav Pappa says: In a place where /b merchants b weigh onions /b when selling them, one who vowed his weight b may exempt himself /b by donating his weight b even in onions. /b The Gemara again asks: Isn’t that b obvious? /b The Gemara answers: b No, /b the statement of Rav Pappa is b necessary /b in a place b where after they weigh /b the onions the merchants b throw /b in b two /b or b three /b extra onions to the buyer. b Lest you say /b that its b status /b as a place where onions are sold by b weight /b is b void /b due to the additional onions, Rav Pappa b teaches us /b that it is still considered a place where onions are sold by weight.,§ The mishna teaches: There was b an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, /b who said: It is incumbent upon me to donate the weight of my daughter, without specifying silver or gold, and she ascended to Jerusalem and paid her daughter’s weight in gold to the Temple treasury. The Gemara asks: Was b an incident /b cited b to contradict /b the previous ruling of the mishna? The mishna had stated: If silver, silver, and if gold, gold, which indicates that if one did not specify the means of payment he may exempt himself with any material that merchants sell by weight, whereas it can be inferred from the incident that one must pay the weight in gold.,The Gemara answers: The mishna b is incomplete and this /b is what b it is teaching: And if /b the one who vowed b is a distinguished person, even though he did not specify /b silver or gold b we say /b he must fulfill his vow b in keeping with his /b socioeconomic b status. And /b likewise, there was b an incident involving the mother of Yirmatya, /b a very wealthy woman, b who said: /b It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b the weight of my daughter, and she ascended to Jerusalem and gave her /b daughter’s b weight /b in b gold /b to the Temple treasury.,§ b Rav Yehuda says /b that b one who says: /b It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b my height, gives /b a thick b rod that cannot be bent /b equivalent to his height. One who says: It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b my full height, /b may b give /b even a thin b rod that /b can be b bent, /b provided it is equivalent to his height. The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i ( i Tosefta /i 3:1): With regard to one who says: It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b my height, /b or: It is incumbent b upon me /b to donate b my full height, he gives /b a thick b rod that cannot be bent /b and that is equivalent to his height.,The Gemara answers: Rav Yehuda b says /b his statement b in accordance with /b the opinion of b Rabbi Akiva, who /b holds that one can b draw an inference /b from b superfluous language. As we learned /b in a mishna ( i Bava Batra /i 64a): If one sold his house without specification, he has sold b neither the pit nor the cistern [ i dut /i ] /b with it, b even if he wrote /b in the document of sale: With b its depth and its height. /b This is because anything that is ancillary to the house, e.g., pits and cisterns, must be mentioned explicitly in the contract. b And /b the seller b must purchase for himself a path /b through to the pit or cistern that he kept back, as he sold his rights to the area surrounding the house along with the house, and therefore he may no longer walk through that area. This is b the statement of Rabbi Akiva. /b , b And the Rabbis say: He need not /b purchase a path, as the seller clearly did not intend to keep the pit or cistern without maintaining access to it. b And Rabbi Akiva concedes /b that b when /b the seller b states to /b the buyer in the document of sale: b Excluding these, /b the pit and the cistern, b that he need not purchase for himself a path /b through to the pit or cistern. b Evidently, /b Rabbi Akiva’s reasoning is that b since /b the seller b need not /b specify that the pit and cistern are excluded from the sale, b and /b yet b he says /b that they were excluded, b he is coming /b with this statement b to add an element /b to the agreement, i.e., the right of access. b Here too, /b when one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate my full height, b since /b it is a case where b he need not /b add the word full, b and /b yet b he says /b it, b he is coming to add an element /b to his vow, i.e., the ability to exempt himself with a thin rod., b A dilemma was raised before /b the Sages. If one says: It is incumbent upon me to donate b my stature, what is /b the i halakha /i ? |
|
| 113. Anon., Pirqe Rabbi Eliezer, 38 Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 114. Anon., Testament of Abraham, None Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 75 |
| 115. Anon., 2 Enoch, 49.1-49.2 Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 140 |
| 116. Anon., Midrash Tannaim To Deut, 17.15, 19.18 Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 40, 104 |
117. Babylonian Talmud, Avodah Zarah, None Tagged with subjects: •nan Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66| 16b. ואליבא דרבי יהודה רב אשי אמר סתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה,מיתיבי כשם שאין מוכרין להן בהמה גסה כך אין מוכרין להן חיה גסה ואפילו במקום שמוכרין להן בהמה דקה חיה גסה אין מוכרין להן תיובתא דרב חנן בר רבא תיובתא,רבינא רמי מתניתין אברייתא ומשני תנן אין מוכרין להן דובין ואריות ולא כל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים טעמא דאית ביה נזק הא לית ביה נזק מוכרין,ורמינהי כשם שאין מוכרין בהמה גסה כך אין מוכרין חיה גסה ואפילו במקום שמוכרין בהמה דקה חיה גסה אין מוכרין ומשני בארי שבור ואליבא דר' יהודה רב אשי אמר סתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה,מתקיף לה רב נחמן מאן לימא לן דארי חיה גסה היא דלמא חיה דקה היא,רב אשי דייק מתניתין ומותיב תיובתא תנן אין מוכרין להן דובים ואריות ולא כל דבר שיש בו נזק לרבים טעמא דאית ביה נזק הא לית ביה נזק מוכרין,וטעמא ארי דסתם ארי שבור הוא אצל מלאכה אבל מידי אחרינא דעביד מלאכה לא תיובתא דרב חנן בר רבא תיובתא,וחיה גסה מיהת מאי מלאכה עבדא אמר אביי אמר לי מר יהודה דבי מר יוחני טחני ריחים בערודי,א"ר זירא כי הוינן בי רב יהודה אמר לן גמירו מינאי הא מילתא דמגברא רבה שמיע לי ולא ידענא אי מרב אי משמואל חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס,כי אתאי לקורקוניא אשכחתיה לרב חייא בר אשי ויתיב וקאמר משמיה דשמואל חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמינא ש"מ משמיה דשמואל איתמר כי אתאי לסורא אשכחתיה לרבה בר ירמיה דיתיב וקא"ל משמיה דרב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמינא ש"מ איתמר משמיה דרב ואיתמר משמיה דשמואל,כי סליקת להתם אשכחתיה לרב אסי דיתיב וקאמר אמר רב חמא בר גוריא משמיה דרב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס אמרי ליה ולא סבר לה מר דמאן מרא דשמעתתא רבה בר ירמיה א"ל פתיא אוכמא מינאי ומינך תסתיים שמעתא,איתמר נמי א"ר זירא אמר רב אסי אמר רבה בר ירמיה אמר רב חמא בר גוריא אמר רב חיה גסה הרי היא כבהמה דקה לפירכוס:,אין בונין כו': אמר רבה בר בר חנה א"ר יוחנן ג' בסילקאות הן של מלכי עובדי כוכבים ושל מרחצאות ושל אוצרות אמר רבא ב' להיתר ואחד לאיסור וסימן (תהלים קמט, ח) לאסור מלכיהם בזיקים,ואיכא דאמרי אמר רבא כולם להיתר והתנן אין בונין עמהן בסילקי גרדום איצטדייא ובימה אימא של גרדום ושל איצטדייא ושל בימה,ת"ר כשנתפס ר"א למינות העלהו לגרדום לידון אמר לו אותו הגמון זקן שכמותך יעסוק בדברים בטלים הללו,אמר לו נאמן עלי הדיין כסבור אותו הגמון עליו הוא אומר והוא לא אמר אלא כנגד אביו שבשמים אמר לו הואיל והאמנתי עליך דימוס פטור אתה,כשבא לביתו נכנסו תלמידיו אצלו לנחמו ולא קיבל עליו תנחומין אמר לו ר"ע רבי תרשיני לומר דבר אחד ממה שלימדתני אמר לו אמור אמר לו רבי שמא מינות בא לידך | 16b. b and /b this is b in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda /b in the mishna on 14b, that it is permitted to sell to a gentile large livestock that are damaged. Yet, it is prohibited to sell large undamaged beasts, just as one may not sell large undamaged livestock. b Rav Ashi says: /b It is not necessary to explain that the mishna is referring to such a specific case. Rather, b an ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor, /b as lions are not generally used to perform labor. Therefore there is no concern that a lion will be used to perform prohibited labor on Shabbat.,The Gemara b raises an objection /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as one may not sell large livestock to /b gentiles, b so too one may not sell large beasts to them. And even in a place where /b the people were accustomed to b sell small livestock to /b gentiles; nevertheless, b one may not sell large beasts to /b them. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥa bar Rava /b is b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara presents a different version of this discussion. b Ravina raises a contradiction between the mishna /b here b and a i baraita /i and resolves /b the contradiction. b We learned /b in the mishna: b One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to /b gentiles. Ravina analyzes the mishna: b The reason /b a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is b that it can cause injury to the public, /b from which it may be inferred that with regard to another beast, which b does not cause injury to the public, one may sell /b it to gentiles., b And /b Ravina b raises a contradiction /b from a i baraita /i : b Just as one may not sell large livestock /b to gentiles, b so too, one may not sell large beasts /b to them. b And even in a place where /b the people were accustomed to b sell small livestock /b to gentiles, b one may not sell large beasts /b to them. The i baraita /i indicates that one may never sell large beasts to gentiles, even if it poses no danger to the public. b And /b Ravina b resolves /b the contradiction between the mishna and the i baraita /i : The ruling of the mishna is stated b with regard to a damaged lion, in accordance with /b the opinion b of Rabbi Yehuda. Rav Ashi says /b there is a different explanation: b An ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor. /b , b Rav Naḥman objects to /b the inference drawn from the mishna: b Who will tell us that a lion is /b considered b a large beast? Perhaps it is /b considered b a small beast, /b in which case it cannot be inferred that the mishna permits the sale of large beasts.,The Gemara explains: b Rav Ashi examined the mishna /b here carefully, b and /b from it he b raises a refutation /b of the opinion of Rav Ḥa bar Rava, who permitted the sale of large beasts. b We learned /b in the mishna: b One may not sell bears, or lions, or any item that can cause injury to the public, to /b gentiles. Rav Ashi inferred two conclusions from here. First, b the reason /b a beast such as a lion cannot be sold to gentiles is b because it can cause injury to the public, /b whereas with regard to a beast that b does not cause injury to the public, one may sell /b it to gentiles. This inference was cited in contradiction of the opinion of Rav, as explained before., b And /b Rav Ashi then inferred, in resolution of Rav’s opinion, that b the reason /b the mishna specifies that one may sell b a lion /b if it does not pose a danger to the public is b that an ordinary lion is /b considered b damaged with regard to labor. But a different /b animal b that performs labor /b may b not /b be sold. This presents a difficulty to the opinion of Rav Ḥa bar Rava. The Gemara concludes: b The refutation of /b the opinion of b Rav Ḥa bar Rava /b is b a conclusive refutation. /b ,The Gemara asks: b But in any event, what labor can a large beast perform? /b Why is it necessary to prohibit the sale of large beasts if they are not trained to perform any labor? b Abaye said: Mar Yehuda said to me /b that b in the house of Mar Yoḥani, they grind the mill with wild asses, /b which are considered large beasts.,§ b Rabbi Zeira said: When we were in the /b study b hall of Rav Yehuda, he said to us: Learn from me this matter, which I heard from a great man, but I do not know if /b I heard it b from Rav or from Shmuel: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm, /b i.e., the symptoms of vitality required at the time of slaughtering.,Rabbi Zeira continued: b When I came to /b the city of b Korkoneya, I found Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi sitting and saying in the name of Shmuel: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said /b to myself: One can b conclude from /b here that this b was stated in the name of Shmuel. When I came to Sura, I found Rabba bar Yirmeya sitting and saying in the name of Rav: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said /b to myself: One can b conclude from /b here that this b was stated in the name of Rav, and /b it b was /b also b stated in the name of Shmuel. /b , b When I ascended to there, /b Eretz Yisrael, b I found Rav Asi sitting and saying /b that b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says in the name of Rav: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. I said to him: And doesn’t the Master hold that the Master /b who is responsible for dissemination b of /b this b i halakha /i /b is b Rabba bar Yirmeya? /b Why don’t you attribute the statement to him? Rav Asi b said to me: Black pot [ i patya /i ], /b a term of endearment for a scholar who works hard studying Torah: b From me and from you /b this b i halakha /i may be concluded. /b In other words, our two statements should be combined to form one accurate attribution of the i halakha /i .,The Gemara notes that in fact this ruling b was also stated: Rabbi Zeira says /b that b Rav Asi says /b that b Rabba bar Yirmeya says /b that b Rav Ḥama bar Gurya says /b that b Rav says: /b The status of b a large beast is like /b that of b small livestock with regard to a spasm. /b ,§ The mishna teaches that b one may not build /b a basilica in conjunction with gentiles. b Rabba bar bar Ḥana says /b that b Rabbi Yoḥa says: There are three /b types of b basilicas: /b Those b of kings, and /b those b of bathhouses, and /b those b of storehouses. Rava says: Two /b of these types b are permitted, /b as they are not used for inflicting the death penalty, b and one is prohibited [ i le’isor /i ]. And a mnemonic /b device for this ruling, that the basilica of kings is prohibited, is the verse: b “To bind [ i le’esor /i ] their kings with chains” /b (Psalms 149:8)., b And there are /b those b who say /b that this is what b Rava says: All /b these types of basilica are b permitted. /b The Gemara asks: How can it be permitted to build any type of basilica; b but didn’t we learn /b in the mishna: b One may not build with them a basilica, a tribunal, a stadium, or a platform? /b The Gemara answers: b Say /b that the mishna means the following: One may not build in conjunction with gentiles a basilica b of a tribunal, or of a stadium, or of a platform. /b But it is permitted to build a basilica that is not used for sentencing and inflicting the death penalty.,§ Apropos the above discussion, the Gemara relates incidents involving Sages who were sentenced by the ruling authorities. b The Sages taught: When Rabbi Eliezer was arrested /b and charged b with heresy /b by the authorities, b they brought him up to a tribunal to be judged. A certain /b judicial b officer [ i hegemon /i ] said to him: /b Why b should an elder like you engage in these frivolous matters /b of heresy?,Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: The Judge is trusted by me /b to rule correctly. b That officer thought /b that Rabbi Eliezer b was speaking about him; but /b in fact b he said /b this b only in reference to his Father in Heaven. /b Rabbi Eliezer meant that he accepted God’s judgment, i.e., if he was charged he must have sinned to God in some manner. The officer b said to him: Since you /b put b your trust in me, /b you are b acquitted [ i dimos /i ]; you are exempt. /b , b When /b Rabbi Eliezer b came home, his students entered to console him /b for being accused of heresy, which he took as a sign of sin, b and he did not accept /b their words of b consolation. Rabbi Akiva said to him: My teacher, allow me to say one matter from /b all of b that which you taught me. /b Rabbi Eliezer b said to him: Speak. /b Rabbi Akiva b said to him: My teacher, perhaps /b some statement of b heresy came before you /b |
|
| 118. Anon., Sifre Zuta, None Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 119. Psalms of Solomon, 2 Enoch, 2.37, 3.16 Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 66 |
| 120. Anon., Num., None Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 103 |
| 121. Anon., Lexicon Artis Grammaticae (E Cod. Coislin. 345), 6.4 Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 122. Anon., Tanhuma, None Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
| 123. Anon., Midrash Hagadol, None Tagged with subjects: •tannaim, tannaitic law, judaism, period Found in books: Schiffman (1983), Testimony and the Penal Code, 126 |
