Mishnah
1 Money matters are judged by three judges; robberies and injuries by three judges, damages, half damages, double restitution, quadruple and quintuple restitution. The rapist, the seducer, and the slanderer are judged by three judges, according to Rabbi Meïr; but the Sages say that the slanderer is judged by 23 because it might be a capital case.
Halakhah
“Money matters are judged by three judges,” etc. What is the source for this? “These shall be the laws of procedure for you,”Numbers 35:29 From this I would say that both civil cases and criminal cases are subject to the rules of verification and examination.
What is the source that civil cases are heard by three judges? “The owner shall go to the judge,”Exodus 22:7 this gives one judge. “Before the judge,”Exodus 22:8 this gives two. “Whom the judges will find guilty,” this gives three, according to Rabbi Joshia. Rabbi Jonathan said, the first mention introduces the subject; one does not infer anything from introductions. But “before the judge,” there is one. “Whom the judges will find guilty,” there are two. No court may have an even number of judges, so one more is added; this makes three.
Rabbi said, the verse speaks about two. You say about two, or maybe it is only about one? What does it say? It is not written “whom the judge will find guilty” but “whom the judges will find guilty.” No court may have an even number of judges, so one more is added; this makes three.
Rabbi Abbahu asked: According to Rabbi, should not civil suits be heard by five; should sentence not be passed by 23? Ḥizqiah was found to have stated: Since the Torah said, kill by a vote of the majority, kill by the testimony of witnesses. Since witnesses must be two, a majority also must be two. No court can have an even number of judges; one more is added. This makes five.
Do not robberies and injuries fall under the same rules? It was found that Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “These are the procedures which you shall put before them.” It serves to explain to you the plain sense of the verse. This follows Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta.
Rabbi Yose bar Ḥalaphta, when two people came before him for judgment and told him, “on condition that you judge us by the law of the Torah,” told them, “I do not know the law of the Torah, but He Who knows thoughts will exact payment from those people. You have to accept what I shall tell you.”
When a person came to Rabbi Aqiba to have a suit decided before him, he told him: “You should know before Whom you are standing, before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence, as it is said: ‘The two people who are quarreling shall stand before the Eternal,’Deuteronomy 19:17 not before Aqiba ben Joseph.”
It was stated: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, criminal jurisdiction was removed from Israel, and in the days of Simeon ben Šetaḥ civil jurisdiction was removed. Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, praise be to the Merciful One, for I am not intelligent enough to judge.
Samuel said, if two men acted as judges, their judgment stands, but they are called an insolent court. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach: Even if two men acted as judges, their judgment is no judgment. There, we have stated: “If he gave judgment, acquitted the guilty and condemned the innocent, declared the pure impure or the impure pure, what he did is done but he has to pay from his own pocket.” Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were two. What are we dealing with? If his error was that he judged them at his discretion, then what he did is done. If his error was that he judged them by Torah law, why should he pay from his own pocket? Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: if they told him, we accept you as if you were three on condition that you judge us by Torah law. He erred and judged them at his discretion. What he did is done, but since he erred and judged them at his discretion, he has to pay from his own pocket because he presumed to judge alone by Torah law, as we have stated: “Do not judge sitting alone, for only One judges sitting alone.”
Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, even the Holy One, praise to Him, does not judge alone, as it is said: “all the hosts of Heaven were standing by Him, to His right side and to His left.” These vote to acquit, those to convict. Even though He does not judge alone, He signs alone, as it is said: “indeed, I will tell you what is noted in true writing.”Daniel 10:21 Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Holy One, praise to Him, never does anything in His world without first taking counsel with the Heavenly Court. What is the reason? “True is the statement and a large host.”Daniel 10:1 When is the seal of the Holy One, praise to Him, true? When He took counsel with the Heavenly Court. Rabbi Eleazar said, wherever it says “the Eternal, Almighty,” it is He and His Heavenly Court. The model for all of them is: “and the Eternal spoke evil about him.”1 Kings 22:23
What is the seal of the Holy One, praise to Him? Rabbi Bevai in the name of Rabbi Reuben, “true.” What does “true” mean? Rabbi Abun said, that He is a Living Power and the King of this World. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, א is the start of the alphabet, מ the middle, and ת the end. As if to say, “I, the Eternal, am First,”Isaiah 41:4 I did not receive anything from another. “Besides Me there is no supreme power,”Isaiah 44:6 for I have no co-owner. “And with the last, I shall be,”Isaiah 41:4 I will never turn it over to anybody else.
Rabbi Abba and Rabbi Benjamin bar Jephet had a lawsuit before Rabbi Isaac; the judgment was for Rabbi Benjamin. Rabbi Abba wanted to complain; Rabbi Immi came and taught: If an expert forced his opinion as a judgment, his judgment stands.
Rabbi Abbahu was sitting as sole judge in the inclining synagogue of Caesarea. His students said to him, did the rabbi not teach: “Do not judge sitting alone”? He told them, since you see me sitting alone as a judge and they come to me, it is because they accepted this. It was stated thus: “When was this said? If they did not accept it. But if they accepted it, he may judge even as sole judge.”
Rabbi Joḥanan brought a lawsuit before the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya. He took a student to sit with him. But did we not state: “A father and his son, a teacher and his student, the two are counted as one.” Let us say that he was both student and colleague, like Rabbi Eleazar to Rabbi Joḥanan.
Judgments were rendered by Rav alone, by Rav Aḥa alone, by Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose by themselves.
There, we have stated: “If somebody takes a fee to judge, his judgments are invalid.” The Mishnah means: “He who is suspected of taking a fee but he judges.”
A person brought a suit before Rav Huna. He told him, bring me a person who climbs the date palm instead of me.
Rav Huna was a cowherd. A person for whom he had testimony told him, come and testify for me. He answered him, give me my wages. It was stated thus: “One pays the judge for his time and the witness for his testimony.”
A person made a Cohen impure. The case came before Rabbi Isaac who ordered him to give the Cohen profane food to eat. They wanted to say that one deducts the price of the heave offering from the amount.
It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Rabbi Yose the Galilean says, the person who arranges a compromise sins, and the one who praises a compromiser is like a blasphemer before the Omnipresent, as it is said: “he who blesses a compromiser slanders the Eternal!” The law should pierce the mountain, as Moses did. But Aaron promoted peace, as it is said, “in peace and uprightness he walked with Me.”
It was stated: “Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says, why does the verse say, ‘he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal?’ They told a parable: to what can this be compared? To one who stole a se’ah of wheat, brought it to the baker, separated its ḥallah, and fed it to his children. He pronounces blessings but it is blasphemy.
“Rabbi Meïr says, why does the verse say, ‘he who blesses unlawful gain slanders the Eternal?’ These are Joseph’s brothers, as it is said: ‘What is the gain if we kill our brother,’ etc.”
“Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, it is a good deed to mediate a compromise, as it is said: ‘Truth and judgment of peace.’ If there is truth, there is no judgment of peace. If there is peace, there is no judgment of truth. What is truth containing a judgment of peace? I would say, this is compromise.”
“If somebody judged correctly, absolved the innocent and condemned the guilty, the verse counts it as if he practiced kindness both toward the innocent and toward the guilty. Kindness toward the innocent, because he returned his money to him. And toward the guilty, for he removed the proceeds of robbery from his hands.” Rabbi Abbahu said, “judgment” is written twice in the verse: “Truth and judgment of peace judge in your gates.”
Rabbi Zachariah asked before Rabbi Immi: Does one act following that Tanna, as it was stated: “Rabbi Simeon ben Menassiah says, sometimes you are empowered to propose a compromise, sometimes you are not empowered to propose a compromise. How is this? Two come before a judge; before he has heard their arguments, or after he heard their arguments but does not know how to correctly apply the law, he may tell them, go and work out a compromise. After you have heard their arguments and know how to correctly apply the law, you may not propose a compromise, as it is said: ‘One may remove the beginning of a quarrel like water; before it becomes manifest, the quarrel may be abandoned.’ Before the quarrel became manifest, you are permitted to abandon it; after the quarrel became manifest, you are not permitted to abandon it.” Rabbi Mattaniah said, even compromise needs an intelligent decision.
“Rabbi Jehudah ben Laqish said: Two people appeared before a judge, one decent and one aggressive. Before he started to hear their arguments, he may tell them, I will not hear your case, for fear that the aggressive one would lose his case and become his enemy. After he started hearing their arguments, he may not tell them, I will not hear your case, for it is said, ‘do not be afraid of anybody.’”
“Rabbi Joshua ben Qorha says, if somebody was sitting next to a judge and saw a benefit for the poor and a detriment for the rich, what is the source that he should not keep silent? For it is said, ‘do not be afraid of anybody.’”
The judges have to know with Whom they are judging, and the witnesses have to know before Whom they are testifying: before Him Who commanded and the world came into existence, as it is said, “the two people who are quarreling shall stand before the Eternal,” and it is said, “the Almighty stands in the assembly of the judges.” So Jehoshaphat told the judges, “look what you are doing, for you do not judge for man, but for the Eternal.”2 Chronicles 19:6 How is it possible for flesh and blood to judge his Creator? But the Holy One, praise to Him, said: I said that Reuben should have 100 denars and Simeon nothing. You take from one and give it to the other. I have to repay it to him, and will Myself be paid by this man.
It was stated: “Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, judgment is passed by three judges, a compromise is made by two. The compromise is stronger than the judgment in that two judges who judged can repeal their judgment but two who negotiated a compromise cannot repeal it.”
“The rapist and the seducer,” etc. Rabbi Mana said, they disagree about the betrothed adolescent girl. Rabbi Meïr says, she loses her ketubah in a court of three and is stoned in a court of 23; but the Sages say, at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. But in the case of the slanderer, everybody agrees that by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said to him, would they differ where it was not stated? But they differ about the slanderer! Rabbi Meïr says, he is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas by the judgment of three and the witnesses are stoned by the judgment of 23; but the rabbis say, by the court in which the witnesses are stoned, the husband is flogged and pays 100 tetradrachmas. But in the case of the betrothed adolescent girl, everybody agrees that at the same place which sentences her to be stoned she loses her ketubah. It turns out that Rabbi Mana follows Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun follows Rabbi Abbahu.
Rabbi Abbahu asked: Following Rabbi Meïr, should an ox that is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox that is stoned are all about money; it is the verse’s decision that it should be stoned.
Mishnah
2 Whipping by three judges; in the name of Rabbi Ismael they said, by 23. The lengthening of a month by three judges, the intercalation of a year by three judges, according to Rabbi Meïr. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, one starts with three, one discusses with five, and one votes with seven. But if they voted with three, it is intercalated. The laying on of hands by the Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three judges, according to Rabbi Simeon, but Rabbi Jehudah says, by five. Ḥalîṣah and repudiations by three judges, redemption of the growth of the fourth year and Second Tithe whose value is not known by three appraisers, also of Temple dedications by three. Estimations of movables by three appraisers, Rabbi Jehudah says that one of them must be a Cohen; of real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans. Capital crimes are judged by 23. The participants in active or passive bestiality are judged by 23, as it is said, “you shall kill the woman and the animal,”Leviticus 20:16 and it says, “and you shall kill the animal.”Leviticus 20:15 The bull to be stoned is judged by 23, as it is said, “the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die”Exodus 21:29; as is the owner’s death sentence, so is the ox’s. The wolf and the lion, the bear, and the tiger, and the panther, and the snake are sentenced to death by 23. Rabbi Eliezer says, whoever is first to kill them earns merit; Rabbi Aqiba says, they are sentenced by 23.
Halakhah
“Whipping by three judges,” etc. Rabbi Abbahu asked: Should not a sentence of whipping be passed by 23 judges, since sometimes he might die from the whippings, so that it is a case of potential death sentence?
Bar Qappara derived it all from here: “May the Eternal bless you and preserve you,” from here that one starts with three. “May the Eternal illuminate His Presence for you and be gracious to you,” from here that one continues with five. “May the Eternal turn His Presence to you and give you peace,” from here that one finishes with seven.
Rabbi Joshua ben Levi derived it all from the following: “The chief executioner took” ... “the three guards of the threshold,”Jeremiah 52:24 from here that one starts with three. “And five men from the king’s entourage,”2 Kings 25:19 from here that one continues with five. “And seven men from the King’s entourage,”Jeremiah 52:25 from here that one finishes with seven.
Rabbi Jonathan said, from there, the great Sanhedrin of all of Israel. “The minister of the executioners took Seraiah the Chief Priest and Zephania the priest,”Jeremiah 52:24 these are two. “And seven men from the king’s entourage,”Jeremiah 52:25 this makes nine. “And sixty men from the People of the Land,”2 Kings 25:19 this makes sixty-nine. “And from the city one eunuch,”Jeremiah 52:25 this makes seventy. There are Tannaïm who state seventy-one: “The chief executioner took ... the three guards of the threshold, and seven men from the king’s entourage, and sixty men from the People of the Land, and from the city he took one eunuch,” this makes seventy-one. And why is he called a eunuch? Because he transposes practice.
One verse says five, the other verse says seven. The latter includes the two clerks of court.
It is not lengthening of the month but sanctification of the month. Samuel says, sanctification of the month needs no less than ten participants. Should Fellows be able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rabbi Hoshaia said, I was a Fellow and Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac took me to the sanctification of the month, but I do not know whether I was counted or not. It is obvious that he was not counted, but why? Was it because he was his son-in-law, or because Fellows are not able to enter for the sanctification of the month? Rabbi Cahana said, I was a Fellow when Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya took me to the sanctification of the month and I was counted. This implies that Fellows enter for the sanctification of the month.
Are Fellows able to enter for the intercalation of the year? Let us hear from the following: It happened that Rabban Gamliel said, call seven Elders to a meeting on the upper floor, but eight entered. He asked, who is the one who entered without permission? Samuel the Small stood up and said, I came up here without permission since I have a practical problem and I have to ask advice on it. Rabban Gamliel told him, you are like Eldad and Medad; if I had said “two,” you would have been one of them. Nevertheless, they did not intercalate on that day but talked about themes in the Torah and intercalated the next day.
It was stated: If the Sanhedrin saw the killer: Some Tannaïm state: two of them become witnesses and testify before the rest of them. There are Tannaïm who state that they all are witnesses and have to go and testify before other judges. Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: As they differ here, so they differ about testimony for the New Moon.
Why can it not always be that one stands up and one sits down? There is a difference because a witness cannot be a judge. Rav Huna had testimony for somebody. He came and wanted to have the suit judged before Rav Huna, and denied everything. Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac told him, because you know that Rav Huna is an important person you deny everything. What if Rav Huna went and testified against you in another court? Rav Huna asked him, does one do that? He answered, yes. Rav Huna recused himself from that suit, went, and testified before another court.
Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: “You shall sanctify the Fiftieth Year.”Leviticus 25:10 You shall sanctify years but not months. But did we not state: “The president of the court says: sanctified”? What does “sanctified” mean? Confirmed. It was stated: For sanctifying months one starts with the most senior person. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada said, the Mishnah says this: “The president of the court says: sanctified.” It was stated, for intercalation of the year one starts from the side. Rabbi Zebida said, but this lower house does not proceed in this way, for they did not hear what Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Marius and Rabbi Jonah, Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: For lengthening the month one starts with the most senior person, for intercalating the year one starts from the side. When Rabbi Joḥanan was participating as the most junior person, they told him, say: “this year is sanctified in its intercalation.” He said, “this year is sanctified in intercalation.” Rabbi Jonathan said, look at the language which the smith’s son taught us. If he had said, “in its intercalation,” I would have said that this refers to the eleven days by which the solar year exceeds the lunar one, but he said “in intercalation,” meaning that the Sages added thirty days to it. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: For intercalation one follows the date of ordination. In the Academy one follows usage; each one gives his opinion at his place and sums up. For example, Rabbi Ḥanina started, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish summed up. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda started, Rabbi Yasa and Rabbi Immi summed up. Rabbi Ḥaggai started, Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose summed up. Rabbi Cahana was ordained before Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, but Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa participated in intercalation before Rabbi Cahana was invited. He said, the person who formulated the tradition does not respect it for himself.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba was standing in prayer. Rav Cahana came and stood behind him in prayer. When Rabbi Ḥiyya had finished, he sat down in order not to walk by him. Rav Cahana spent a long time praying. After he finished, he told him, is that your way to make your teacher suffer? He told him, I am a descendant of the House of Eli, of whom it is written: “if the sin of the House of Eli would be atoned for by sacrifice and offering.” By sacrifice and offering it cannot be atoned for, but it can be atoned for by prayer. He prayed for him, and he reached old age while his fingernails remained red like those of a small child.
They preferred an old man to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish for intercalation but had to remove him by the other door. He said, this is their reward. Did he not hear what Rabbi Crispus said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It happened that the year was intercalated by three cowhands. One said, in Adar, early and late grain sprout together. One said, in Adar the ox will die naked and try to strip off his hide under the fig tree. One said, if in Adar the East wind blows, open your jaws and go toward it. And we see that this year none of these applies. They intercalated the year on their word. Rabbi Ḥelbo said, because the Court agreed with them. Rabbi Zeʿira said, but they all have to agree to the same reason. But since they all agreed with one another, it shows that they all agreed as to the reason.
Why was Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish offended by this? He was worried about what Rabbi Eleazar said, since Rabbi Eleazar said: “My hand will be against the prophets who see ... vain things, in my people’s council they shall not be;” that is the secret of intercalation; “in the documents of the House of Israel they will not be inscribed;” that is ordination; “and to the earth of Israel they shall not come;” that is the Land of Israel. When Rabbi Eleazar came here, he said, I have one. When they ordained him, he said, I have two. When he was asked to participate in the intercalation, he said, I have all three with me.
Rabbi Abba bar Zavda in the name of Rav: The reason of Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Sadoq: When the Heavenly Court sees that the earthly Court sanctifies it, they also sanctify it.
Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: It happened that 24 people appointed by the House of Rabbi entered to intercalate the year at Lydda when an evil eye entered with them and they all died at the same time. From that time on they removed it from Judea and established it in Galilee. They also wanted to remove the signal. Rabbi Simon told them, do we not even want to leave a remembrance in Judea? But we find that they intercalated the year at Baʿalat. This Baʿalat is sometimes mentioned as being in Judea, sometimes in Dan. “Elteqe, and Gibbeton, and Baʿalat” are from Judea. “Baʿalah, and Iyyim, and Asem”Joshua 15:29 are from Dan, and we find that they intercalated the year at Baʿalat. Let us say that the houses were in Judea and the fields in Dan. Rabbi Jeremiah asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: Is Lydda not in Judea? He answered, yes. Then why does one not intercalate there? He told him, because they are coarse of spirit and have little learning. He turned his face and saw Rabbi Aḥa and Rabbi Judah ben Pazi. He said to him, just now you made me insult rabbis.
“For three indications one intercalates a year: because of fresh grain, the equinox, and tree fruits. One intercalates because of two of them, because of a single one, one does not intercalate; but if they intercalated, it is intercalated. If fresh grain was one of the reasons, everybody was happy. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, also because of the equinox.”
“For three regions one intercalates a year, because of Judea, Transjordan, and Galilee. One intercalates because of two of them, while because of one of them one does not intercalate; if they did intercalate it is not intercalated. If Judea was one of the reasons, everybody was happy since the ʿOmer was brought from there.”
“One intercalates neither because of the cold, nor because of the rains; if they did intercalate it is not intercalated. One intercalates neither because of kid goats nor because of pigeon chicks, nor because of milk lambs; but all of them are ancillary reasons for the year. Rabbi Yannai said that Rabban Gamliel used to say: The sheep are thin and the pigeon chicks small; it seems right to me and to my colleagues to add thirty days to the year.”
“Rabbi Jehudah said: it happened that Rabban Gamliel and the Elders were sitting on stairs on the Temple Mount; their scribe Joḥanan was sitting before them when Rabban Gamliel said to him, write: To our brothers in the Upper Southland and the Lower Southland, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of removal has come, to deliver tithes from the sheaves of grain. To our brothers in the Upper Galilee and the Lower Galilee, may you have much peace. We inform you that the time of removal has come, to deliver tithes from the olive presses. To our brothers in the diaspora of Babylonia, the diaspora of Media, the diaspora of Greece, and all other diasporas of Israel, may you have much peace. We inform you that the sheep are thin, the pigeon chicks small, and springtime has not arrived; it seems right to me and to my colleagues to add thirty days to this year.”
“One does not intercalate a year unless it is missing most of a month. How much is most of a month? 16 days. Rabbi Jehudah says, two-thirds of a month, 21 days.” Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only that the ʿOmer should be brought at the end of Nisan of equinoxes. Rabbi Yose said, before Passover. Rav Mattaniah said, only that lulav be taken at the end of Tishre of equinoxes.
“One intercalates a year neither less than a month, nor more than a month; if it was intercalated, it is not intercalated.”
“One intercalates neither in a Sabbatical year nor the year following a Sabbatical; but if it was intercalated it is intercalated. When does one usually intercalate? The year preceding a Sabbatical.” Rabbi Zeʿira said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu, that is before Rabbi permitted importing produce from outside the Land into the Land. But since Rabbi permitted importing produce from outside the Land into the Land, there is no difference between a Sabbatical and the remaining years of the Sabbatical cycle.
Rabbi Meïr used to say: it is said, “a man came from Baal Shalisha and brought to the Man of God first fruit bread, twenty loaves,” etc. Since the year should have been intercalated, why did Elisha not intercalate? This teaches that it was a year of famine and people were eager for threshing floors.
Some Tannaïm state: “One does not intercalate because of impurity. Rabbi Yose says, one intercalates, since we find that Hezekiah intercalated because of the impurity, as it is said: ‘For most of the people from Ephraim, Manasseh, Issachar, and Zebulun had not been purified, for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written, for Hezekiah had prayed, saying, the Eternal, the Benevolent, will pardon this.’ Rabbi Simeon says, even though he intercalated Nisan, it was Adar which was intercalated. Rabbi Simeon ben Jehudah said in the name of Rabbi Simeon: Hezekiah forced the community to celebrate the Second Passover.”
Some Tannaïm state: One intercalates because of impurity. Some Tannaïm state: One does not intercalate. He who says, one does not intercalate, from the following: “for they ate the Passover contrary to what is written.” How does the one who says one does not intercalate, explain “contrary to what is written”? They intercalated in Nisan but one intercalates only in Adar. This follows what Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi said: they found the skull of Ornan the Jebusite under the altar.
It is written: “With all his heart he prepared himself to seek God,” to act, and to teach law and justice in Israel. Rabbi Simon bar Zavdi and Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman. One said, with all he did for the purity of the Temple, he did not fully establish the purity of the Temple. One said, with all the good works he did, he did not fully do his duty for the purity of the Temple. It is written: “They started on the first of the first month, and on the eighth day they entered the Eternal’s Hall and sanctified the Eternal’s House for” three “days; on the sixteenth of the month they finished.” Could they not have eliminated all idolatry from there in one day? Rabbi Idi said, because of Chaldean idols which were engraved in vermilion.
Hezekiah did six things; with three they agreed, with three they did not agree. He dragged his father’s bones on a bier of ropes, he smashed the bronze snake, and he hid the table of medicines; they agreed. He closed the upper Giḥon spring, and he cut down the Temple doors, and he intercalated Nisan in Nisan; they disagreed.
One does not intercalate before New Year’s Day; if they did intercalate it would be invalid. But for an urgent need one may intercalate immediately after New Year’s Day. Nevertheless, only Adar is intercalated. Rabbi says, Nisan was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the New Moon appeared in time”? That is, if it had appeared, but it did not. Rav said, Tishre was never lengthened. But did we not state: “If the month was long”? That is, if it had been, but it never was.
“When they sanctified the year at Usha, on the first day Rabbi Ismael, the son of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa, led and recited following the opinion of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, we did not follow this at Jabneh. On the second day, Rabbi Ḥananiah, the son of Rabbi Yose the Galilean, led and recited following Rabbi Aqiba. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, this we did follow at Jabneh.” But does this not mean that they sanctified it on the first and the second day? Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rav Ḥisda: That year was disorganized. What does “on the first, on the second” mean? Rav Abba in the name of Rav: The first year, the second year! But was it not stated: the first day, the second day?
If they sanctified it before its time or after its lengthening, should I assume it was lengthened? The verse says, them, them; not “these are My holidays?” Before its time, the 29th day; after its lengthening, the 32nd day. What is the source that one intercalates for the year because of the diaspora who set out but have not yet arrived? The verse says, “the Children of Israel.” Make the holidays so they can be observed by all of Israel. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, only if they had reached the river Euphrates.
“One intercalates a year only in Judea, but if it was intercalated in Galilee it is validly intercalated. Ḥanina from Ono testified that, if it cannot be intercalated in Judea, one intercalates in Galilee.” One does not intercalate a year outside the Land; if it was intercalated, it is not validly intercalated. Consider: one does not intercalate in Galilee; could one intercalate outside the Land? One does not intercalate in Galilee; but if it was intercalated it is validly intercalated. One does not intercalate outside the Land; if it was intercalated it is not intercalated if it was possible to intercalate in the Land of Israel; but if one cannot intercalate in the Land of Israel, one intercalates it outside the Land.
Jeremiah intercalated outside the Land. Ezekiel intercalated outside the Land. Baruch ben Neriah intercalated outside the Land. Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua intercalated outside the Land. Rabbi sent him three letters through Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Nathan. In one he wrote, to His holiness Ḥanania. And in one he wrote, the kid goats you left behind became rams. And in one he wrote, if you do not accept, go to the thistle desert, do the slaughtering and let Onias sprinkle. After the first letter, he honored them. After the second, he honored them. After the third, he wanted to disgrace them. They said to him, you cannot do that since you have already honored us. Rabbi Isaac rose and read in the Torah: These are the holidays of Ḥanania the nephew of Rabbi Joshua. They said to him, “the holidays of the Eternal.” He told them, that is with us. Rabbi Nathan rose and concluded: For from Babylonia will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Nahar-Peqod. They said to him, “for from Zion will Torah go forth and the Eternal’s word from Jerusalem.” He told them, that is with us. He went to complain about them to Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis. He said to him, follow them, follow them. He said to him, I do not know whom I left there. Who would tell me that they are knowledgeable in computations as I am? If they did not know the computations, they should listen to him. Since they are knowledgeable in computations as he is, he has to listen to them. He got up and rode on a horse. Where he reached, he reached. Where he did not reach, they continued to follow the corrupt calendar.
It is written: “to the outstanding Elders in the diaspora.” The Holy One, praise to Him, said: The Elders of the diaspora are very dear to me. But more beloved by Me is a small group in the Land of Israel than a great Sanhedrin outside the Land. It is written: “The craftsmen and the smiths one thousand,” and you say so? Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo and the rabbis. Rabbi Berekhiah said, one thousand craftsmen and one thousand smiths. But the rabbis say, together one thousand. Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo said, these are the Fellows; but the rabbis say, these are the councilmen.
Rabbi Hoshaia, when he received witnesses at Kallirhoë, used to say to them: you should know the importance of the testimony that comes from your mouths; how much rent money depends on your mouths. Rabbi Abuna said, if it is so, it is even a matter of criminal law. If somebody sleeps with a girl three years and one day old, he is stoned. The court decides to lengthen, if he sleeps with her he is not stoned. Rabbi Abun said, “I am calling to Almighty God, to the God Who decides with me.” If a girl is three years and one day old, if the court decides to lengthen her hymen does repair itself, otherwise it does not repair itself.
“The leaning of Elders and the breaking of the calf’s neck by three judges, according to Rabbi Simeon, but Rabbi Jehudah says, by five.” What is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “The Elders shall lean,” two. No court has an even number of members; one more is added; that makes three. What is the reason of Rabbi Jehudah? “They shall lean,” two. “The Elders,” two. No court has an even number of members; one more is added; that makes five. And for the calf whose neck is broken, what is the reason of Rabbi Simeon? “Your Elders,” two, “and your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one more is added; that makes five. What is the reason of Rabbi Jehudah? “Your elders, your judges,” two. No court has an even number of members; one more is added; that makes three. Rabbi said, the words of Rabbi Jehudah are reasonable for the breaking of the neck, for he does not refer to “they shall go out.” The words of Rabbi Simeon are reasonable for the leaning of the hands, for he does not refer to “they shall lean.” If you say that the words of Rabbi Jehudah are reasonable for the calf whose neck is broken, if he refers to “they shall lean,” he also should refer to “they shall go out.” It turns out that you have to say “they shall go out” two, “your Elders” two, “and your judges” two. No court has an even number of members; one more is added; that makes seven. How does Rabbi Simeon explain “your Elders and your judges”? Your Elders who are your judges. It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob says “your Elders,” that is the High Court; “and your judges,” these are the king and the High Priest.
It was stated: Leanings by three judges. Is not leaning the same as leanings? There, they call ordination “leaning.”
Rabbi Abba said, in earlier times, everyone ordained his own students; for example Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai ordained Rabbi Eliezer and Rabbi Joshua, Rabbi Joshua Rabbi Aqiba, and Rabbi Aqiba Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Simeon. He said, Rabbi Meïr shall preside; the face of Rabbi Simeon became yellow. Rabbi Aqiba told him, it is enough that I and your Creator recognize your power. They changed and honored this dynasty, saying: If a court ordained without the consent of the Patriarch, their ordination is no ordination, but if the Patriarch ordained without consent of the court, his ordination is ordination. They changed again and instituted that neither shall the Court ordain without consent of the Patriarch, nor the Patriarch without consent of the Court.
It was stated: In earlier times, one wrote documents of ḥalîṣah: Before X and V did Z daughter of U perform ḥalîṣah for V son of W, by coming before us, removing his shoe from his right foot, spitting before us visible spittle on the ground, and saying: “So shall be done to the man unwilling to build his brother’s house.”Deuteronomy 25:9
It was stated: In earlier times one wrote documents of repudiation: Before X and Y did Z daughter of U repudiate V son of W, by coming before us: I do not like him, I do not want to stay with him, I do not agree to be married to him.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications for more than their worth, it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe for more than its worth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi La said, dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant. Rabbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi Yose said, the reason has already been explained: dedications have claimants, Second Tithe has no claimant.
Rabbi Zeʿira asked before Rabbi Immi: If the person was checked and he said, that was not what I intended? He answered him, when he is checked.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if somebody redeemed Temple dedications without adding its fifth it is redeemed. But if somebody redeemed Second Tithe dedications without adding its fifth, it is not redeemed. What is the difference between dedications and Second Tithe? Rabbi La said, because a person usually adds to his dedications. Rabbi Jonah asked, that is following him who says that it is not his property. But for him who says it is his property, what is the difference between Second Tithe and dedications? Rabbi Yose said, did you not already give the reason? Because a person usually adds to his dedications.
It was stated: “Temple dedications by three appraisers.” That is, if one dedicated the body of a field. But if he said, I am vowing a mina for the Temple, let us hear from the following: “Appraisal of movables by three appraisers.” Do there exist appraisals not of movables? Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa, Rabbi Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: If somebody says, I am vowing my appraisal, and comes to settle his debt by real estate, one appraises it by ten people, by movables by three. Is one who says, I am vowing my appraisal not like one who says, I am vowing my field’s value? But if he said, I am vowing a mina for the Temple, one appraises him by three people. Should he become rich, he will be judged by what he can afford.
It was stated: One does not make public tender for slaves, securities, and movables. What is public tender? Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, announcement. Ulla bar Ismael said, slaves, for fear they would flee; securities and movables, for fear they would be stolen. Rabbi Abba bar Cohen asked before Rabbi Yose: Does this not imply that a slave is redeemed in front of three people? He answered him, yes. But did we not state: “Real estate nine and a Cohen. The same holds for humans”? He answered him, but the human here is a free person. Ḥanania bar Šelemiah in the name of Rav: A case came before Rabbi who wanted to act following the rabbis. Rabbi Eleazar ben Proteus, the grandson of Rabbi Eleazar ben Proteus, said to him: Rabbi, did you not teach us in your grandfather’s name, “except if he offered public tender”? He answered, yes, changed his mind, and acted following Rabban Gamliel.
“Capital crimes are judged by 23.” Rabbi Abbahu asked: Following Rabbi Meïr, should an ox that is stoned have to pay damages by a court of three and be stoned by 23? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun told him, the rules of an ox that is stoned are all about money; it is the verse’s decision that it should be stoned.
General Agentos asked Rabbi Joḥanan ben Zakkai: “the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die”Exodus 21:29? He answered, the robber’s partner is like the robber. When he had left, his students asked him, rabbi, this one you pushed away with a reed; what are you telling us? He said to them, it is written, “the bull shall be stoned, also its owner shall die,” as is the owner’s death sentence, so is the ox’s. Since the owner’s death sentence would be by a court of 23, investigation and cross-examination, so the ox’s death sentence is by a court of 23, investigation and cross-examination.
Mishnah
3 One judges neither a tribe, nor a false prophet, nor the High Priest, except by the court of 71 judges. One may start a war of choice only by the court of 71 judges. One may add to the City or to the Temple courtyards only by the court of 71 judges. One appoints high courts for the tribes only by the court of 71 judges. One declares a town as deviant only by the court of 71 judges; one does not declare a border town as deviant, nor three together, but one may declare one or two.
Halakhah
“One judges neither a tribe,” etc. Consider: One does not try two people together, so how much less an entire tribe? Rabbi Mattaniah said, the Mishnah speaks of the head of the tribe. Rabbi Eliezer said, the Mishnah speaks about a forested area between two tribes.
Rabbi Zeʿira said, it says here “criminal” and it says there “criminal,” “the prophet said it criminally.”Deuteronomy 18:22 Since where “criminal” is used there the verse speaks about a false prophet, so too where “criminal” is used here the verse speaks about a false prophet. Rabbi Ḥizqiah said, it says here “spoke” and it says there, “that the prophet would speak in the Eternal’s name.” Since where “spoke” is used there the verse speaks about a false prophet, so too where “spoke” is used here the verse speaks about a false prophet.
“One may start a war of choice only by the court of 71 judges. Rabbi Jehudah says, as at the start: ‘David ascended following Gad’s word,’ that is, king and prophet. ‘Solomon started to build the Temple of the Eternal, Israel’s God, on Mount Moriah where He had appeared to him,’ that is, Urim and Tummim. ‘To his father David,’ this is the Sanhedrin, ‘ask your father and he will tell you, your Elders and they will speak to you.’ Song, ‘after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea.’Nehemiah 12:32 Thanksgiving sacrifices, ‘I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate.’Nehemiah 12:31” Rabbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.
Rav Huna bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rav derives it from the words of the Torah. “As all that I am showing you, the shape of the building and the shape ... of all its vessels, so you shall execute.”Exodus 25:9 So you shall execute in all generations. Moses is king and prophet. Aaron represents Urim and Tummim. “Assemble for me seventy men from the Elders of Israel,”Numbers 11:16 that is the Sanhedrin; “ask your father and he will tell you,” etc. Song, “after them went Hoshaia and half the officers of Judea.” Thanksgiving sacrifices, “I put up two large thanksgiving sacrifices being in procession going to their right on the wall going to the dung gate.” Rabbi Samuel bar Yudan said, what is written, walking? No, being in procession, only being taken by others.
How did the processions go? The elder Rabbi Ḥiyya and Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi. One said, one opposite the other; the other said, one after the other; both are explaining the same verse: “The second thanksgiving sacrifice went lemul, and I after it.”Nehemiah 12:38 He who said, one opposite the other, “and he dwells opposite me.”Numbers 22:5 But he who said, one after the other, “he should break off its head behind its neck.”Leviticus 5:8 For him who said, one opposite the other, it turns out that every place was purified by one thanksgiving sacrifice; for him who said, one after the other, it turns out that every place was purified by two thanksgiving sacrifices. For him who said, one after the other, this is correct following what he had stated: “the inner one is being eaten, the outer one is being burned.” For him who said, one opposite the other, what is the inner one? The one closer to the Temple. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It was eaten on the instruction of a prophet. Rabbi Zeʿira said, they state there: Since a prophet is there, for what do I need Urim and Tummim? It was found stated: Rabbi Jehudah says, Urim and Tummim are needed.
Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, one builds and afterward one dedicates. The other one said, one dedicates and afterward one builds. For him who says, one builds and afterward one dedicates, one does not say that the partitions are as if built up. If one desires to add to the Temple Hall, by which means does one add? By the two loaves. Does one dedicate on a holiday? Then by the Showbread. Does one dedicate on the Sabbath? Then in the night. Does one dedicate in the night? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, with a baked flour offering. One understands that on their return from the diaspora they sacrificed and then dedicated. When they entered the Land, with what did they dedicate? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, with two thanksgiving sacrifices coming from Nob and Gibeon.
“Abba Shaul says, two subdivisions were there, the lower and the upper, whose sanctification was not complete. The lower one was dedicated with a full ceremony, but the upper one only when they came from the diaspora, without a king and without Urim and Tummim. Therefore, in the lower one the common people eat family sacrifices and Second Tithe; Fellows eat family sacrifices there but not Second Tithe. In the upper one, the common people eat family sacrifices but not Second Tithe; Fellows eat family sacrifices there and Second Tithe. Why did they not sanctify it? Because it was the vulnerable spot of Jerusalem; it could be conquered from there.”
“One only appoints high courts for the tribes.” The verse says, “for your tribes, they shall judge.”
“One only declares a town to be deviant.” Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Three Amoraïm, one says, one makes one but not two. The other said, clusters one makes, dispersed ones one does not make. The other said, dispersed one does not make at all, for fear that Gentiles would spread and come to the Land of Israel; some want to say that enemies should not spread and lay waste.
Mishnah
4 The High Sanhedrin had 71 members and a lower one 23 members. What is the source that the High Court has 71 members? For it is said: “Assemble for me 70 men of the Elders of Israel,” and Moses was presiding, that makes 71. Rabbi Jehudah says, 70. What is the source that a lower court has 23 members? For it is said, “the congregation shall judge, the congregation shall save.”Numbers 35:24 One congregation judges, one congregation saves, this makes twenty. And what is the source that a congregation consists of ten persons? As it is said, “how long this evil congregation,”Numbers 14:27 without Joshua and Caleb. What is the source that one adds another three? From the interpretation of what is said, “do not follow the majority to be unfavorable,” I understand that He said, follow them to be favorable. Then why was it said, “to bend after the majority”? Your bending to be favorable is not equal to your bending to be unfavorable. Your bending to be favorable shall be by one vote, your bending to be unfavorable shall be by two. Since no court may have an even number of judges, one more is added to obtain 23. How many people must live in a town for it to have a criminal court? 120. Rabbi Nehemiah said 230, so that they might be commanders over tens.
Halakhah
“The High Sanhedrin,” etc. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It says here “congregation,” and it says there “congregation,” “how long the evil congregation.” Since “congregation” there means ten, so here also ten. Rabbi Simon said, it is said here “amid,” and it is said there “amid.” Since “amid” there means ten, so here also ten. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun told him, if you want to infer from “amid,” there are too many. But it is said here “the sons of Israel,” and it is said there, “the sons of Israel,” “the sons of Israel came to buy grain.” Since “the sons of Israel” there were ten, so here also ten.
“What is the source that one adds another three,” etc. It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, in earlier times the ketubah of qualified women was signed only by priests, Levites, or Israelites whose daughters were qualified to marry into the priesthood. Rabbi Yose said, in earlier times there was no disagreement in Israel but the Sanhedrin of 71 members were sitting in the free-stone hall; two courts of three members each were sitting, one in the glacis and one on the Temple Mount; and a court of 23 was sitting in every town of the Land of Israel. If somebody had a question of religious practice, he went and asked the court in his town. If they had heard the answer, they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked a court in their neighborhood. If these had heard the answer, they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked the court on the Temple Mount. If these had heard the answer, they told him; otherwise he and their distinguished member went and asked the court on the glacis. If these had heard the answer, they told him; otherwise they together entered the High Court in the free-stone hall since from there instruction came accepted in all of Israel, as it is said: “From this place which the Eternal will choose.”Deuteronomy 17:10 Even though the Sanhedrin in the free-stone hall had 71 members, those present never numbered less than 23. If one of them had to leave, he would look around; if 23 others were present, he would leave, otherwise he would not leave. They were in session from the daily morning sacrifice to the daily evening sacrifice. On Sabbaths and holidays, they were sitting in the study hall on the Temple Mount. If a question of practice came up, if they had heard the answer, they told them; otherwise they prepared to vote. If a majority was for acquitting, they acquitted. If a majority was for a guilty verdict, they rendered a verdict of guilty. If a majority was for declaring pure, they declared pure. If a majority was for declaring impure, they declared impure. From the time that there were many students of Shammai and Hillel who did not study enough under their teachers, many disagreements arose and two doctrines developed. From there they would send to all towns in the Land of Israel; any time they found a person who was wise, meek, even-tempered, benevolent, pleasing, humble, good-hearted, with good intentions, and well endowed, they would place him on the court of the Temple Mount, from there to the court on the glacis, and from there to the High Court in the free-stone hall.
The Sanhedrin was like a threshing floor in the shape of a semi-circle; the president sat in the middle so they might see him and hear his voice. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Ṣadoq said, when Rabban Gamliel was sitting at Jabneh, my father and his brother were sitting to his right and the Elders to his left, to honor the old man.
How many were the judges of Israel? 78,600. Appointed over a thousand, 600. Appointed over a hundred, 6,000. Appointed over fifty, 12,000. Appointed over ten, 60,000. It turns out that the judges of Israel were 78,600.
What is the reason of Rabbi Nehemiah? That there should be a court of 23, and the parties, and the witnesses, and the witnesses for perjury, and the witnesses for perjury of the witnesses for perjury, and the rabbi, and the clerks of court, and the beadle. What is the reason of the rabbis? That there might be twelve courts for the twelve tribes.
“And Moses was presiding.” Moses found a way to settle things. When the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “count all male firstborns among the Children of Israel,”Numbers 3:40 he said, who will consent voluntarily to give five sheqel per head? What did he do? He took 22,000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To anyone who drew a ticket saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a slip saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rabbi Jehudah. But Rabbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of a Levite, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 22,000 tickets and wrote on them “Levite” and 273 on which he wrote “five sheqel” and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To anyone who drew a slip saying “Levite” he said, a Levite already redeemed you. To anybody who drew a ticket saying “five sheqel” he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Levite”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternately. Rabbi Samuel said, in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. They told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternately.
General Antoninus asked Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai: The sum is deficient, the details are excessive. He told him, these 300 were firstborn of the priesthood; no holy one redeems a holy one.
Similarly: “the Eternal said to Moses, assemble for Me seventy men of the Elders of Israel.” Moses said, if I take six per tribe, there will be 72, ten of six each and two of five, which tribe will agree to be discriminated against? What did he do? He took 70 tickets and wrote on them “Elder,” two he left blank, and put them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To anyone who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven; Rabbi Jehudah. But Rabbi Nehemiah the Tanna objected to the colleagues: If you had given me the possibility of an Elder, it would have come up for me. But the following is what he did. He took 72 tickets and wrote on them “Elder” and two blank ones and put all of them in an urn. He told them, come and take your ticket. To anyone who drew a slip saying “Elder” he said, from Heaven they appointed you. To anybody who drew a blank slip he said, what can I do, it is from Heaven. The Tanna objected to the colleagues: Think of it, if all came up as “Elder”? They told him, it was miraculous and they came up alternately. Rabbi Samuel said, I objected before Rabbi Abbahu: in the opinion of the second Tanna, it was a miracle. In the opinion of the first Tanna, it was not a miracle. He told him, it was a miracle in any case since they came up alternately.
General Antigonos asked Rabban Joḥanan ben Zakkai: Your teacher Moses either was a thief or he did not know how to compute, for it is written: “a beqaʿ per head.” If you make the centenarius 100 pounds, he stole one sixth. If you make it 60 pounds, he stole half. He answered him, our teacher Moses was a trustworthy treasurer expert in computations. He answered him, is it not written, “they contributed bronze twenty talents”; for us that makes 96 pounds and he mentions them in detail. He answered back, because it does not add up to a centenarius; if you say that it added up to a centenarius, he would have stolen half. He told him, but it is written 1,775, would that not make 71 pounds, and he mentions it in detail? He answered back, if you say that it added up to a centenarius, he would have stolen half. He told him, but it is written, “the sheqel is 20 gera, twenty sheqel, twenty-five sheqel, twenty-five sheqel the maneh shall be for you”Ezekiel 45:12; the talent of the Holy One, praise to Him, was double. He answered back, he was a trustworthy treasurer and expert in computations.
Mishnah
1 The High Priest judges and one judges him; he testifies and one testifies against him. He gives ḥalîṣah and one gives ḥalîṣah to his wife, and one marries his wife in levirate marriage. But he may not marry in levirate marriage since a widow is forbidden to him. If a family member of his dies, he cannot follow the bier but if they are unseen he can be seen; if they are seen he must be unseen. He leaves with them up to the city gate, according to Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: “The Sanctuary he shall not leave.”Leviticus 21:12
Halakhah
“The High Priest judges and one judges him,” etc. One understands that he judges. Why does one judge him? Can he not appoint an agent? Consider: if an oath should be imposed on him, may an agent take the oath? By how many are his monetary suits heard? By 23, as we understand from the following: “The king may not sit in the Sanhedrin, neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations.” Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said the king does not sit in the Sanhedrin because of suspicion; he cannot participate in intercalations because of suspicion. Neither king nor High Priest may participate in intercalations since it is not to the king’s honor to sit with seven, so how much less with three. This implies that his monetary suits are heard by 23.
Rabbi Eleazar said, if a High Priest sinned, one whips him but does not remove him from his elevated status. Rabbi Mana said, it is written: “For the crown of his God’s ointment is on him, I am the Eternal;” if one could compare it, just as I am in My Sanctity, so Aaron is in his sanctity. Rabbi Ḥanina the scribe, Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: if a High Priest sinned, one whips him. If you say by 23, his elevation would be his degradation. And Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if a patriarch sinned, one whips him by a court of three judges. Does one return him? Rabbi Ḥaggai said, by Moses, if one returned him, he would kill them. Rabbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He sent Goths to catch Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. They beat him. He fled to Magdala, some say to Kefar Ḥiṭṭim. The next day, Rabbi Joḥanan went to the assembly hall, when Rabbi Jehudah the Prince also went to the assembly hall. He said to him, why is the master not telling us words of instruction? He started clapping with one hand. He asked, does one clap with one? He answered him, no, but without ben Laqish there is nothing. He told him, I shall free him. He said to him, in Magdala. He told him, tomorrow you and I will go out to meet him. Rabbi Joḥanan sent to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish, prepare for yourself some words of instruction since the Patriarch will go out to meet you. He went out to meet them and said, you resemble your Creator. For when the Merciful went to liberate Israel from Egypt, He sent neither messenger nor angel but He went Himself, as it is written: “I shall pass through the Land of Egypt,”Exodus 12:12 He and all His Court. He asked him, why did you say these things? He told him, what are you thinking? That for fear of you I would refrain from the teachings of the Merciful? As Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, “No, my sons, because the reputation is not good.”1 Samuel 2:24
Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana: On top, high starting with the seam, below, low starting with the seam. Rabbi Joḥanan said, truly low. Rabbi Joḥanan was going up the mountain to visit Rabbi Ḥanina; on the road he heard that he had died. He sent for his good Sabbath garment, had it brought, and tore it. Rabbi Joḥanan disagrees with Rabbi Jehudah in two things, but Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Cahana follows Rabbi Jehudah. If he follows Rabbi Jehudah, he should not tear at all! This refers only to his father or mother, following Rabbi Meïr, as it was stated: One tears the seam for nobody who died except for father and mother, according to Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Jehudah says, any tear which does not completely sever the seam is a frivolous tear. How is that? It is a stringency for the High Priest that he shall sever the seam completely.
“The High Priest sacrifices while in deep sorrow but does not eat, according to Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says, the entire day. Rabbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves.” Between Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Simeon there is one difference, between Rabbi Jehudah and Rabbi Simeon there is one difference. Between Rabbi Meïr and Rabbi Jehudah the difference is entering. Rabbi Jacob ben Dositheos: the difference between them is interruption. Rabbi Meïr says, if he was inside, he leaves; if he was outside, he did not enter. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he was inside, he enters; if he was outside, he did not enter. Rabbi Simeon says, he completely finishes the service he is engaged in and then leaves. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Huna: a baraita is from Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “The Sanctuary he shall not leave,” he may not leave with them, but he may leave after them. If they are unseen he can be seen; he leaves with them up to the city gate, according to Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah said, he does not leave the Temple since it is said: “The Sanctuary he shall not leave.”Leviticus 21:12 If he left, he may not return.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: “Deep sorrow” is only for the dead, for it is written: “Its gates are in deep sorrow and mourning.” Ḥiyya bar Ada objected: Is it not written: “the fishermen are in deep sorrow”? Rabbi Ḥanina said, the baraita means: there is no deep sorrow in impurity except for the dead. It was stated: “What is deep sorrow? From the moment of death until the moment of burial, according to Rabbi. But the Sages say, the entire day.” It turns out that one describes leniencies and stringencies following Rabbi, leniencies and stringencies following the rabbis. What is the difference between them? If he died and was buried within the hour. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rabbi he is forbidden only that hour. If he died and was buried after three days. Following the rabbis, he is forbidden the entire day; following Rabbi he is forbidden up to three days. Then came Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, and Rav Ḥisda, both of whom said that Rabbi agrees with the Sages that he is forbidden only during the first day, as it was stated: Rabbi said, you know that deep mourning in the night is not biblical, since they said, “the deep mourner immerses himself and eats his Passover sacrifice in the evening.” But they said, deep mourning during daytime is biblical. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rabbi Huna: Explain it that he was buried close to sundown and one cannot infer anything.
Mishnah
2 If he consoles others, common behavior requires the people to come in single file and the executive officer stands as a partition between him and the people. If he is consoled by others, everybody tells him, we are his atonement; he answers them, may you be blessed by Heaven. If one brings him the first meal, the people sit in a circle on the ground and he sits in their circle on a footstool.
Halakhah
“If he consoles others,” etc. This implies that a footstool is not meant by “overturning the couch.” The High Priest is obligated to overturn his couch.
It is stated: “One does not take the dead for burial close to the recitation of the Shemaʿ unless one does it one hour in advance or one hour afterward, so that they may recite and pray.” But did we not state: “When they buried the dead and returned”? Explain it for those who thought that they had a free period but they did not have a free period.
It is stated: The eulogizer and all who participate in a eulogy interrupt for the recitation of Shemaʿ but do not interrupt for prayer. It happened that our teachers interrupted for the recitation of Shemaʿ and prayer. Did we not state: “If they are able to start and finish”? Our Mishnah refers to the first day; what the Tanna stated refers to the second day.
Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said: He who enters the synagogue and finds them standing and praying; if he knows that he could start and finish before the reader starts, so that he may answer “Amen,” he may pray, otherwise he should not pray. About which “Amen” did they speak? Two Amoraïm, one says the Amen of “the Holy King,” the other says the Amen of “Who listens to prayer.” On weekdays.
It is stated: Rabbi Jehudah says, if they are all standing in one row, those who are standing because of honor are obligated, those because of mourning are exempt. When they descend for a eulogy, those who see inside are exempt, those who do not see inside are obligated. This would be what we stated: “If he consoles others, the people come in single file and the executive officer stands as a partition between him and the people,” the first teaching. And what we stated: “the innermost are exempt and the outer ones obligated,” is the first teaching. Rabbi Ḥanina said: Originally, all families were standing still and the mourners passed between them. When competition increased in Sepphoris, Rabbi Yose ben Ḥalaphta instituted that the families should pass by and the mourners stand still. Rabbi Samuel Sofefta said: Matters returned to their original state.
Mishnah
3 The king does not judge, nor may one judge him; he does not testify, nor may one testify against him; he does not give ḥalîṣah, nor does one give ḥalîṣah to his wife. He does not marry in levirate, nor may one marry his wife in levirate. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he wants to give ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate, let his good deeds be remembered. They told him, even if he wants to, one does not listen to him. One may not marry his widow; Rabbi Jehudah says, a king may marry a king’s widow, since we find that David married Saul’s widow, as it is said: “I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives on your breast.”
Halakhah
“The king does not judge, nor may one judge him;” etc. But is it not written: “David administered justice and charity for his entire people,” and you say so? One has to say that he judged by the law, cleared the innocent and condemned the guilty. If a poor person was found liable, he paid from his own money; in this way he was administering justice for one party and charity for the other. Rabbi said, if somebody judged, cleared the innocent and condemned the guilty, the Omnipresent will credit him with acting charitably with the guilty by taking the ill-gotten goods out of his hand.
“One may not judge him.” Because “from You my judgment will come.”Psalms 17:2 Rabbi Isaac in the name of Rabbi: “To provide the judgment of His servant and the judgment of His people Israel day by day.”1 Kings 8:59
“Rabbi Jehudah says, if he wants to give ḥalîṣah or marry in levirate, let his good deeds be remembered.” They told him, if you say so, you injure the king’s prestige.
One marries neither the king’s widow nor his divorcee, because “they were secluded to the day of their death, living in widowhood.”2 Samuel 20:3 Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: This teaches that David had them braided and adorned, and brought them before himself every day and told his evil inclination, you desire something which is forbidden to you; by your life, I shall make you desire what is permitted to you. The rabbis of Caesarea said, they actually were forbidden to him. If a private person’s vessel used by a private person is forbidden for the king’s use, a fortiori the king is forbidden to use the king’s vessels which were used by a private person.
“Rabbi Jehudah says, a king may marry a king’s widow, since we find that David married Saul’s widow, as it is said: ‘I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives on your breast.’” This refers to Riṣpah, Abigail and Bathsheba.
Ḥeṣron had three sons, as it is written: “The sons of Ḥeṣron Jerahmeel, and Ram, and Kelubai.” Jerahmeel should have been first, but he married a Gentile woman to crown himself with her, as it is written: “Jerahmeel had another wife; her name was Crown, she is the mother of Onam,” for she brought deep sorrow to his house. “And Ram fathered Amminadab, Amminadab fathered Nahshon, Nahshon fathered Salma, Salmon fathered Boaz,”Ruth 4:19-21 and Boaz married Ruth.
This Nabal was a descendant of Kelubai. Nabal said, nobody in Israel comes from a better family than I. That is what is written: “A man from Maʿon had his business in Carmel; the man was exceedingly rich, a Calebite,” a descendant of Kelubai. “David heard in the wilderness that Nabal was shearing.”1 Samuel 25:4 “Tell him, to life”1 Samuel 25:6! For long life. “Peace be with you,” etc. Rabbi Justus from Sunem said, they formed a camp. “Nabal answered David’s servants,”1 Samuel 25:10 etc. What is the source that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rabbi Aḥa: “David told his men,”1 Samuel 25:13 etc. “He flew at them.”1 Samuel 25:14 What does “he flew at them” mean? He made them fly with words. “Now know this and consider what to do.”1 Samuel 25:17 “She fell in with them,”1 Samuel 25:20 she bared her thigh and they walked by its light. “She fell in with them,” they all were recognizable. “David said, was it in vain that I watched,”1 Samuel 25:21 etc.? “Pissing on a wall”1 Samuel 25:22; why does he refer to the dog pissing on a wall? Even with the dog I shall not have mercy. “Abigail saw David,”1 Samuel 25:23 etc. She told him, my lord David, what did I do, what did my children do, what did my animals do? He answered her, because he insulted the kingdom of David. She asked him, are you a king? He told her, did not Samuel anoint me as king? She answered him, our lord Saul’s coin is still circulating. “And I am your servant”1 Samuel 25:25; this proves that he asked her for sex. Immediately, she brought out her stains and showed him. He said, does one investigate stains in the night? She retorted, may your ears hear what your lips say! Stains one does not investigate in the night, does one judge capital cases in the night? He answered, his sentence was already passed in daytime. She retorted, “may this not be a puqah for you.”1 Samuel 25:31
Rabbi Eleazar said, matters of reproach are there. Rabbi Levi was reviewing the lesson, when Rabbi Zeʿira commanded the colleagues to come and hear the voice of Rabbi Levi sermonizing, for it was impossible that the lesson would be finished without new insight. He came and told them, not be; Rabbi Zeʿira heard it and said, even in his aggadah there is new insight. Lefuqah: matters of reproach are there.
She told him, when you emerge from your tribulations, people will say of you that you are a murderer. “And a stumbling block for sin.”1 Samuel 25:31 You are set up to stumble over a married woman, better one than two. In the future it will be enough to bring one, and not to add spilling blood. Are you ready to rule over Israel when they will say about you that you were a spiller of blood? Even though anybody who curses the dynasty of David incurs the death penalty, still you are missing the throne. “But remember your servant,”1 Samuel 25:31 this proves that she showed herself licentious. Since she showed herself licentious, the verse damaged her. In all verses one reads Abigail, except for this verse: “David said to Abigal, praised be the Eternal,” etc., “to come into blood guilts,” the blood of menstruation and the spilling of blood.
Mishnah
4 If a relative of his died, he does not leave his palace. Rabbi Jehudah says, if he wants to follow the bier, he may follow it, as we find that David followed Abner’s bier, as it is said: “King David followed the bier.” They told him, this was only to calm the people. When one brings him the first meal, the people sit in a circle on the floor and he sits in their circle on a couch.
Halakhah
“If a relative of his died, he does not leave his palace.” This implies that a dargesh is included in overturning one’s bed. The king is not required to overturn his bed.
Some Tannaïm state: Women go first, after them men. But some Tannaïm state: Men first, women after them. He who says women first, since they caused death to the world. He who says men first, for the honor of the daughter of Israel, so that people would not look at the women. But was it not written: “King David followed the bier”? They said, this was only to calm the people. Whoever was calming the women was calming the men, and whoever was calming the men was calming the women.
It is written: “David turned.”1 Chronicles 16:43 Who are the “empty ones”? Rabbi Abba bar Cahana said, the most empty one, that is the dancer. She told him, today the honor of my father’s house became obvious. One said about the family of Saul that one never saw a heel or a thumb of them. That is what is written: “He came to the sheep fences.”1 Samuel 24:3 Rabbi Abun ben Rabbi Eleazar: That was a fence inside a fence. “Saul came to spread his feet.”1 Samuel 24:3 He saw how he lifted a little and covered a little. He said, one who would touch such modesty would be cursed. That is what he told him, “look, what your eyes saw today,”1 Samuel 24:10 etc. It is not written “I had mercy on you” but “it had mercy on you,”1 Samuel 24:10 your modesty had mercy on you. “David told Michal,”2 Samuel 6:21 etc. “With the servant girls you mentioned, with them I shall be honored,”2 Samuel 6:22 for they are not servant girls but mothers. How was she punished? “Michal, Saul’s daughter, had no child.”2 Samuel 6:23 But is it not written: “The sixth Yitreʿam, of his wife Calf.”2 Samuel 3:5 She lowed like a calf and died.
No person in Israel humbled himself before the Commandments more than David. Why did he humble himself before the Commandments? Because people were looking at the Ark and dying, as it is written: “He struck of the people of Bet Shemesh,” etc. Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana. One said, “He struck among the people seventy men,” that is the Sanhedrin. And 50,000 men, for they were worth 50,000. The other said, “He struck among the people seventy men,” that is the Sanhedrin. And 50,000 men from the people of the Land. It is written: “A song of ascent of David. Eternal, my heart was not haughty” when Samuel anointed me; “my eyes were not overbearing” when I killed Goliath; “and I did not decide on matters too great” when I brought up the Ark; “and wonderful for me,” when He brought me back to my kingdom. But “rather I prayed, and silenced my soul like a baby by its mother, like a baby my soul is for me.” Like a baby delivered from his mother’s womb is my soul for me.
Mishnah
5 He goes to a war of choice by the word of the Court of 71. He breaches fences on his way and one may not protest against him. The king’s highway has no measure. When all people plunder, it is put before him and he selects his part first.
Halakhah
“He goes to a war of choice,” etc. For it is written: “on his saying they shall go out, on his saying they shall return.” “He breaches fences on his way,” for it is written: “they drove before this flock and said, this is David’s booty.”1 Samuel 30:20
“He was with David at Efes Dammim.”1 Chronicles 11:13 Rabbi Joḥanan said, at the red field. But Rabbi Samuel said, from there the money stopped. “The Philistines assembled,”1 Chronicles 11:13 etc. Rabbi Jacob from Kefar Ḥanan said, they were lentils but a kernel was as good as a barley grain. Rabbi Levi said, this describes the Philistines who came straight as barley and went away low as lentils, as one verse says, “there was a field full of barley,”1 Chronicles 11:13 and one said, “full of lentils.”2 Samuel 23:11 Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, it was one year but concerning two fields, one of barley and one of lentils. It was obvious to him that he might destroy it and pay for the damage. Perhaps it was obvious to him that he might destroy it and not pay for the damage? Which one might he destroy and for which one would he have to pay? For the one of lentils or the one of barley? For the one of lentils grows human food, the one of barley animal feed. The one of lentils will not be obligated for ḥallah, barley will be obligated for ḥallah. The ʿomer comes from barley; ʿomer cannot be brought from lentils. But the rabbis said, it was one field and two years. Does one infer from last year, or does one not infer from one year to the next? “They stood up in the property and saved it.”1 Chronicles 11:14 One verse says, “they saved it,” and one says, “he saved it.”2 Samuel 23:12 This shows that he returned it to its owner and it was dear to him as if it had been a field of saffron.
It is written: “David had a desire and said, who would give me to drink from the cistern of Bethlehem,”2 Samuel 23:15-16 etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, he questioned practice. “Three broke through.” Why three? For no practice can be elucidated by less than three opinions. “But David refused to drink.” David did not want the practice attached to his name. “He poured it out for the Eternal,” he fixed it as a tractate for all generations, “he breaches fences on his way.”
Bar Qappara said, it was the feast of Tabernacles, the time of water libations, and a time when private altars were permitted. “Three broke through.” Why three? One was killing, one was removing the corpses, and the third brought the flask in purity.
One verse says, “he made a libation for the Eternal,” but another verse says, “he covered.” He who says “he covered,” supports Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba. He who says, “he made a libation,” supports Bar Qappara. Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Yose: He had a problem with the rules of captives. Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi said, he desired to build the Temple.
Mishnah
6 “He shall not add wives,”Deuteronomy 17:17 only eighteen. Rabbi Jehudah says, he may have many provided that they do not lead his mind astray. Rabbi Simeon says, he should not marry even one if she leads his mind astray. Then why was it said, “he shall not add wives”? Even one like Abigail. “He shall not add horses,”Deuteronomy 17:16 over and above what he needs for his chariots. “And silver and gold he shall not add excessively,”Deuteronomy 17:17 over and above what he needs for his payroll. “And he shall write a Torah scroll”Deuteronomy 17:18 for himself. If he goes to war, it is with him; if he returns, it is with him; if he sits in court, it is with him; if he sits down for dinner, it is with him, as it is said: “It shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life.”Deuteronomy 17:19 One does not ride on his horse, nor does one sit on his throne, nor does one use his scepter. One may not see him when he is barbered, nor when he is naked, nor when he is in the bath, as it is said: “You certainly shall put a king over you,” so that fear of him should be on you.
Halakhah
“He shall not add wives,” etc. Rav Cahana said, because of “the sixth Yitream by Egla.”2 Samuel 3:5 What is written there? “At least, I shall give you twice as many.”2 Samuel 12:8
“‘He shall not add horses’ over and above what he needs for his chariots.” As in “David destroyed all the chariots,”2 Samuel 8:4 etc. “‘And silver and gold he shall not add excessively’ over and above what he needs for his payroll.” Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, but only for this year’s payroll.
Rabbi Aḥa said: Solomon said, three things I desecrated where I got the better of the law. “He shall not add wives,” and it is written: King Solomon “loved foreign women.”1 Kings 11:1 Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, he really made love to them immorally. Ḥananiah, Rabbi Joshua’s nephew, says, because “you shall not intermarry with them.”Deuteronomy 7:3 Rabbi Yose said, to draw them to the words of the Torah and bring them under the Wings of the Divine Presence. Rabbi Eliezer said, because “also the foreign wives made him sin.”Nehemiah 13:26 It turns out that one may say that Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai, Ḥananiah, and Rabbi Eliezer mean the same. Rabbi Yose disagrees with all three of them.
“He shall not add horses,” and it is written: “Solomon had 40,000 horse stables for his chariot, and 12,000 riders.”1 Kings 5:6 They were idle. A private person is permitted all of these.
“And silver and gold he shall not add excessively,” and it is written: “The king made silver in Jerusalem to be like stones.”1 Kings 10:27 Were they not stolen? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, they were stones of ten cubits and eight cubits. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish stated: In Solomon’s times, even weights were not of silver but of gold. Why? “Silver was not valuable in Solomon’s times.”1 Kings 10:21
It is written: “To amusement I said, be praised.” The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Solomon: What is this crown on your head? Descend from My throne! Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, at that moment an angel came down looking like Solomon, removed him from his throne, and sat in his place. He went around in synagogues and houses of study, saying “I am Ecclesiastes, I used to be king over Israel in Jerusalem.”Ecclesiastes 1:12 They told him, the king sits on his chair of honor and you say, “I am Ecclesiastes”? They hit him with a stick and brought a dish of split beans before him. At that moment, he said: “that is my part.”Ecclesiastes 2:10 Some say, a staff. Others say, a rod. Others say, with his belt. Who had accused him? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, the yod in yarbeh accused him. Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: The book Deuteronomy ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universe, You wrote in Your Torah that any disposition which is partially invalid is totally invalid, and now Solomon wants to uproot a yod from me! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to it: Solomon and a thousand like him will disappear but nothing from you will disappear.
Rabbi Huna in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: The yod which the Holy One, praise to Him, lifted from our mother Sarah was given half to Sarah and half to Abraham. Rabbi Hoshaiah stated: The yod ascended, bowed down before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said to Him: Master of the Universes, You uprooted me from this just woman! The Holy One, praise to Him, said to him: leave. In the past you were the last letter of a woman’s name. By your life, I shall make you the first letter of a man’s name. That is what is written: “Moses called Hoshea bin Nun Yehoshua.”Numbers 13:16
“And he shall write a Torah scroll for himself.” That he should use neither his father’s nor his teacher’s. One proofreads it from the Temple scroll under the supervision of the court of 71.
“If he goes to war, he carries it with him for it is said: ‘It shall be with him, and he shall read in it all the days of his life.’ Is there not an inference from the lesser to the greater? Since for a king of Israel, who was occupied by the needs of Israel, is it said that ‘he shall read in it all the days of his life,’ how much more a private person. Similarly, it was said to Joshua: ‘You shall meditate about it day and night.’Joshua 1:8 Is there not an inference from the lesser to the greater? Since for Joshua, who is occupied by the needs of Israel, it is said: ‘you shall meditate about it day and night,’ then certainly a private person.”
One does not ride on a horse of a king of Israel, nor does one sit in his chair, nor does one use his crown or his scepter, or any of his personal utensils. When he dies, all these are burned before him, as it is said: “You shall die in peace and like the burnings of your ancestors they will burn for you.”
One may not see him when naked, nor when he is being barbered, nor when he is in his bath, because “your eyes shall see the king in his beauty.”Isaiah 33:17 Rabbi Ḥanina went to visit Rabbi Jehudah the Prince. He came to meet him dressed in sailcloth. He told him, go and wear your lagin, because of “your eyes shall see the king in his beauty.” Rabbi Joḥanan went to visit Rabbi Jehudah the Prince. He came to meet him dressed in a linen gown. He told him, go and wear your woolen gown, because of “the king in his beauty.” When he left, he told him, bring עטעמה. He answered, send and get Menaḥem Ptolemy, for it is written: “Graceful teaching is on her tongue.”Proverbs 31:26 Leaving, he saw Rabbi Ḥanina bar Sisi splitting wood. He told him, Rabbi, that is not fitting for you. He answered, what can I do? I have nobody to serve me. He retorted, if you have nobody to serve you, you should not have accepted ordination.
Yose from Maon interpreted in the synagogue of Tiberias: “Listen to this, you priests,”Hosea 5:1 why do you not study Torah? Did I not give you 24 gifts? They told him, they do not give us anything. “And listen, House of Israel,” why do you not give the 24 gifts which I commanded you at Sinai? They told him, the king takes everything. “Listen, king’s court, for yours are legal proceedings,” for you I did say, “these are the priests’ legal rights”Deuteronomy 18:3; in the future I shall sit in judgment over you, to stop them and to eliminate them from the world. Rabbi Jehudah the Prince heard this and became angry. He was afraid and fled. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish went to appease him. They told him, Rabbi, he is a great man. He asked them, would it be possible that he could answer any question which I would ask him? They told him, yes. He asked him: What is that which is written: “For their mother whored”? Was our mother Sarah a whore? He answered, like daughter like mother, “like mother like daughter,” like generation like the prince, like the prince like the generation, like the altar like its priests. Cahana used to say, like the garden like its gardener. He told them, not only did he curse me once in my absence, but he cursed me three times in my presence! He asked him, what is that which is written: “Anybody wanting to formulate a simile about you will state as follows: like mother like daughter;” was our mother Leah a prostitute since it is written, “Dinah went out”? He told him, for it is written, “Leah went out toward him.” One identifies “going out with going out.”
Rabbi Ḥizqiah was walking on a road when he met a Samaritan who asked him, Rabbi, are you not the head of the Jews? He answered him, yes. He said to him, look what is written: “You certainly shall put a king over yourself.”Deuteronomy 17:15 It does not say “I shall put,” but “you shall put,” you appoint him over yourself.
Mishnah
1 Money matters by three judges. Each party selects one judge and both together select a third, according to Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say, the two judges together select a third.
Halakhah
“Money matters by three,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira said, because he selected him, he will take care of his interests. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? So that all three should be chosen unanimously. What is the rabbis’ reason? “I do not trust you to select and let me sit with whom you want, but you and I shall select and seat whom we want.” It is difficult for the rabbis: If one of them dies, will not all three have been chosen through the choice of one person?
Mishnah
2 Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, according to Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are above reproach or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.
Halakhah
“Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge,” etc. The Mishnah means: Each of them disqualifies the other’s judge, but not his own. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, they spoke about Syrian courts, but not about following Torah law. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even following Torah law. How was this said? Two people had a case in Antioch. One said to the other, I am accepting everything which Rabbi Joḥanan will decide. Rabbi Joḥanan heard it and said, he is not empowered to tear apart his opponent, but they shall hear their arguments there and if need be they should write and send the case before the rabbis. Rabbi Eleazar said, if one says in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris, one listens to the one who says in Tiberias.
Can he forever disqualify and have the other appoint a replacement? Rabbi Zeʿira said, they taught this about subsidiaries. Rabbi La said, what Rabbi Eleazar said about “one said in Tiberias, but the other said in Sepphoris,” is about those who live at the same place, from where to Sepphoris it is seven mil, but from there to Tiberias it is nine mil. Rabbi Yose said, one understands from this, that if two people had a case in Tiberias; one of them said in the permanent court, but the other said in an ad hoc court; one listens to the one who said in the permanent court.
Mishnah
3 Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses, according to Rabbi Meïr. But the Sages say, when is this? If he brings proof that they are relatives or disqualified. But if they are above reproach or qualified by the court he cannot disqualify them.
Halakhah
“Each of them disqualifies the other’s witnesses,” etc. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah means: “His witness,” but not his witnesses. But Rabbi Joḥanan said, even his witnesses, as it was stated: “One always adds judges until judgment is rendered, and the judges may change their opinions. After judgment is rendered they may no longer change their opinions.” Rabbi Joḥanan agrees that if these were the only ones, he cannot disqualify them. Zeʿira said, he and a person from the street can team up to disqualify this testimony. Rabbi Ḥanina asked, does not one witness force an oath everywhere? Rabbi Zeʿira said, by disqualification one can only be disqualified by a court. A relative does not have to be disqualified by the court. Rava bar Binah said in the name of Rav: Three are like final judgment.
Mishnah
4 If somebody said, I am accepting my father; I am accepting your father; I am accepting three cowherds; Rabbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion. If one was obligated to swear to another, who asked him to make a vow “by his life,” Rabbi Meïr says, he may change his opinion, but the Sages say, he may not change his opinion.
Halakhah
“I am accepting my father,” etc. If somebody said, I am accepting your father, if he accepted in the presence of two others, he may retract; in the presence of three, he may not retract. Samuel said, as long as he did not take from one and give to the other; but if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish say even if he took from one and gave to the other, he may retract. “If he hit him with a club so that he would agree, and he accepted, he may renege.”
“If one was obligated to swear to another,” etc. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba said, if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall have no claim on you. But if he told him: Let your father tell it, then I shall accept it; he seeks a pretext to confess to him. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even if he told him, let your father tell it to me, then I shall accept it. We never find that testimony is accepted from the mouth of a relative.
Mishnah
5 The following are disqualified: The dice-player, the lender on interest, participants in pigeon contests, dealers in sabbatical produce, and slaves. Rabbi Simeon said, originally they listed harvesters of sabbatical produce; but after the oppressors increased, they went back to listing only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rabbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.
Halakhah
“The following are disqualified: The dice-player,” etc. The dice player is the one who plays with small stones. “Not only the player with stones, even one who plays with shells of nuts or pomegranates is not accepted unless he breaks his stones or tears up his IOUs, is examined, and repents in complete repentance.”
“Participants in pigeon contests.” Whether one bets on pigeons or bets on any other domesticated animal, wild animal, or bird, he is not accepted unless he breaks his tools of the catch and repents in complete repentance.
“Dealers in sabbatical produce.” “Who is a dealer in sabbatical produce? One who sits idle all the years of a sabbatical cycle. As soon as the sabbatical year starts, he becomes active and trades in sabbatical produce. One does not accept them until another sabbatical year starts and he can be examined to see that he repented in complete repentance.” It was stated: Rabbi Yose says, two sabbatical periods. “Rabbi Nehemiah says, repentance in money, not repentance in words; that he says to them, here are 200 denars, distribute them to the poor, for I earned them from forbidden produce.” They added shepherds, extortionists, and any who are suspect in money matters, so that their testimony is invalid. Rabbi Abbahu said, only shepherds of small animals.
Rav Huna said: Who is the Tanna of “participants in pigeon contests”? Rabbi Eliezer, as we have stated there: “Participants in pigeon contests are disqualified from testimony.” Rabbi Mana said before Rabbi Yose: Is that statement in Sanhedrin Rabbi Eliezer’s? He told him, it is everybody’s opinion. So said Rabbi Yose: We knew that he was disqualified for testimony in money matters. What does he come to testify about? For as he is disqualified in money matters, so he is disqualified to testify in criminal trials. The witnesses for the New Moon are held to the standards of criminal trials, as we have stated: “This is the principle: Any testimony for which a woman is not qualified, they are not qualified for.” Who stated this? The rabbis! Do the rabbis follow Rabbi Eliezer? They agree with him and disagree with him. Rabbi Huna in the name of Rav Huna said: It follows Rabbi Eliezer in everything. It turns out that this disagreement parallels another disagreement, as it was stated: A perjured witness is disqualified for any and all testimony required by the Torah, according to Rabbi Meïr. Rabbi Yose said, when has this been said? When he was found perjured in criminal matters. But if he was found perjured in money matters, he is disqualified only from that particular testimony. It turns out that Rabbi Yose parallels the rabbis and Rabbi Meïr Rabbi Eliezer.
“Rabbi Simeon says, originally they listed harvesters of sabbatical produce; but after the oppressors increased, they went back to listing only dealers in sabbatical produce. Rabbi Jehudah said, when? If he has no profession but this; but if he has another profession, he is qualified.” How is this implemented? If he was sitting idle all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. If at the same time he is engaged in another occupation, he is qualified; otherwise he is disqualified. But if he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle and when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce, even if he has no other profession on the side he is qualified. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rabbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself.
Rabbi Ḥiyya stated restrictively. How is this implemented? If he was working in his profession all the years of the sabbatical cycle but when the Sabbatical began he became active and traded in sabbatical produce. Even if he has another profession on the side he is disqualified. This is not what Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Practice follows Rabbi Jehudah of our Mishnah. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda was praised for formulating the tradition in the name of a person younger than himself. Should it be so here also? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there the government is not oppressive, here the government is oppressive.
When the government was oppressing the first time, Rabbi Yannai instructed to plow a single plowing. An apostate was passing by; he saw them putting up the harrow. He said to them, hey you! Is it permitted for you to plow? Is it permitted for you to put up the harrow?
Rabbi Jacob bar Zavdi said, I asked before Rabbi Abbahu: Did not Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda: About all the Torah, if a Gentile tells a Jew to transgress any commandment of the Torah except those concerning idolatry, incest and adultery, and murder, he should transgress and not be killed. That is in private, but in public he should not follow him even for the slightest commandment, as exemplified by Pappos and his brother Julianus to whom they gave water in a colored glass and they did not accept. He said, they do not intend to lead you to apostasy, they only want to collect annona. What does “in public” mean? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written: “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”
They saw the young Rabbi Bina collecting donkey’s dung on the Sabbath. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose permitted baking for Ursicinus on the Sabbath. Rabbi Mana said, I asked before my father Rabbi Jonah, did not Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Yannai, Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Yehoṣadaq, say that they voted on the upper floor of the Niṭzah house in Lydda, etc.? He said, he did not intend to lead you to apostasy, he only wanted to eat warm bread. What does “in public” mean? The rabbis of Caesarea say ten, as it is written: “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.”
Rabbi Abinna asked Rabbi Immi: Are Gentiles required to sanctify the Name? He answered him: “I shall be sanctified in the midst of the Children of Israel.” Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name. Rabbi Nissai in the name of Rabbi Eleazar understood it from the following: “May the Eternal forgive His servant for this,” etc. Israel are required to sanctify the Name; the Gentiles are not required to sanctify the Name.
Rabbi Abba bar Zemina was working as a tailor for somebody in Rome. He brought him carcass meat and told him to eat. He said to him, I will not eat. He said to him, eat! Otherwise I shall kill you. He said to him, if you have to kill, kill, for I shall not eat carcass meat. He said to him, certainly you should know that I would have killed you, had you eaten. Either one is a Jewish Jew or an Aramean Aramean. Rabbi Mana said, if Rabbi Abba bar Zemina had understood the words of the rabbis, he would have been gone.
If somebody improved his field today, what is the rule? Rabbi Jeremiah was of the opinion that when the reason disappeared, the ordinance is void. Rabbi Yose was of the opinion that even if the reason disappeared, the ordinance stands until another court abolishes it. Similarly, how does an owner acquire his own produce in a Sabbatical year? Rabbi Jeremiah wanted to say, from the moment he put it into his vessel. Rabbi Yose was of the opinion that even if he put it into his vessel he did not acquire, for he thinks that it is his but it is not his.
When Proclus entered Sepphoris, Rabbi Mana instructed the bakers to present their wares in the market. The rabbis of Newe instructed people to bake leavened bread on Passover.
Rabbi Yose ben Abun said: “I shall keep the King’s sayings,”Ecclesiastes 8:2 Who told me at Sinai “I am the Eternal, your God,”Exodus 20:2 “on the pronouncement,”Ecclesiastes 8:2 “you shall not have other gods before Me,”Exodus 20:3 “of God’s oath,”Ecclesiastes 8:2 “do not take the Name of the Eternal, your God, in vain.”Exodus 20:7 In this matter we come together, this man and this dog are both equal.
Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Jehudah.
Mishnah
6 The following are the relatives: His brother, his father’s brother and his mother’s brother, his sister’s husband, his father’s sister’s husband and his mother’s sister’s husband, his father-in-law, and his brother-in-law; these, their sons and sons-in-law, but his stepson alone. Rabbi Yose said, this is Rabbi Aqiba’s teaching; but the original Mishnah was: His uncle and his uncle’s son, and anybody in line to inherit from him, and anyone related to him at that moment. If he had been related but became unrelated, he is qualified. Rabbi Jehudah says, even if his daughter had died but he had children from him, he remains a relative.
Halakhah
“The following are the relatives,” etc. Since we have stated “his brother,” why does one have to state “his father’s brother”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His father’s brother.” Since we have stated “his father’s brother,” why does one have to state “his mother’s brother”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His mother’s brother.” Since we have stated “his sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his father’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His father’s sister’s husband.” Since we have stated “his father’s sister’s husband,” why does one have to state “his mother’s sister’s husband”? To include the son-in-law’s son-in-law.
“His mother’s sister’s husband.” But did we not state: “his stepson alone”? Rav said, if his mother-in-law’s son-in-law is forbidden, then certainly his stepdaughter’s husband. Explain it that she has sons and sons-in-law from him.
“His brother-in-law.” Some Tannaïm state: Including sons and sons-in-law; but some Tannaïm state: Excluding sons and sons-in-law. He who said, including sons and sons-in-law, from her. But he who said, excluding sons and sons-in-law, from another family.
Rav went to sell hides for the elder Rabbi Ḥiyya. He passed by a place where he found Rabbi Joḥanan sitting and asking: We have stated, “his stepson alone.” What is the situation of his stepson’s wife, his stepdaughter’s husband? A woman is like her husband and the husband is like his wife. Therefore, the situation of his stepson’s wife is that of his stepson, and the husband is like his wife.
Rav Ḥisda asked: If the third generation permitted the first generation’s wife? Is Phineas’s wife permitted to Moses? Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one accepts the second and third generations with difficulty. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even with ease.
As in the following: A brother-in-law of Rav Huna’s had a case with some person. He said, I am accepting anything which Rav Huna will decide. Rav Huna heard it and said, this is it. I know that just as they said for the preceding generations, so it is for the following. Rav Jehudah in the name of Rav: Practice follows Rabbi Jehudah.
Mishnah
7 The lover and the hater. The lover, that is the best man. The hater, anyone who did not talk to him for three days because of ill will. They told him, Israel are not suspected of this.
Halakhah
“The lover and the hater,” etc. Rabbi Tevelai, Rabbi Abinna in the name of Rav: They stated this for the seven days of wedding festivities.
Mishnah
8 How does one examine the witnesses? One brings them to court and instills fear in them, then removes them but retains the greatest among them. One says to him, tell how you know that this person owes the other one. If he said, he himself confessed to me that he owes the money, or another person told me that he owes it, he did not say anything until he says, before us he confessed to him that he owed him 200 denar.
Halakhah
“How does one examine the witnesses,” etc. Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he had intended to appoint them as witnesses, their testimony is valid.
How does one judge? The judges are sitting, the parties are standing, and the claimant starts first with his words, as it is written: “He who has something to say shall present before you.”
What is the source that the burden of proof is on the claimant? Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina ben Gamliel: “Shall present before you,” shall present his proofs.
Rabbi Joḥanan asked, in the case of a sister-in-law, who runs after whom? Rabbi Eleazar answered: “His sister-in-law shall come to the gate.”Deuteronomy 25:7 Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eleazar taught me correctly.
Rabbi Berekhiah and Rabbi Ḥelbo, Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Yannai: The claimant claims, the respondent responds, and the judge decides. Rabbi Simon said, the judge has to repeat their arguments, as it is said: The king “said, this one says, my son is the living and yours is the dead one,” etc.
When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he would investigate. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element. Rav Huna made light of a judge who said, “accept a single witness,” but they should say it themselves. When Rav Huna realized an argument in favor of a person who himself did not know it, he guided him, following “open your mouth for the mute.”
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: He who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything. As in this case: A man happened to prepare food for a meal. He said to another, give me what you owe me. That one answered, yes. When he rose, he told him, I do not owe you anything. He answered, I have witnesses. The other said, I said that only in order not to spoil your food. The case came before Rabbi Immi, who said, this is what Rabbi Joḥanan said, he who hides his witnesses behind a wall did not do anything.
Mishnah
9 One calls in the second witness and examines him. If their testimonies are found consistent, one argues the case. Two say not guilty and one says guilty, he is not guilty. Two say guilty and one says not guilty, he is guilty. One says not guilty, one says guilty, and one says “I do not know,” they shall add judges. Even if two say not guilty or guilty but one says “I do not know,” they shall add judges.
Halakhah
“One calls in the second witness,” etc. “Rams,”Leviticus 16:5 the minimum of rams is two. Why does the verse say two? That both should be equal.
Sheep, the minimum of sheep is two. Why does the verse say two? That both should be equal.
The minimum of birds is two. Why does the verse say two? that both should be equal. The minimum of trumpets is two. Why does the verse say two? that both should be equal.
Rabbi Ḥaggai objected to Rabbi Yasa. Is it not written: “The two men shall stand”Deuteronomy 19:17? Now, is not two the minimum of “men”? Why does the verse say two? That both should be equal? But it is written: “Do not bend the lawsuit of the proselyte, the orphan,” ... That means that a proselyte can have a lawsuit against one who is not a proselyte, an orphan may have a lawsuit against one who is not an orphan. Then why is “two” written? It is free to be combined and to infer from it an equal cut. It is said here two and it is said there “two men were left.”Numbers 11:27 Since there one speaks of men but not women, also here men but not women nor minors. From this we learn that a woman may not be a judge and may not be a witness.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun in the name of Rav Joseph: It is said here two and it is said there two. Since there it must be by the testimony of two witnesses, also here by the testimony of two witnesses. Then why does the verse say two? So that one of them would not be standing while the other sits; one says everything he has to say, but to the other one says, make your statement short.
Rabbi Jehudah said, I heard that if the judge wants to let both of them sit, he may tell them to sit down. Rabbi Ismael says, one says to him, either you dress as he is dressed or pay him to be dressed as you are.
Rabbi Abba said in the name of Rav Huna: The witnesses have to stand while testifying, for it is said: “the two men shall stand.” Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: Also the parties have to stand at the moment the verdict is given, as it is said: “who have the quarrel before the Eternal.”
It is written: “Fathers shall not be killed because of sons.” Is it not already written, “each one should be killed for his own crime”Deuteronomy 24:16? Why does the verse say, “fathers shall not be killed because of sons”? Fathers shall not be killed on the testimony of sons, and sons shall not be killed on testimony of fathers. From here we learn that witnesses shall not be relatives of the accused.
What is the source that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Consider: if they were found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony? What is the source that witnesses may not be relatives of the judges? Consider: if one of them were found perjured, he could not be killed unless the other also was found perjured. If you say so, would he not be killed by his sentence?
What is the source that judges may not be relatives of one another? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since witnesses may not be relatives of one another, neither may judges be relatives of one another.
So far only fathers and sons; what is the source for the other relatives? Rabbi Zeʿira says, and sons includes the remaining relatives.
So far according to Rabbi Aqiba.
What is the source following Rabbi Ismael? Rabbi Ismael stated: “The congregation shall judge”Numbers 35:24; “the congregation shall save.”Numbers 35:25 The congregation should be neither relatives of the murderer nor relatives of the murdered. Rabbi Yose said, otherwise you would say that the court is engaged in vendetta. This implies that the judges may not be related to the accused. And what is the source that the witnesses may not be related to the accused? The Torah said, kill on the testimony of witnesses, kill on the sentence of judges. Since judges may not be related to the accused, neither may witnesses be related to the accused. What is the source that witnesses may not be relatives of one another? Consider: if they were found perjured, would they not be killed by their testimony?
“Qualified one but not disqualified one.” For it is said, “if he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment.” If he told, the other would have to pay money. This excludes one where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.
“Before the court.” To exclude a single witness. If they told him that they would accept his word as if there were two witnesses, would he be guilty? The verse says, “if he had seen or known.” One who is qualified to testify according to biblical standards; this excludes a single witness who is not qualified to testify according to biblical standards.
“Outside of court.” “If he does not tell, he has to bear his punishment.” If he told, one would have to pay money. This excludes outside of court where the other would not have to pay money even if he told.
What is the source for two witnesses? He and another make two. Or following Rabbi Ismael, as Rabbi Ismael said, wherever the Torah mentions a witness without further determination it implies two witnesses unless the verse informs you that a single witness is meant. It was found stated in the name of Rabbi Ismael: Can a single witness be found guilty of a blurted oath? Since it is possible to say that another person could team up with him, then he would be subject to the oath of testimony, how could you find him guilty of a blurted oath?
Should a relative be found guilty of a blurted oath? Does it follow what Rabbi Abba said in the name of Samuel: “An oath that X gave a mina to Y,” and it turns out that X had not given; since there is nothing in the future there is nothing in the past. Or the following: “One said to another, ‘where is my ox?’ He responded, ‘I do not know what you are referring to.’ It so happened that it had died, or was wounded, or captured, or lost. ‘I require you to swear;’ the other said ‘Amen.’ He is not liable.” Rav said, he is not liable for a keeper’s oath but is liable because of a blurted oath. Rabbi Joḥanan said, since it is a religious duty to appease him, he is not liable because of a blurted oath. In Rav’s opinion, is there no religious duty to appease him? One appeases with truthful statements, not with lies.
Rabbi Ismael stated: “He has to bear his punishment,”Leviticus 5:1 a sacrifice. What is the source that one needs a court? One learns “telling, telling.” Since telling mentioned there is before a court, also telling here is before a court.
Or like the following. “One accepts the witnesses’ testimony only if they saw it together. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, even if they saw it one after the other.” Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rav: The Sages agree with Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa with regard to witnesses of firstlings and witnesses of squatters’ rights. Rabbi Abba in the name of Rabbi Jeremiah: the same holds for testimony regarding signs. In that case, it is obvious if one says, I saw two hairs on his back and the other says, I saw two hairs on his side. If one says, I saw one hair on his back and the other says, I saw one hair on his belly, that is nothing; so how much more his back and his side. Two are saying, we saw one hair on his back; and two are saying, we saw one hair on his belly. Rav Yose and Rav Hoshaia ben Rav Shammai, one said, it is invalid, but the other said, it is valid. He who says it is invalid considers him as one who testifies to half a sign. He who says it is valid? I say, maybe they were rubbed off. One says, two hairs on his back; and one says, two on his belly. Rabbi Abba said, everybody agrees that this is valid. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, everybody agrees that this is invalid testimony. Rabbi Yose said, this is in disagreement. Rabbi Yose said to Rabbi Ḥaggai, does not Rabbi Yudan follow my opinion? He answered, I am disagreeing with his teacher, so how much more with him. Rabbi Mama said, Rabbi Ḥaggai was correct. If a document was signed by four seals, if one person verified the signature of two witnesses, and another those of the other two, and the document was attacked, is that worth anything? Does not every single signature need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses. Rabbi Ḥinena learns it from the years of squatting rights. If one witness testified that he ate from the property the first, second, and third years and another testified that he ate it the fourth, fifth, and sixth years, is that worth anything? Does not every single year need two witnesses? And here, every single hair needs two witnesses.
And the following. One does not listen to the witnesses unless they come together; Rabbi Nathan says, one listens to the first and when the second comes, one listens to what he has to say. Rabbi Jonathan was sitting and asking, maybe somebody is here who heard that practice follows Rabbi Nathan? Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina told him, that is Rabbi Simeon ben Yaqim. He said, may he come up. When he came up, he asked him, did you hear that practice follows Rabbi Nathan? He answered, I heard that Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa agrees with Rabbi Nathan. He said, do we need this? He said, Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina only intended to elevate Rabbi Simeon bar Yaqim because he was an important person.
Rav Ḥisda asked: May one receive witnesses not in the presence of one of the parties? Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Sabbatai: One may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and even issue a decision, but if the absent party appeals, their appeal must be heard. If a person was summoned by the court three times and did not appear, Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said that one may receive witnesses not in the presence of the parties and issue a decision. As the following: Cahana died and had willed his estate to Rabbi Joshia. Rabbi Eleazar heard witnesses not in the presence of the heirs and handed the estate to Rabbi Joshia. Not only that, but the estate contained Torah scrolls. Rabbi Eleazar wrote to his heirs: Scrolls won by the Land of Israel cannot be taken outside. Rabbi Nissai in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: If they were written for export, they can be exported. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rabbi Yasa: May one export? He asked him, do you ask me in a practical case? He answered, no. Rabbi Zeʿira was dissatisfied that he had not asked in a practical case, to know what he would have said.
Rabbi Jeremiah had a suit against a certain person. They accepted testimony not in the presence of Rabbi Jeremiah, and decided against Rabbi Jeremiah. He was sitting despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties? Rabbi Hina, Rabbi Phineas, and Rabbi Ḥizqiah from Ḥuqoq did not go to the lecture on that day, but Rabbi Huna pushed, went in, and found Rabbi Jeremiah despondent; is it possible that one accepts witnesses not in the presence of the parties even if they are present with them in the same city? He told him, this is seen to be the rabbis’ opinion.
Mishnah
10 When they have come to a decision, they bring the parties in. The chief judge says, Mr. X, you are not guilty, Mr. X, you are guilty. What is the source that afterward one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty, but what can I do since they were a majority against me? On such a one it was said: “The gossip uncovers secrets.”Proverbs 11:13
Halakhah
“When they have come to a decision,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one forces the one who finds guilty to write “not guilty.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish says, the one who finds guilty, writes “guilty”; the one who finds not guilty, writes “not guilty.” The Mishnah disagrees with Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “What is the source that afterward one may not say, I had found for you but my colleagues found you guilty.” What does Rabbi Joḥanan do with this? That nobody could say, I really wanted to justify X in his suit but they did not let me do it. What is Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish’s reason? That no other person should come, reason as he did, and say, also that one was there and he erred.
Mishnah
11 Any time one produces a proof he may demand a new trial. If they told him, produce all your proofs within thirty days, if he produced within thirty days, he gets a new trial, after thirty days he does not get a new trial. Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said, what can one do if he did not find within thirty days but found after thirty days?
Halakhah
“Any time one produces a proof,” etc. Rabbi Oshaiah said, there, where it is possible to add, they continue to argue. But here it is impossible to add. Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish both teach that even here it is possible to add.
Mishnah
12 If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs. If later he found a proof, or he found witnesses, this is irrelevant. Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; he did not know that he had proof, but he found proof? If they told him, produce witnesses; he said, I have no witness; produce proofs; he said, I have no proofs; when he saw that the decision would go against him he said, X and Y shall come and testify for me, or he produced proof from his money belt, this is irrelevant.
Halakhah
“Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel said,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaiah: Three Amoraïm. One said, any time he brings proof he can demand a new trial. The other said, if he brought within 30 days, he can demand a new trial, after 30 days he cannot demand a new trial. The other said, he never can demand a new trial unless he proves that he absolutely had no knowledge of it. But did we not state: “Rabban Gamliel said, what should he do who did not know that he had witnesses but found witnesses; that he had no proof, but found proof?” Rabbi La and Rabbi Zeʿira: One said, unless he voided his proofs; the other said, until he disclaimed his proofs.
Rabbi Levi had a suit against a certain person about houses; they had it judged before Rabbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented proof. He asked Rabbi Joḥanan, who told him, any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Rabbi Eumachos had a suit against a certain person about mills; they had it judged before Rabbi Eleazar. After a decision was reached he presented witnesses. He asked Rabbi Joḥanan, who said to him, is that still a problem for you? Any time one brings proof he can demand a new trial. Why did it need two cases? In Rabbi Levi’s case, no formal verdict had been rendered, in Rabbi Eumachos’s case, a formal verdict had been rendered.
Does a judicial confirmation need a court? Rabbi Hoshaia in the name of Samuel, Rav Bannai in the name of Samuel. One said, it should be confirmed either by the handwriting of the witnesses or the handwriting of the judges; the other said, even with one handwriting and one judge.
Mishnah
1 Both civil suits and criminal suits require cross-examination and investigation, as it is said: “One set of rules shall be for you.” What is the difference between civil suits and criminal suits? Civil suits are tried before three judges, criminal suits before 23. In civil suits one starts with arguments either for acquittal or conviction; in criminal courts one starts with arguments for acquittal but not for conviction.
Halakhah
“Both civil suits,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell how you know that this person owes the other.” Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba asked before Rabbi Yasa: What does one do in practice? He answered, following Rabbi Joḥanan, as Rabbi Joḥanan said, to protect Israel’s money they said, “tell how you know that this person owes the other.” Zeʿir bar Ḥinena in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina and Rav Jehudah, one said: “You shall cross-examine, investigate, and inquire well.”Deuteronomy 13:15 The other said, “equity, equity you shall pursue.”Deuteronomy 16:20 How is that? If you see that the verdict will be the truth, investigate it; otherwise, act in equity.
When Rav Huna saw that witnesses said exactly the same, he would investigate. When he saw them essentially identical, he determined the common element.
How does one start for acquittal? One says, is it possible that this one is a murderer? Rabbi Yose said, if this is so, if one of the witnesses said, I have something to say in his defense, and his colleague comes to support him, is that support? If you say so, would you not put guilt on the judges, to lead witnesses to lie?
Rabbi Joḥanan said, anybody who cannot argue for the crawling animal to make it pure a hundred times cannot start arguing for acquittal. How does one argue about a crawling animal? Rabbi Joḥanan said, since a snake which kills is pure, a rat which does not kill logically should be pure. Since a rat which does not kill is impure, a snake which kills logically should be impure. Rabbi Phineas objected: Is there not the scorpion which kills and is pure? It was found that a Tanna said, snake and scorpion both follow the same rules.
Rabbi said, Rabbi ... had a self-confident student who was arguing for purity or impurity of the crawling animal a hundred times. They said, this student never could instruct. Rabbi Jacob bar Dositheos said, this student was cut off from Mount Sinai.
Mishnah
2 Civil suits are decided by one witness whether for credit or debit; criminal suits are decided by one witness for acquittal and two for conviction.
Halakhah
“Civil suits are decided,” etc. Rabbi Yannai said, if the Torah had been given as fixed decisions, no foot could stand. What is the reason? “The Eternal spoke to Moses.” He said before Him: Master of the Universe, inform me what the practice is. He told him, to bend “after the majority.” If there was a majority for acquitting, they acquitted; if there was a majority for convicting, they convicted; so that the Torah could be explained in 49 ways impure and 49 ways pure, the numerical value of vediglo. And so it says: “the commands of the Eternal are pure sayings; molten silver in an earthenware crucible, refined sevenfold.” And it says, “the straightforward love You.”
Mishnah
3 Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit. Criminal suits can be retried for acquittal but not for conviction.
Halakhah
“Civil suits can be retried both for credit and for debit,” etc. If he left the court being acquitted, and they found reasons for conviction, could I understand that one brings him back? The verse says, “do not kill the acquitted.” If he left the court being convicted, and they found reasons for acquittal, could I understand that one should not bring him back? The verse says, “but do not kill the innocent.” I could think that if he is acquitted in your court, he is acquitted in My court; the verse says, “I shall not acquit the wicked.” Rabbi Isaac said, Rabbi Yose told me: There is no difference; if the acquittal was in error, one retries him.
“In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit,” etc. Rabbi Immi asked before Rabbi Joḥanan: Even an adulterer and an adulteress? He told him, your patch came off.
Mishnah
4 In civil suits, anybody may argue for credit or debit. In criminal suits, anybody may argue for acquittal but not everybody may argue for conviction. In civil suits, one who argued for credit may argue for debit and one who argued for debit may argue for credit; but in criminal suits one who argued for conviction may argue for acquittal but one who argued for acquittal is barred from arguing for conviction.
Halakhah
“In civil suits, one who argued for credit,” etc. Rabbi said, if they only have yet to say, Mr. X, you are acquitted, or you are convicted; it does not apply to the discussion. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it also applies to the discussion.
Mishnah
5 Civil suits are tried during the day and may be decided in the night but criminal suits are tried during the day and decided during daytime.
Halakhah
“Civil suits are tried during the day,” etc. What is the source for this? “They judged the people at all times.”Exodus 18:26 But this is a verse about what happened! Rav Samuel ben Rav Isaac said: the baraita means: If they erred and judged in the night, their judgment stands, as the verse said: “they shall judge the people at all times.”Exodus 18:22 He said, that is a statement.
Mishnah
6 Civil suits are decided on the same day, whether for credit or debit. But criminal suits are decided the same day for acquittal, the next day for conviction. Therefore one does not judge on Sabbath eve or holiday eve.
Halakhah
“Civil suits are decided on the same day,” etc. It was stated: A witness may not argue either for acquittal or conviction. What is the source for this? “A witness shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life.”Numbers 35:30 And what is the source that he himself may not argue either for acquittal or conviction? The verse says, one “shall not argue about anybody on trial for his life.” Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, sometimes a person sees himself set up by perjured witnesses and he speaks much so that he will not be put to death.
What is the source that one needs two consecutive days?
Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Aḥa, said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It is forbidden to judge money matters on Friday. Does not a Mishnah object: “Therefore one does not judge criminal matters on Sabbath eve or holiday eve”? Hence, one judges money matters! Also, Rabbi Ḥiyya stated thus: One judges money matters on Friday but not criminal matters. One is for practice, the other for action.
Could one not judge him on Fridays, pass sentence on the Sabbath, and execute him after the Sabbath? If you say so, it turns out that his judgment is delayed. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish asked, could he not be judged on the Sabbath, have his sentence passed on the Sabbath, and be executed on the Sabbath? Temple service, which supersedes Sabbath prohibitions, is pushed aside by obligatory executions, since it is said, “from My altar take him to be executed.”Exodus 21:14 Therefore the Sabbath, which is pushed aside by Temple service, logically should be pushed aside by obligatory executions. Rabbi La in the name of Rabbi Yannai: This implies that courts may not sit on the Sabbath; what is the reason? It is said here, “in all your dwellings,”Exodus 35:3 and it is said there, “these shall be for you legal procedures for your generations in all your dwellings.”Numbers 35:29 Since there the verse refers to courts, so also here the verse refers to courts.
Mishnah
7 In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity, one starts with the greatest. In criminal cases, one starts from the side. Everybody is qualified to judge money matters but not everybody is qualified to judge criminal matters, but only Cohanim, Levites and Israelites whose daughters may marry into the priesthood.
Halakhah
“In cases of money matters, purity, and impurity,” etc. Rabbi says, “do not argue about a quarrel.”Exodus 23:2 It is written “against the greatest,” that one does not argue after the greatest, only prior to the greatest. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, “do not argue about a quarrel.” It is written “before the greatest,” that one does not argue prior to the greatest, only after the greatest. Rav said, “do not argue,” even after a hundred, according to Rabbi Phineas.
Rabbi Ḥilqiah in the name of Rabbi Simon: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed. One said, our procedures are like their procedures, and one said, our procedures are not like their procedures. He who said, our procedures are like their procedures, is understandable. He who said, our procedures are not like their procedures, how does he understand Jehudah said, Memukhan said? They agreed with what Jehudah said, they agreed with what Memukhan said.
What is the source that in criminal trials the voting starts from the side? Samuel the Elder stated before Rabbi Aḥa: “David told his men, each put on his sword,”1 Samuel 25:13 and after this, they were sitting in judgment about Nabal. Rabbi Thema bar Pappaias in the name of Rav Hoshaia: Also when disqualifying families one starts from the side.
“Anybody is qualified to judge money matters.” Rabbi Jehudah says, even bastards. Rabbi Jehudah says, one does not investigate about libation wine.
“The Sanhedrin was like a semicircular threshing floor,” etc. It is written: “Do not bend your destitute’s proceeding in his trial.”Exodus 23:6 In his trial you do not bend; you may bend in the ox’s trial. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: But only in those rules which are different for civil and criminal suits. How many are these? We have stated nine; Rabbi Ḥiyya stated eleven. Which rules are the last two? The castrate and one who never had children are qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Also one who is less than twenty years of age or who does not have two pubic hairs are qualified to judge civil suits but not criminal suits. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said thirteen. Which rules are the last two? One judges two civil suits on one day but one does not try two criminal suits on one day. Rabbi Abin said, even adulterer and adulteress.
Mishnah
8 The Sanhedrin was like a semicircular threshing floor, so that they could see one another. Two court reporters were standing before them, one to the right and one to the left, and they wrote down the arguments of those who argued for acquittal and those who argued for conviction. Rabbi Jehudah says, there were three. One wrote the arguments for conviction, one wrote the arguments for acquittal, and one wrote the arguments for acquittal and for conviction. Three rows of students of the Sages were sitting before them; each one of them knew his place. If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row. One of the second row came to sit in the first, and one of the third came to sit in the second. They chose a person from the general public and placed him in the third row; he did not sit in the place of the one promoted but in the place befitting him.
Halakhah
“Three rows of students of the Sages,” etc. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: It says here congregation, and it says there congregation. Rav brought it from a Mishnah; the Mishnah says “be a tail of lions and not a head of jackals.” The parable says, be a head of jackals but not a tail of lions. But we have stated: “If they needed to ordain, they ordained one from the first row.”
Mishnah
9 How does one instill fear in witnesses in criminal cases? One brings them in and instills fear in them. Maybe you would testify by a guess, or by a rumor, or from the mouth of a witness, or you heard it from a trustworthy source, or maybe you do not know that we shall examine you by cross-examination and interrogation. You should know that criminal trials are not like civil trials. In civil trials a person pays money and is forgiven. In criminal trials, his blood and the blood of all his descendants hang in the balance, to the end of all generations. So we find when Cain killed his brother, it is said: “The sounds of your brother’s bloods cry to me from the earth.”Genesis 4:10 It does not say “your brother’s blood” but “your brother’s bloods,” his blood and that of his descendants. Another explanation: “Your brother’s bloods,” the blood was splashed on trees and stones. Therefore man was created single in the world to teach that for anybody who destroys a single life it is counted as if he destroyed an entire world, and for anybody who preserves a single life it is counted as if he preserved an entire world. And because of peace among men, that nobody could say to another, my father was greater than your father. And that sectarians could not say, there is a plurality of powers in Heaven. And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him. For a man coins many coins with one die; they are one like the other. But the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him, stamps every man with the stamp of the first man, but no one is like any other. Therefore, everybody is required to say, the world was created for me. Maybe you will say, why should we go to all this trouble? It is already written: “If he is a witness, or saw, or knew,”Leviticus 5:1 etc. Maybe you will say, why should we be guilty of this man’s blood? It is already written: “In destruction of evildoers is clamor.”Proverbs 11:10
Halakhah
“How does one instill fear,” etc. What is meant by a guess? “Do not say, we saw him with a sword in his hand running after another person. He entered a ruined building after him; we entered after him and found him dead. We saw him coming out and his sword was dripping blood. Simeon ben Sheṭah said: May I not see consolation if I did not see one running after another person into a ruined building. I entered after him and found him dead while the other left with his sword dripping blood. I said to him, may I not see consolation if you did not kill him. But what can I do since your blood is not delivered into my hands. But He Who knows thoughts will exact payment from that person. He did not manage to leave before a snake bit him and he died.”
“Therefore man was created,” etc. “Man was created single in the world because of the families, so that they would not attack one another. Is that not an argument from the lesser to the greater? Since now that they are all descendants of one father they attack one another, how much more if they had been descendants of two? Another explanation: The just ones should not say, we are the descendants of a just man, but you are the sons of evildoers.”
“And to proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings, the Holy One, praise to Him,” etc. To proclaim the greatness of the King over kings of kings Who from one die coins all seals and no one is like the other, as it is said: “The seal turns around like clay.”Job 38:15 Why did He change their looks? That no man should jump and go to another’s wife or another’s field. It was stated in the name of Rabbi Meïr: The Holy One, praise to Him, made three things different in humans: looks of the face, understanding, and voice. Looks and understanding because of the robbers, voice because of forbidden women. Rabbi Isaac said, even a fig tree or a wheat plant is not identical to any other. Man was created on Sabbath Eve so that from the start he would enter with a commandment. Another explanation: Why was he created last? A parable: a king who made a banquet. After he had ordered the meal, he invited the guests. “So wisdom built her house,” that is the Holy One, praise to Him, Who created the world in wisdom, as it is said, “the Eternal in wisdom based the earth,”Proverbs 3:19 etc. “She quarried its seven pillars,” these are the seven days of creation. “She slaughtered her slaughtering, mixed her wine,” these are seas and rivers and all the needs of the world. “Any silly one shall come here,” that is Adam and Eve.
“Maybe you will say, why should we go to all this trouble,” etc. It is written: “The clamor erupted in the camp.”1 Kings 22:36 What is “the clamor”? Quiet. And so it says, “when they went in front of the armed forces,”2 Chronicles 20:21 to teach that even the downfall of the evildoers is no joy before the Omnipresent.
Mishnah
1 They would investigate him in seven ways: In which Sabbatical period, in which year, in which month, which day of the month, which day, which hour, at which place? Rabbi Yose said, which day, which hour, which place, do you recognize him, and did you warn him? If one worshipped idols, what did he worship and how did he worship?
Halakhah
“They would investigate him in seven ways,” etc. But we did not state, in which Jubilee period? For that is not current. It was found stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai says, also in which Jubilee period? We have established this for a year which started or concluded a Jubilee period.
What is the source for the seven investigations? Samuel the Elder stated before Rabbi Aḥa: “You shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth, and indeed, the matter is well founded.”Deuteronomy 13:15 He told him, this verse does not work; but: “you shall inquire, investigate, ask in depth; it will be told to you, you shall listen, ask in depth.”Deuteronomy 17:4 In depth, in depth for an equal cut, to require in each case listening, asking, inquiry, and investigation. Rabbi Isaac asked about this: If they caught an armed robber in Tiberias and said, this is the murderer, this is the murdered; why does this need seven investigations? Issi said, any time that the witnesses could not be proven perjured, the murderer cannot be executed on that testimony.
“Do you recognize him?” Who was he, a Gentile or an Israelite? Let us hear from what Rabbi Joḥanan said: If he was killed between Tiberias and Sepphoris, it is prima facie evidence that he was an Israelite.
“Did you warn him?” What is the source for warning? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman in the name of Rabbi Jonathan: “A man who would take his sister” ..., it is ḥesed. Rabbi Bun said, Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister. “It is charitable,” I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was to be built on” ḥesed.
It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, “by the mouth of two witnesses” “shall the dead die.”Deuteronomy 17:6 Does a dead man die? But to tell him by which kind of death he will be executed. It was stated: Rabbi Jehudah ben Rabbi Illai said, “and if a man intentionally kills his neighbor knowingly”Exodus 21:14; they shall inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.
If his death should have been a severe one but they warned him about an easy one. He could say that had he known that his death was to be severe, he would not have committed that crime. If his death should have been an easy one but they warned him about a severe one; in the opinion of Rabbi Jehudah ben Rabbi Illai they have to inform him by which kind of death he will be executed.
“If they warned him and he remained silent, they warned him and he nodded his head, even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he says: for that purpose I am doing it.” “If they saw him spilling blood; they told him, know that he is a son of the Covenant and the Torah said, ‘he who spills a man’s blood, by man his blood shall be spilled,’Genesis 9:6 even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he says: for that purpose I am doing it.” “If they saw him desecrating the Sabbath; they told him, know that today is Sabbath and the Torah said, ‘its desecrators shall be put to death,’Exodus 31:14 even if he said, I know, he cannot be prosecuted unless he says: for that purpose I am doing it.”
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: What was the gatherer’s guilt? Because of tearing off or because of reaping? Let us hear from the following: “The Children of Israel were in the desert when they found” ... This teaches that he was tearing wood off the ground.
Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Gamda asked: How was the gatherer put to death? By stoning. Let us hear from the following: “They knew that the gatherer should be executed but they did not know how he should be put to death.” It was found that Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: “Take the blasphemer outside the camp.”Leviticus 24:14 How was he put to death? By stoning.
“What did he worship?” Peor or Mercury? “And how did he worship?” In its proper worship or the worship of Heaven? Let us hear from the following: It happened that two witnesses came and said, we saw that this one was worshipping idols, but we do not know whether it was Peor or Mercury. One judges him for both and for the one in which he was found innocent one lets him go.
Mishnah
2 Anybody who adds inquiries is praiseworthy. It happened that Ben Zakkai cross-examined about fig stalks. What is the difference between investigations and cross-examinations? In investigations, if one said “I do not know,”their testimony is worthless. In cross-examinations, if one said “I do not know,”or even two say “we do not know,” their testimony remains valid. Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.
Halakhah
“Anybody who adds inquiries,” etc. How did he pluck them? He plucked them with their stalks. How did he eat them? With their pits.
There, we have stated: “If two groups of witnesses were testifying against a person, one group says that he vowed to be a nazir twice, the others say that he vowed to be a nazir five times. The House of Shammai say, the testimony is split and there is no nezirut there. But the House of Hillel say, five contains two; he should be a nazir twice.” Rav said, they differ in the overall testimony. But in detail, everybody agrees that the testimony is split. Rabbi Joḥanan said, they differ in counting. But in an overall testimony, everybody agrees that five contains two. What is overall and what is counting? Overall, this one says two, the other one says five. Counting, this one says one, two, the other one says three, four.
Rav said, if testimony was contradictory in its essence, the testimony is not void. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if testimony is contradictory in itself, the testimony is void. In the opinion of everybody, if testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, the testimony is not void. The strength of Rabbi Joḥanan is consistent with what Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, if it was agreed that he counted but one witness said, he counted from a wallet, and the other said, he counted from a bundle, that contradicts the essence of the testimony, and Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he counted from a wallet and the other says he counted from a bundle. That contradicts the essence of the testimony: the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One said, he counted into his bosom, but the other said, he counted into his money-belt: everybody agrees that this contradicts the essence of the testimony but the testimony is not void. If one witness said, he killed him with a sword, the other witness said, he killed him with a club, that contradicts the essence of the testimony; Rav will agree that the testimony is void. Where do they disagree? If there were two groups of witnesses, one says he killed him with a sword and the other says, he killed him with a club. That contradicts the essence of the testimony, the testimony is void, but according to Rav, the testimony is not void. One says, he turned to the North and one says, he ran away to the South, everybody agrees that the testimony was contradictory in aspects that belong after the fact, and the testimony is not void. The strength of Rav comes from what we have stated there: “Rabbi Jehudah and Rabbi Simeon say, since both agree that he is not alive they can be remarried.” He did not hear that Rabbi Eleazar said, Rabbi Jehudah and Rabbi Simeon concede in the case of witnesses. What is the difference between witnesses and the co-wife? They do not consider the co-wife’s words compared to those of her companion. Rabbi Joḥanan said, if Rabbi Eleazar said this, he said it because he had heard it from me. The Mishnah disagrees with Rav: “Both in investigations and cross-examinations, if they contradict one another their testimony is worthless.” What does Rav do with this? Rabbi Mana said, Rav will explain it as referring to single witness against single witness. Rabbi Abun said, even if you say groups and groups. There is a difference in criminal cases, as it is written: “Justice, justice you shall pursue.”
Mishnah
3 One says, on the second of the month, but the other says, on the third of the month, their testimony may be valid, since one knew about the addition to the month but the other did not know. One says on the third, the other says on the fifth, their testimony is invalid. One says, at two hours but the other said at three hours, their testimony is valid. One says at three but the other says at five, their testimony is invalid; Rabbi Jehudah says it is valid. One says at five but the other says at seven, their testimony is invalid since at five hours the sun is in the East but at seven in the West.
Halakhah
“One says, on the second of the month,” etc. Until when? Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Up to the greater part of the month. Rabbi Yose said, for example, those village dwellers. But the Sages say, it is nothing, and Rabbi Yasa said, for example I, who never in my life prayed musaf, since I do not know when the month starts.
Rabbi Meïr says, from noontime on it is from their words; Rabbi Jehudah says, from noontime on it is biblical. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? “Only on the first day,”Exodus 12:15 that is the fifteenth. I could think at nightfall; the verse says only, to separate. How is this? Give it one hour before sundown. What is Rabbi Jehudah’s reason? “Only on the first day,”Exodus 12:15 that is the fourteenth. I could think the entire day; the verse says only, to separate. Half for leavened matter, half for matzah. Rabbi Meïr’s argument seems inverted. There, he said only to add; here he said only to diminish. Rabbi Samuel bar Eudaimon said, he diminished, for fear that it would be for leavened matter. Rabbi Meïr said, “do not eat leavened matter with it,”Deuteronomy 16:3 while it is eaten. Rabbi Jehudah said, “do not eat leavened matter with it,” while it is prepared.
Rabbi Jehudah has both a positive and a negative commandment concerning its eating, a positive and a negative commandment concerning its removal. A positive commandment concerning its eating, “seven days you shall eat unleavened bread for it,”Deuteronomy 16:3 not leavened. Any prohibition which is implied by a positive commandment has the status of positive commandment. A negative commandment concerning its eating, “do not eat leavened.”Deuteronomy 16:3 A positive commandment concerning its removal, seven days ... “you shall remove sour dough from your houses.”Exodus 12:15 A negative commandment concerning its removal, “for seven days sour dough shall not be found in your houses.”Exodus 12:19
Now Rabbi Meïr says, after noontime it is forbidden because of their words. The seventh hour it is forbidden because of a fence. Why the sixth? Because of a fence. Is there a fence around a fence? But the sixth may be confounded with the seventh. Rabbi Jehudah’s argument seems inverted. There, he says that the fifth cannot be confounded with the seventh. But here, he says that the fifth can be confounded with the seventh. Rabbi Yose said, there the matter is given over to women who are lazy, here the matter is given over to the court, which is careful. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, there it is a matter between the beginning of the fifth and the end of the seventh hour. Here it is between the end of the fifth and the start of the seventh. It also was stated thus: At the start of the fifth hour, the sun is in the East, and at the end of the seventh the sun is in the West. The sun never starts setting before the end of the seventh hour.
Mishnah
4 They brought in the second witness and examined him. If their testimonies were coherent, one starts with arguing for acquittal. If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, or one of the students said, I have an argument for his conviction, one forces them to be silent. If one of the students said, I have an argument for his acquittal, one brings him up and lets him sit among them. He was not demoted from there the entire day; if his argument has substance, one listens to him. Even if he said, I have to argue for my acquittal, one listens to him if there is substance to his words.
Halakhah
“They brought in the second,” etc. It was stated: “If they found him innocent, they freed him; otherwise they hold his case over, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early, the beadles of the synagogues come for them. They ask, Mr. X ben Mr. Y. He says, present. I was for conviction and I still am for conviction; or I was for acquittal and I still am for acquittal; I was for conviction and now I am for acquittal; one accepts his vote. I was for acquittal and now I am for conviction; argue as before.” It was stated: If one of the judges erred, the clerks of court remind him. If he was for conviction, they tell him, argue as before.
Rabbi La said, why does one record the argument of him who argues for acquittal? Because of him who argues for conviction, maybe his memory will fail him. If he switches his argument, they could say to him, this you said, this you did not say. Does this mean that it needs two groups of witnesses? It would mean that the trial would be extended. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because of him who argues for acquittal.
Mishnah
5 If they found him innocent, they free him. Otherwise they hold his case over to the next day, split into groups of two, eat little and refrain from wine the entire day, and discuss during the entire night. The next morning they start early. One who voted for acquittal says, I am for acquittal and I remain for acquittal. One who voted for conviction says, I am for conviction and I remain for conviction. He who voted for conviction may vote for acquittal; but he who voted for acquittal may not change and vote for conviction. If they erred in the matter, the two clerks of court will remind them. If they found him innocent, they free him; otherwise they tally the vote. If twelve are for acquittal and eleven for conviction, he is found innocent. If twelve are for conviction and eleven for acquittal, or even twenty-two are for acquittal or conviction and one says, I do not know, they shall add judges. Up to what number does one add? One adds two and two up to 71. If 36 vote for acquittal and 35 for conviction, he is found innocent. If 36 vote for conviction and 35 for acquittal, they have to continue to argue with one another until one of the voters for conviction is convinced by the arguments of those in favor of acquittal.
Halakhah
“If they found him innocent, they free him,” etc. It was stated: If one of the witnesses said, I have an argument for his acquittal, and another came to support him, whom do you co-opt? Let us hear from the following statement of Rabbi Joḥanan: If somebody was acquitted following his own pleading, one does not place him with the judges. Therefore, if he was acquitted following pleading, then one person would be simultaneously witness and judge. We do not find that anybody can be both witness and judge.
In civil suits one declares the judgment as definitive but in criminal suits one does not declare the judgment as definitive. The greatest among the judges declares the judgment as definitive.
“Up to what number does one add,” etc. It was stated: Why does one add judges? For if there were two of the original judges voting affirmatively, together with one of the later ones judgment will be rendered by three. Rabbi La said, since the judgment can be rendered by four, one does not render it by three.
Rabbi Yose said, one understands from here: If three sat in judgment and one of them died, two sign and note: Even though we are two who sign, we were three in judging. Rabbi Ḥaggai said, a Mishnah implies this: “The judges sign at the bottom or the witnesses.” Does one learn court documents from prozbol? It was found stated: This about court documents he inferred from the rules of prozbol.
If nobody changes his opinion? Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is acquitted. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, he is convicted. Rabbi Joḥanan said to him, is he not acquitted? Why do they have to continue to argue with one another? So the judgment should not be in question.
Mishnah
1 If sentence was passed, one brings him out to be stoned. The place for stoning was outside the court as it is said: “Bring the blasphemer outside the camp.”Leviticus 24:14 One person was standing outside the court building with towels in his hand; a horse was standing ready at a distance but so he could see him. If one said, I have an argument in his favor, that one waves his towels, the horse gallops and stops him. Even if he himself says, I have an exculpatory argument for myself, one returns him even four or five times, provided that his argument is substantial.
Halakhah
“If sentence was passed,” etc. The Mishnah either follows Rabbi or the rabbis in a Gentile city. As we have stated: Rabbi said, “at your gates,” at the gate they were found. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate they were judged? It is said here, “at your gates,” and it says there, “if there be found in your midst, at one of your gates.”Deuteronomy 17:2 Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was found, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was found. But the rabbis say, “at your gates,” at the gate where he was judged. You are saying so, or maybe at the gate where he was found? It is said here, “at your gates,” and it says there, “take this man or this woman” ... “to your gates.”Deuteronomy 17:5 Since gates mentioned there refers to the gate where he was judged, gates mentioned here also refers to the gate where he was judged.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, the first time one listens to him whether or not his arguments are substantial. After that, if his arguments are substantial one listens to him, otherwise one does not listen to him. They said, only if his later arguments are substantial. Ḥizqiah asked: If he was led out to be executed when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? Rabbi Joḥanan heard this and said, this is a donkey’s question. But it must be: If he was led out to be executed and said, I have to argue for my acquittal: when he became paralyzed, do we say that had he not become paralyzed, he would have argued for his acquittal? He said, that is a statement.
Mishnah
2 If they found him innocent, they free him, otherwise he is led to be stoned. The herald goes before him: “X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.”
Halakhah
“If they found him innocent,” etc. It was stated: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rabbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was a false declaration of ownerlessness. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be stoned when his owner dedicated him to the Temple, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.
Mishnah
3 Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning one tells him: confess! This is the way of anyone dying: to confess, since anyone who confesses has part in the World to Come. For so we find about Achan, to whom Joshua said, my son, honor the Eternal, “the God of Israel, confess to Him, and tell me what you did, do not hide it from me.” “Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact I sinned against the Eternal, the God of Israel, and such and such I did.”Joshua 7:19-20 What is the source that his confession atoned for him? For it is said, “Joshua said to him,” “how did you devastate us;” “may the Eternal devastate you on this day.”Joshua 7:25 This day you are devastated; you are not devastated in the Future World. If he does not know how to confess, one tells him, say: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins.” Rabbi Jehudah said, if he knows that he was the victim of perjurers, he says: “My death shall be atonement for all my sins except this one.” They told him, if so, everybody would say so to declare themselves innocent.
Halakhah
“Ten cubits’ distance from the place of stoning,” etc. You find that when Achan stole from the ban, Joshua started supplicating before the Holy One, praise to Him, and said: Master of the Universe, inform me who is the man. The Holy One, praise to Him, answered: I never publicize any creature. In addition, would I not be guilty of slander? But go and let Israel stand up by its tribes and throw lots, then immediately I shall draw him out. That is what is written: “Joshua got up early in the morning and summoned Israel by its tribes. Achan ben Carmi ben Zeraḥ from the tribe of Judah was caught.”Joshua 7:16 Achan told him, how? Do you catch me by lots? There is nobody more pious in the present generation than you or Phineas. Let lots be thrown between you, certainly one of you will be caught. Not only this, but your teacher Moses died only 30 or 40 days ago. Did not our teacher Moses instruct us: “By the testimony of two witnesses”Deuteronomy 19:15? You started erring. At that moment Joshua saw by the holy spirit how he would distribute the Land to Israel by lots. That is what is written: “Joshua threw lots for them.”Joshua 18:10 This means, we are giving lots a bad name. Not only this, but if lots are confirmed now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were true in criminal matters, how much more in money matters. But if they are repudiated now, all of Israel will say, since the lots were repudiated in criminal matters, how much more in money matters. At that moment, Joshua started supplicating Achan, entreated him in the name of Israel’s God, and said to him: my son, “honor the Eternal, the God of Israel,” ... “Achan answered Joshua and said, in fact.”Joshua 7:19-20 What does omnah mean? Truth. “I sinned against the Eternal, God of Israel.” He told him, I asked you for one and you are answering me two? He answered, I stole from the ban of Midian and the ban of Jericho. Rabbi Tanḥuma said, he stole from four bans: The ban of the Phoenician, king of Arad, the ban of Siḥon and Og, the ban of Midian, the ban of Jericho. What is the source that his confession atoned for him? It is said, “the sons of Zeraḥ:” “Zimri and Ethan,” etc. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Zimri is Achan who behaved like Zimri. Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Heman that is Achan, omna I sinned. Altogether five. Did I not know that they were five? But it teaches that Achan also has part in the World to Come.
“If he does not know how to confess,” etc. “It happened that one was led out to be executed. They told him, say: ‘My death shall be atonement for all my sins.’ He said, ‘my death shall be atonement for all my sins except for this sin; if I committed it, He should never forgive me, but the court of Israel is innocent.’ When the case came before the Sages, their tears flowed. They said, it is impossible to reopen the case, since it would never end. But this person’s blood hangs on the witnesses’ necks.”
“At a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning,” etc. “Rabbi Jehudah ben Ṭabbai said, may I never see consolation if I did not execute a perjured witness, for they were saying, until he was executed, as it is said, ‘a life for a life.’ Simeon ben Shetaḥ told him, may I never see consolation if it is not held against you that you spilled innocent blood. At that time, he resolved not to teach except what he heard from Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ.”
Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ’s hands were hot. A group of scoffers came who said, let us take counsel, testify against his son, and kill him. They testified against him. He was sentenced to be executed. When he was taken to be killed, they told him, our Master, we are liars. His father wanted to return him; he told him, my father, if you want salvation to come through you, treat me as a target.
“The place of stoning was two man-sizes high,” etc. It happened that a pious man was walking on the road when he saw two people having sex with a bitch. They said, we know that this is a pious man, he will go, testify against us, and our lord David will kill us. Therefore, we shall be quicker than him and testify against him. They testified against him and he was sentenced to be executed. That is what David said, “Rescue my soul from the sword, From the dog my only one! From the sword,” Uriah’s sword. “From the dog,” the pious man’s dog.
Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi went to the upper floor of the House of Study and saw two men in homosexual activity. They said to him, Rabbi! Realize that you are one and we are two!
Mishnah
4 At a distance of four cubits from the place of stoning one removes his clothes. One covers a man in front, a woman one covers front and back, according to Rabbi Jehudah; but the Sages say, a man is stoned naked, but no woman is stoned naked.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Eliezer said,” etc. The argument of Rabbi Jehudah seems inverted. There, he says: “If her hair was beautiful, he did not uncover it.” And here, he says so? Here, anyhow she goes to her death, but there, maybe she will be found to be pure and the young priests would attack her. The argument of the rabbis seems inverted. There, they say: “A man is stoned naked, but no woman is stoned naked.” And here, they say so? Here, “you shall love your neighbor as yourself,” choose for him a decorous death. But here, “all women should be taught.”
Mishnah
5 The place of stoning was two man-sizes high; one of the witnesses pushed him at his hips. If he fell on his breast, he turns him around on his back. If he died from this, it is sufficient; otherwise he takes the stone and puts it on his breast. If he died from this, it is sufficient; otherwise the second witness takes the stone and puts it on his breast. If he died from this, it is sufficient; otherwise the stoning is on all of Israel as it is said: The witnesses’ “hand shall be first on him to kill him, and the hand of the entire people afterward.”Deuteronomy 17:7
Halakhah
“All those stoned are hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer,” etc. It was stated: “Adding his own height, these are five.” Here you say, adding his own height, these are five. But for a pit in matters of damages, you say even ten handbreadths. One cannot compare one who falls consciously, and one who falls accidentally. Rabbi Jonathan ben Ḥali, Rabbi Eudaimon the son of Rabbi Tabi’s daughter, in the name of Rabbi Josia: Those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break. In the days of Rabbi Phineas they threw down an ox with all their might. He told them, By your lives, free it. They freed it, it got up and fled. He said, praised be He Who selected the Sages and their pronouncements, for they say, those who throw down an ox with all their might do not cause any of its limbs to break.
What is the source that he needs to be stoned? For it is said, “by stoning he be stoned.” What is the source that he needs to be pushed? For it is said, “by pushing he be pushed.” What is the source that he needs two pushings? The verse says, “to be pushed.”
Mishnah
6 Anyone who was stoned is hanged, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, only the blasphemer and the idolater are hanged. A man is hanged face to the people and a woman face to the pole, according to Rabbi Eliezer. But the Sages say, a man is hanged, a woman is not hanged. Rabbi Eliezer said, it happened that Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged women in Ascalon. They told him, he hanged eighty women, but one does not try two on the same day.
Halakhah
Some Tannaïm state: Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was president; some Tannaïm state, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president.
What happened in Alexandria supports him who said, Jehudah ben Ṭabbai was president, since the people of Jerusalem wrote: From the great Jerusalem to the small Alexandria: How long still will my husband live in your midst and I am sitting sorrowful in my house?
What happened in Ascalon supports him who said, Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ was president. Two students were in Ascalon. They ate together, drank together, and studied Torah together. One of them died, and nobody attended his funeral. The son of Maʿyan the publican died; the entire city stopped working to attend his funeral. The other student started crying and said woe, do the haters of Israel have no hope? It was shown to him in his dream and said, do not denigrate your Master’s children. This one did one good deed and died with it, the other one committed one sin and died with it. What sin did he commit? God forbid that he committed a sin, but once he put on his head phylacteries before his arm phylacteries. What good deed did the son of publican Maʿyan do? God forbid that he committed a good deed, but once he prepared a breakfast for the city council but they did not show up. He said, let the poor come and eat it, so it should not go to waste. Some say, he was walking in the street, having a loaf under his shoulder. It fell down and a poor person picked it up. He did not say anything in order not to embarrass him. This student saw gardens and water sources. He saw the son of Maʿyan the publican standing on the river bank trying in vain to reach the water. He also saw Miriam, Onion-leaf’s daughter, hanging on her breast nipples; but some say, the door of Hell was fixed in her ear. He asked, why? They told him, because she fasted and made herself famous among her neighbors. Some say, she fasted one day and was dissolute two days. He asked them for how long? They told him, when Simeon ben Sheṭaḥ comes, we shall remove it from her ear and put it in his ear. He asked them, what is his misdeed? They told him, because he made a personal vow that if he were elected president, he would kill all sorcerers. But now he was made president and he did not kill them. In fact, there are eighty women in the cave of Ascalon who hurt the world; go and tell him! He told them, he is an important personality, he will not believe me. They told him, he is very meek and will believe you. In case he does not believe you, take out one of your eyes and put it in your hand. He took out one of his eyes and put it in his hand. They said, return it; it was even with the other. He went and told him. He wanted to perform his miracle before him, but he told him, you do not need to. I know that you are a pious person. Even though I intended so in my thoughts, I never spoke it with my mouth. It was a day of rainstorms. He took eighty select men in clean garments and took with them eighty amphoras. He told them, when I whistle once, put on your garments. When I whistle for the second time, come. When he came to the cave of Ascalon, he said, Oyim, oyim, open for me, I am one of yours. When he entered, one said what she said and produced bread. One said what she said and produced a dish. One said what she said and produced wine. They asked him, what can you do? He told them, when I whistle twice, I shall bring here eighty select men in dry garments for your pleasure and entertainment. They told him, we desire them. When he whistled, they put on their garments; when he whistled for the second time, they all entered together. He made them a sign for each one to grab one of them and lift her from the earth. Then they did not succeed in what they were trying to do. He told the one who brought bread, bring bread! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring a dish! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. Bring wine! She did not succeed. He said, take her to be crucified. This he did to all of them. That is what we have stated: “Simeon ben Shetaḥ hanged eighty women in Ascalon, but one does not try two on the same day.” But the hour needed it.
Mishnah
7 How does one hang him? One sinks a stake into the ground, wood is sticking out from there. One binds both hands, one on top of the other, and hangs him. Rabbi Yose says, the beam is leaning on the wall; one hangs him in the way butchers do. One hangs him and takes him down immediately; if he were left overnight, one would transgress a prohibition, as it is said: “Do not leave his corpse on the wood overnight, but certainly bury him on the same day, for a hanged person is blasphemy.” This means, why was he hanged? Because he blasphemed; it turns out that the name of Heaven would be desecrated.
Halakhah
It was stated: Rabbi Eliezer ben Jacob said, this is worse for the desecrator than for the blasphemer and worse for the blasphemer than the desecrator. About the blasphemer it is written: “Do not leave his corpse on the gallows overnight.” But about the desecrator it is written: “Riṣpa bat Aya took sackcloth and spread it on the rock from the start of harvest until water was poured on them.” This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan.
It is written: “At that moment Joshua dedicated them as hewers of wood and drawers of water for the congregation.” One understands “for the congregation.” But “for the Eternal’s altar”? But Joshua kept them in limbo. He said, I shall neither exclude nor include them. But he who sometime in the future will build the Temple, if he wants to include he may include, if he wants to exclude he may exclude. David came and excluded them as it is said: “But the Gibeonites are not part of the Children of Israel.” Why did he exclude them? Because “there was a famine in David’s time, three years year after year.” David said, for three sins the rains are locked away: Foreign worship, incest and adultery, and murder. Foreign worship, as it is written: “Beware, so that you are not seduced” and next to it, “He locks the sky up.” Incest and adultery, as it is written “Rain-showers were withheld, there was no late rain, for you had the forehead of a whoring woman.” Murder, as it is written: “Because blood will distort the Land.” Some say, also those who publicly promise money for welfare but do not pay, as it is written: “Clouds and wind but no rain means the man who boasts with lying gifts.” David checked on all his ways and did not find any of them. He turned to ask the Urim and Tummim. That is what is written: “David asked before the Eternal.” Rabbi Eleazar said, it is written: “Ask the Eternal, all the meek of the Land, who execute His Law,” etc. “The Eternal said, because of Saul and the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites. Because of Saul,” whom you did not grant the last favor, “and because of the House of blood-guilt, for he had killed the Gibeonites.” David sent and called them. He asked them, what is between you and the House of Saul? They told him, because he killed seven of our men, two hewers of wood, two drawers of water, a scribe, a religious leader, and a beadle. He asked them, what do you want now? They said to him, “May there be given to us seven men ... and we shall hang them before the Eternal in Gibeon.”2 Samuel 21:6 He said to them, what use is it to you that they are killed? Take silver and gold for yourselves! But they answered, “there is no silver or gold for us from Saul and his house.”2 Samuel 21:6 He said, maybe they are afraid one of the other; he dealt with each of them separately, trying to mollify him by himself, but nobody accepted it. That is what is written, “there is no silver or gold for us,” it is written for me. At this moment, David said that the Holy One gave three good gifts to Israel: They are decent, merciful, and charitable. Decent, for it is written: “that His fear be on your faces.” Merciful, for it is written: “He gave you mercy, had mercy on you and increased you.” Charitable, for it is written: “The Eternal, your God, kept for you covenant and charity.” But these, nothing of this is found in them; he excluded them: “But the Gibeonites are not of the Children of Israel.”2 Samuel 21:1-2 And Ezra also excluded them, as it is said: “And the dedicated ones dwelt in the Ophel; Ziha and Gishpa were of the dedicated ones.” Also in the future, the Holy One, praise to Him, will exclude them as it is written: “The city worker will cultivate it, from all tribes of Israel.” He will eliminate them from all tribes of Israel.
“The king said, I shall give.”2 Samuel 21:6 “The king took the two sons of Riṣpah bat Ayah.”2 Samuel 21:8 “Michal, Saul’s daughter, did not have a child,”2 Samuel 6:23 and you say so? Say now that they were sons of Merab but Michal raised them, so they were named after her. “The king gave them into the hand of the Gibeonites who hanged them on the mountain before the Eternal.”2 Samuel 21:9 All seven is written defective of one letter. That refers to Mephiboshet, for whom David prayed and whom the altar received. He told them, I let them pass by the altar and anyone whom the altar receives will be his, because of Mephiboshet who was great in Torah. He let him pass by the altar, which received him. Rabbi Avin said, “I shall call to the Most High God, to the Power Who has the ultimate decision over me.”Psalms 57:3 For the Holy One, praise to Him, agreed with David. “They were killed on the day of harvest ... at the start of the barley harvest.”2 Samuel 21:9 “Riṣpah bat Ayah took a garment and laid it out on the rock.”2 Samuel 21:10 What does “on the rock” mean? Rabbi Hoshaia said, she was reciting: “The rock, perfect is His action.”Deuteronomy 32:4 Rabbi Abba bar Zamina in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Sanctification of the Name is greater than desecration of the Name. Referring to sanctification of the Name it is written: “Do not leave his corpse overnight.”Deuteronomy 21:23 But referring to desecration of the Name it is written that they were left hanging “until water was poured on them.”2 Samuel 21:9 This teaches that they were hanging from the sixteenth of Nisan to the seventeenth of Marḥeshwan. The passers-by were saying: How did these people sin that the rules of justice were changed for them? They were answered: Because these had attacked cursed proselytes. Is that not an argument from the lesser to the greater? Since even for those who did not convert for the sake of Heaven, the Eternal avenged their blood; how much more for one who converts for the sake of Heaven? Many converts were converted at that time; that is what is written: “Solomon counted all proselytes ... and appointed from them 70,000 carriers,” etc.
Mishnah
8 Rabbi Meïr said: When a human suffers, how does the Divine presence express Itself? If it could be said, my head is light, my arm is light. If Scripture says so, I am suffering about the blood of evildoers, how much more if the blood of the just is spilled.
Halakhah
“Rabbi Meïr said,” etc. We have stated qalleini. Some Tannaïm state qal ani. He who says qalleini uses only an expression of lightness. He who says qal ani uses a language of load.
The Mishnah does not follow Rabbi Meïr because he said, also for the blasphemer one violates a prohibition.
Mishnah
9 Not only this, but anybody who leaves his dead overnight violates a prohibition. If he left him overnight for his honor, to provide him with a coffin and shrouds, he does not violate a prohibition in his regard. They did not bury them in their family graves, but two graves were prepared, one for those stoned or burned, the other for those beheaded or strangled.
Halakhah
“Not only this,” etc. It was stated: If somebody transports a coffin from one place to the other, the rules of collecting bones do not apply. Rabbi Aḥa said, this means in a marble coffin. But in a wooden coffin, the rules of collecting bones do apply. Rabbi Yose said, even for a wooden coffin the rules of collecting bones do not apply. What is “collecting bones”?
Rabbi Ḥaggai said, only if he heard it the next day. But on the same day notice must be taken of collecting bones. Nikomachos stated before Rabbi Zeʿira: Collecting bones has no minimal amount. Rabbi Mani instructed Rabbi La from Kufra to tear his garment and mourn following Rabbi Aḥa, not to pollute himself following Rabbi Yose.
It was stated: Collecting bones, following the information. What is collecting bones? One collects every single bone after the flesh has rotted away.
It was stated: When collecting bones one does not recite lamentations and wailing, nor the benediction of mourners, nor consolation of mourners. The benediction of mourners, what is said in the synagogue. Consolation of mourners, what is said in the row. It was stated: But one spoke words on the occasion. What are words? The rabbis of Caesarea said, eulogies.
Mishnah
10 If the flesh has rotted away, one collects the bones and buries them at their place. The relatives come and greet the witnesses and judges, implying that “we hold no grudge against you because you delivered a true judgment.” They did not mourn but were in deep sorrow, since deep sorrow is only in the mind.
Halakhah
“If the flesh has rotted away,” etc. It was stated: In earlier times, they would collect the bones after burying them in ditches. When the flesh had rotted away, they collected them and buried them in cedar wood. On the day itself he was mourning, the day after he was happy, implying that his parents were at rest from judgment.
Not only this, but they were buried separately, those stoned with the burned, those beheaded with the strangled. This is what David said: “Do not collect my soul with sinners,” those stoned or burned; “nor my life with men of blood guilt,” those beheaded or strangled.
An accident happened to Rabbi Abbahu; he lost a baby. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose ascended to visit him. Out of respect for him, they did not speak to him words of Torah. He told them, would the rabbis consider saying a word of Torah? They answered, think of it, our teacher. He said to them: If about a terrestrial authority, where one finds lies, and untruth, and misleading statements, and favoritism, and bribery, and they are here one day and gone the next, it was said: “the relatives come and greet the judges and witnesses, implying that we hold no grudge against you because you delivered a true judgment,” the Heavenly authority, before which there are no lies, no untruth, no misleading statements, no favoritism, and no bribery, and He exists forever in all worlds, how much more are we obligated to accept His judgment. And it is said, “May He give you mercy, have mercy on you, and make you increase as He has sworn to your ancestors.”
Mishnah
1 The court was empowered to impose four kinds of execution: Stoning, burning, decapitation, and strangling. Rabbi Simeon says: Burning, stoning, strangling, and decapitation. The preceding was prescribed for stoning.
Halakhah
“The court was empowered to impose four kinds of execution,” etc. But to the government only decapitation was given. What is the source for stoning? “You shall stone them with stones that they die.”Deuteronomy 17:5 Burning, for it is written, “in fire you shall burn him and them.”Leviticus 20:14 Avenging is written here, and there it is written: “I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant.”Leviticus 26:25 Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. Strangling? You do not find it. You say that for any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to make it more stringent, but only to make it less so; they assigned this to strangling.
Rabbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rabbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation. Rabbi Simeon explained that any reference to “Cohen’s daughter” implies burning, but the rabbis teach that any reference to “betrothed” implies stoning. Rabbi Simeon explained: The Torah was stringent with a Cohen’s daughter and ordered that as betrothed she be burned, but was lenient with the fully married one that she be stoned. The Torah was lenient with the betrothed daughter of an Israelite and ordered that she be stoned; it is logical that we should be lenient with the fully married one that she be decapitated. But the rabbis explain, since the Torah was stringent with the betrothed daughter of an Israelite and ordered that she be stoned, it was lenient with her in her fully married status to be burned. The Torah was lenient with the daughter of a Cohen in her betrothed status and ordered that she be burned; it is logical that we be lenient with her in her fully married status that she be strangled.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: Anyone who is executed less cruelly than her father’s death is by burning. As long as she is with her father, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned. “With her father she is desecrating, in fire she should be burned.”Leviticus 21:9 Rabbi Eliezer says, with her father she is burned, with her father-in-law stoned. She by burning, her paramour not by burning. She by burning, her perjured witnesses not by burning. Similarly by burning, she and they by burning. Similarly by stoning, she and they by stoning. Similarly by strangulation, they by burning but he by strangulation.
Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: The rabbis explain that the inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by burning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by burning, but should you have them judged by the easiest way, by strangulation? Rabbi Simeon explained: The false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, which should be by stoning. It is not enough that you decree for them an easier death by stoning, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by beheading.
Rabbi Samuel ben Sosartai in the name of Rabbi Abbahu switches the arguments. The rabbis explained: The rabbis explain that the false prophet should have been included in the category of idolaters, by stoning. He was treated to a less painful way of execution, this should have been by burning. It is not enough that you decree burning for them, but you have him judged by the easiest way, by strangulation.
Rabbi Simeon explained: The inhabitants of a seduced city should have been included in the category of idolaters, by burning. They were treated to a less painful way of execution; that should be by stoning. This is not enough for you but you have them judged by the easiest way, by beheading.
Mishnah
2 The order of burning: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction until he opens his mouth. Then one lights a wick and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rabbi Jehudah says, in that case, if he would die in their hands they would not have fulfilled the duty of burning; one opens his mouth forcefully with tongs, lights a wire and throws it into his mouth that it enters his innards and chars his intestines. Rabbi Eleazar ben Ṣadoq said, it happened that a Cohen’s daughter whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, because the court at that time was incompetent.
Halakhah
“The order of burning,” etc. Why does one not use the hard cloth alone? One said, that he should not die; as we find that when Hezekiah closed the waters of the upper Giḥon spring, he stopped it with soft clothing.
Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The Mishnah speaks of a baʿaṣ wire. What is a baʿaṣ wire? The rabbis of Caesarea say, a mixture of lead and tin. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, this follows him who said, “one lights a wire and throws it into his mouth.” But for him, who says, “it enters his innards and chars his intestines,” the Mishnah speaks of a wick of naphtha.
It was stated: Forty years before the Temple was destroyed, criminal jurisdiction was removed from Israel, and in the days of Simeon ben Ioḥai civil jurisdiction was removed from Israel. Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai said, praise be to the Merciful One, for I am not wise enough to judge.
“Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Ṣadoq said, I was a child riding on my father’s shoulder when I saw the daughter of a Cohen who had whored; they surrounded her with firewood and burned her. They told him, you were a child; a child cannot testify.” When he saw this, he was no less than ten years old. When he walked with Rabbi, he must have been no less than thirty years old since it is not fitting for a great personality to be accompanied by anybody less than thirty years of age. As we have stated: “Rabbi said, I was coming from Bet Sirin with Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Ṣadoq when we ate figs and grapes outside the tabernacle.”
Mishnah
3 The order of beheading. They would cut off his head with a sword just as the Roman government does. Rabbi Jehudah says, this is ugliness but one puts his head on the block and cuts it with a butcher knife. They told him, there is no death uglier than this.
Halakhah
“The order of beheading,” etc. “Rabbi Jehudah agrees that there is no death uglier than this but the Torah said, ‘in their statutes you shall not walk.’” Rabbi Joḥanan said, also it was stated thus: “One shall murder the murderer,”Numbers 35:30 the way he murdered. I could think that if he killed with a sword, one should kill him with a sword, with a rod one should kill him with a rod? Avenging is written here, and there it is written: “I shall bring over you a sword which avenges the vengeance of the Covenant.”Leviticus 26:25 Since avenging mentioned there is by the sword, also avenging mentioned here is by the sword. I could think that he should kill him between the arms? It is said here, “you shall eliminate the evil from your midst,” and it is said there, “you shall eliminate the innocent blood from your midst.” Elimination, elimination; breaking the neck, breaking the neck. Since elimination here is at the neck, also there it is at the neck. Since breaking the neck there implies chopping off the head, also here chopping off the head.
Mishnah
4 The order of the strangled: One makes him sink into manure up to his knees, puts a stiff cloth into soft ones and winds them around his throat. One person draws in his direction, the other one draws in his direction until he expires.
Halakhah
“The order of the strangled,” etc. Strangling? You do not find it. This refers to death penalty in the Torah. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent, only to make it less so, according to Rabbi Josia. Rabbi Jonathan said to him, not because it is the least painful, but because it is mentioned in the Torah with no specific indication. For any death penalty mentioned in the Torah with no particular indication, you are not empowered to try to make it more stringent but only to make it less so; they ascribed this to strangling.
You said, the order of strangling is the following: “One person draws in his direction, the other one draws in his direction.” Cahana asked before Rav: There, you say, “one draws in one direction, the other draws in one direction.” But here, you say, “one draws in his direction, the other draws in his direction.” He told him, there one is in front, the other in the back. But here, one is on one side, the other one is on the other side.
Mishnah
5 The following are stoned: A male having sexual relations with the mother, or the father’s wife, or the daughter-in-law, or a male, or an animal; or a female bringing an animal onto herself. Also the blasphemer, the worshipper of idols, he who gives one of his descendants to Molech, and the necromancer, and the medium. Also one who desecrates the Sabbath, or who curses father or mother, or who has sexual relations with a betrothed maiden, or who leads astray, or who seduces, or the sorcerer, or the deviant and rebellious son.
Halakhah
“The following are stoned,” etc. It is necessary in one forgetting, but in two forgettings? Since even for one woman, if he had relations with her several times in one forgetting, he is liable for each one. Rabbi Simeon ben Rabbi Hillel ben Pazi asked before Rabbi Hillel ben Pazi: The Mishnah refers to one woman who is forbidden under many names. But if there were many women, or many forgettings, is that in one forgetting? He told him, it is necessary to state for one forgetting, since they disagreed: He acts in one forgetting but she in five forgettings. Rabbi Joḥanan said, he brings one sacrifice but she brings five sacrifices. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, since he brings only one sacrifice, she brings only one sacrifice; so that you do not say that many women, or many forgettings, be treated as one forgetting. Therefore, it is necessary to say, he is liable for each one.
Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya said: Rabbi Ismael stated so: “You shall not divine nor cast spells.”Leviticus 19:26 Were not divination and spellbinding included in the general class but were mentioned separately to be treated differently from the general case? In general by extirpation, the separate cases for extirpation. A statement of Rabbi Joḥanan says, it is a case of general case and detail, as Rabbi Abbahu said in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, “for anybody who would perform any of these abominations will be extirpated,”Leviticus 18:29 etc. Was not his sister included in the general class? Rabbi Eleazar objected: Was it not written, “the nakedness of your mother’s sister and your father’s sister you shall not uncover”? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. But is it not written: “A man who would lie with an unwell woman, who uncovered her nakedness, he touched her source, and she uncovered the source of her blood”? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by touching. That you should not say, since one is guilty about her already by the impurity of touching, we should not treat the one who touched equal to the one who had full intercourse. Therefore, it was necessary to say it. But is it not written: “A man who would sleep with his aunt uncovered his uncle’s nakedness”? He told him, it was stated separately for a reason, to judge it by destruction, as Rabbi Yudan said, at all places where “they will be destroyed” is mentioned, they will be childless; where “they shall die destroyed” is mentioned, they shall bury their children.
Rabbi Yose said, it was necessary that his aunt be mentioned separately, to exclude his mother’s brother’s wife. What is the reason? It is said here his aunt, and it is said there, “either his uncle or his uncle’s son shall free him.” Since by his uncle mentioned there, the verse understands his father’s paternal brother, also by his aunt mentioned here, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife. Also “his brother’s wife” can be inferred from his aunt. Since by his aunt mentioned there, the verse speaks of his father’s paternal brother’s wife, also by “his brother’s wife” mentioned here, the verse speaks of his paternal brother’s wife. So far following Rabbi Aqiba. Following Rabbi Ismael? Rabbi Ismael stated: It is said here “his brother’s wife” and it is said there, “a man who would take his brother’s wife, she is niddah.” Since a menstruating woman will be permitted after being forbidden, also his paternal brother’s wife may be permitted after being forbidden. This excludes his maternal brother’s wife, who cannot be permitted after being forbidden.
But Rabbi Joḥanan himself had a problem: how does one prove it? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: Two prohibitions and one extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. For example, “it should not be used to be rubbed on anybody’s skin and in its proportions you shall not imitate it,” and it is written, “a person who would compound similarly, or who would put it on a stranger, will be extirpated from his people,” that is two prohibitions and one extirpation. The prohibitions split the extirpation. Also from the following: Samuel bar Abba asked before Rabbi Zeʿira, should not well-being sacrifices, being treated separately, split all sancta regarding impurity? He told him, it was necessary that they be treated separately, to eliminate sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple regarding larceny, so that one would not be liable for them because of mushiness, leftovers, and impurity. But is that not a Mishnah? “All sancta destined for the altar combine with one another with respect to liability for mushiness, leftovers, and impurity,” in contrast to sancta destined for the upkeep of the Temple. Since they do not combine, they do split. Rabbi Ḥanina said, what he really questioned, should they not split but combine?
If He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as a prohibition, Rabbi Eleazar’s view is that this is a general principle followed by a detail. Rabbi Eleazar said, one whips for plowing in the Sabbatical year. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one does not whip for plowing in the Sabbatical year. What is Rabbi Eleazar’s reason? “The Land shall keep a Sabbath for the Eternal,”Leviticus 25:3 a general principle. “Your field you shall not sow, your vineyard you shall not prune,”Leviticus 25:4 detail. The sower and the pruner were included in the general case; why were they mentioned separately? To include with them; since the sower and the pruner are particular in that they perform work on the ground or on a tree, I have only what is work on the ground or on a tree. How does Rabbi Joḥanan treat this? They are two different things, and two different details for one general principle do divide. In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion they do not divide. But he holds that because they do not divide, they are for making inferences. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion, they are not for making inferences. There is a difference here because He stated a general principle as a positive commandment but the detail as prohibitions. No positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion a positive commandment allows inferences for a prohibition but no prohibition allows inferences for a positive commandment. In Rabbi Joḥanan’s opinion it is obvious that one may dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it. In Rabbi Eleazar’s opinion, may one dig cisterns, ditches, and caves during it? Just as one cannot make inferences for prohibitions, so one should not be able to make inferences for permissions. Rabbi Abba from Carthage said, Rabbi Joḥanan’s reason is “six years you shall sow your field,” not in the Sabbatical; “and six years you shall prune your vineyard,”Leviticus 25:3 not in the Sabbatical. Any prohibition inferred from a positive commandment is a positive commandment; one violates a positive commandment. Rabbi Jeremiah said, one violates a positive commandment. Rabbi Yose said, there is not even a positive commandment. But is it not written that “the Land shall rest as a rest for the Eternal”? That is for the prohibition implied by it.
I could think that they should give lashes for the addition. Rabbi Joḥanan explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for plowing during the Sabbatical year, but Rabbi Eleazar explains the baraita: I could think that one gives lashes for the first two terms. Some Tannaïm state: “Six years you shall sow your field, and six years you shall prune your vineyard;” but some Tannaïm state: “Your field you shall not sow,” etc. He who says six years supports Rabbi Joḥanan; he who says “your field you shall not sow” supports Rabbi Eleazar.
A baraita supports Rabbi Eleazar: “Be on guard,” a prohibition. Lest, a prohibition. And it is written: “There, you shall offer your elevation offerings and there you shall make. There, you shall offer,” that is the offering; “and there you shall make,” that is slaughtering and sprinkling. Just as offering is a positive commandment and a prohibition, so slaughtering and sprinkling which are positive commandments should be covered by a prohibition. Because it is written “there you shall offer, and there you shall make.” Therefore, if “there you shall offer, and there you shall make” were not written, no positive commandment would allow inferences for a prohibition and no prohibition would allow inferences for a positive commandment. How does Rabbi Joḥanan handle this? That you should not say as you say referring to the Sabbath: If one dug a hole, made a ditch, or dug to put in a pole, he is guilty only of one offense. Similarly, if he slaughtered and offered, he should be guilty only of one offense; therefore, it was necessary to say, he is liable for every single action.
Rabbi Zeʿira, Rav Ḥiyya bar Ashi in the name of Cahana: He who is planting on the Sabbath is guilty because of sowing. Rabbi Zeʿira said, he who prunes is like one who plants. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to Cahana he is guilty on two counts, according to Rabbi Zeʿira only on one count. Did not Rabbi Zeʿira say the pruner is like the planter, did perhaps he say the planter is like the pruner? All was included in the category of sowing; pruning was singled out for particular stringency. Because pruning was singled out for particular stringency you want to exempt it because of sowing? This means, there is no difference. If he planted and pruned on the Sabbath, according to both Cahana and Rabbi Zeʿira he is guilty on two counts.
Mishnah
6 A person having sexual relations with the mother is guilty because of mother and because of father’s wife. Rabbi Jehudah says, he is guilty only because of mother. A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife is guilty because of father’s wife and because of married woman, whether during his father’s lifetime or after his father’s death, whether betrothed or fully married. A person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law is guilty because of his daughter-in-law and because of a married woman, whether during his son’s lifetime or after his son’s death, whether betrothed or fully married.
Halakhah
“A person having sexual relations with the mother,” etc. “A person having sexual relations with the father’s wife,” etc. What is the source for the warning for a person having sexual relations with the mother? “Your mother’s nakedness you shall not uncover.”Leviticus 18:7 What is the source for extirpation? “For anybody who would commit any of these abominations, the guilty persons will be extirpated from their people.”Leviticus 18:29 What is the source for the warning for a person having sexual relations with the father’s wife? “Your father’s wife’s nakedness you shall not uncover.”Leviticus 18:8 What is the source for extirpation? “For anybody who would commit,”Leviticus 18:29 etc. What is the source for punishment? “A man who would sleep with his father’s wife, his father’s nakedness he uncovered; they shall be put to death,”Leviticus 20:11 etc.
What is the source for the warning for a person having sexual relations with his daughter-in-law? “Your daughter-in-law’s nakedness you shall not uncover.”Leviticus 18:15 What is the source for extirpation? “For any man who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,”Leviticus 18:29 etc. What is the source for punishment? A “man who would sleep with his daughter-in-law”Leviticus 20:12 etc.
We have it stated here, we have it stated in Keritut. One understands in Keritut that he brings one sacrifice and then has to bring a second. What can you say in Sanhedrin? That he is stoned and then stoned again? Rabbi Yudan, Rabbi Mattaniah’s father, said: explain it for warnings. For if they warned him because of the father’s wife, he is hit, because of the mother, he is hit. Could they not also warn him because of a married woman? Rabbi Abun said, explain it if she was unmarried.
There, we have stated: Rabbi Jehudah says, if his mother was not fit for his father, he is liable only for one sacrifice. Therefore, if his mother was fit for his father, he is liable for two. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: There is no difference. Whether his mother was fit for his father or unfit for his father, he is liable only once. The reason of Rabbi Joḥanan: “Your mother is she,” you find him guilty because of his mother; this directs the entire chapter toward his mother. Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: What caused Rabbi Joḥanan to concentrate on the mother and to leave the father’s wife aside? He told him, for he argues with Rabbi Ismael, as Rabbi Ismael explained: “Your father’s wife’s nakedness”; the verse refers to the male. Is not his father included in the category of the male? Only to make him liable twice, as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his father is doubly liable about him. Then should we not state “thirty-seven extirpations in the Torah”? Rabbi Mana said, all denotations of males are one. “Your father’s wife’s nakedness;” the verse refers to the father’s wife. “Your mother’s nakedness,” that is his mother who is his father’s wife. What is the source for his mother who is not his father’s wife? “Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness.” How does Rabbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after the father’s death. Does Rabbi Aqiba not explain “she is your father’s nakedness”Leviticus 18:8? There is no difference whether during lifetime or after death. Rabbi Aqiba explains: “Your father’s wife’s nakedness,” the verse refers to the father’s wife. “Your mother’s nakedness,” that is his mother who is his father’s wife. What is the source for his mother who is not his father’s wife? “Your mother is she; do not uncover her nakedness.” How does Rabbi Ismael treat this? He explains it to apply after the father’s death. Does not Rabbi Aqiba treat “your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness”? Since your father refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to one’s mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Is it not reasonable to explain that verse except following Rabbi Jehudah who because he does not accept “his mother who is his father’s wife” must explain that “your father’s nakedness, your mother’s nakedness” refers to your father in any capacity both for punishment and warning, so also your mother refers to your mother in any capacity both for punishment and warning. Rabbi Zeʿira said, this implies that one infers from parallel language even if it is free only from one side. Rabbi Yudan said to him, this is obvious for Rabbi Aqiba since Rabbi Aqiba infers from parallel language even if it is not free.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Is a person having sexual relations with his mother guilty of adultery with her as a married woman? Come and see: if a third person had sexual relations with her, would he not be guilty of adultery with her as a married woman? How much more her son? Rabbi Yose objected: is not her stepson guilty of adultery with her as a married woman, but her son is not guilty of adultery with her as a married woman? As we have stated: Also with all other cases of incest and adultery the situation is the same. His mother-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his mother-in-law. His daughter-in-law as a married woman, you catch him because of his daughter-in-law. His sister as a married woman, do you catch him because of his sister? You smuggle him away from the serious crime and strike him for the easier one; this you cannot do as we have stated: A person having sexual relations with his sister is liable because of her as his sister and as a daughter of his father’s wife. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah says, a person having sexual relations with his sister is only liable because of her as his sister; the same is true for his daughter-in-law. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah follows the argument of his father Rabbi Jehudah. Just as Rabbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first, so Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah accepts the description mentioned first. Rabbi Jeremiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan turned around: Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah does not follow the argument of his father Rabbi Jehudah. There he is liable because of his mother, who is not his father’s wife; he is liable because of his father’s wife who is not his mother. But here we find that he is permitted his father’s wife’s daughter, who is not his sister.
Mishnah
7 A man who had sexual relations with a male or an animal, or a woman who brings an animal onto herself. If a human sinned, what did the animal sin? But because it caused a mishap to a human, therefore the verse decreed that it should be stoned. Another explanation: So that the animal would not be seen in public and people would not say, this is the one because of which X was stoned.
Halakhah
“A man who had sexual relations with a male.” What is the source for the warning for a person having sexual relations with a male? “With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways.”Leviticus 18:22 What is the source for extirpation? “For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,”Leviticus 18:29 etc. What is the source for punishment? “A man who would sleep with a male in women’s ways, an abomination did both of them commit; they shall be put to death; their blood be on them.”Leviticus 20:13 You learn “their blood be on them” from “their blood be on them.”Leviticus 20:12 That is for the active one. What is the source for the passive one? “With a male you shall not sleep in women’s ways,” read: “to be slept with.” So far following Rabbi Aqiba. Following Rabbi Ismael? “There shall be no qadeš among the sons of Israel.”Deuteronomy 23:18 What is the source for extirpation for the passive homosexual following Rabbi Ismael? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: It says here qadeš and it says there, “also a qadeš was in the land.”1 Kings 14:24 You learn qadeš from qadeš and qadeš from abomination. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ada in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: Abomination from abomination. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, a baraita states this: “Both committed an abomination.”Leviticus 18:22 Both are stoned, both are subject to warning, both by extirpation.
What is the source for the warning for a person having sexual relations with an animal? “Do not give your emission into an animal to defile yourself by it.”Leviticus 18:23 What is the source for extirpation? “For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated,”Leviticus 18:29 etc. What is the source for punishment? “A man who would sleep with an animal shall be put to death.” You infer “their blood be on them” from “their blood be on them.”Leviticus 20:12 So far following Rabbi Aqiba. Following Rabbi Ismael? Rabbi Ismael from his source and Rabbi Aqiba from his source. Extirpation for a male passive partner is not found for Rabbi Ismael. Punishment for a male passive partner is not found for Rabbi Ismael or Rabbi Aqiba, but it is written: “One who sacrifices to the forces of nature shall be banned.” Since this one is in for stoning and extirpation, also that one is in for stoning and extirpation. What is the difference between them? If one had active homosexual relations followed by passive ones, in Rabbi Ismael’s opinion he is liable only once; in Rabbi Aqiba’s opinion he is liable twice. If one had active relations with an animal followed by passive ones. Both in Rabbi Aqiba’s as in Rabbi Ismael’s opinions he is liable twice. If he had active homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had passive homosexual relations with both a male and an animal he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous active sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. If he had simultaneous passive sexual relations with two males, since both of them became guilty because of him, he is liable twice. It was stated: For males, an underage boy does not have the status of an adult; a young animal has the status of a fully grown one. Rabbi Eleazar said, he cannot become liable because of it unless it is three years and one day of age.
Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked Rabbi Zeʿira: For what reason did Rabbi Ismael and Rabbi Aqiba disagree about a male and an animal but did not disagree about any incest prohibition? He told him, because for all incest prohibitions it is written blood relative, and about these it is not written blood relative. They objected: About the menstruating woman it is not written blood relative; did they disagree about her? Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: For it is written approach, approach; it is as if all were here and there. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Ḥanina: “To the wife in the separation of her impurity you shall not come near to uncover her nakedness.”Leviticus 18:19 Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, “not to come near” is “not to uncover.”
What is the source for the warning for a woman bringing an animal onto herself? “A woman should not stand before an animal to be impregnated; it is mixture.”Leviticus 18:19 What is the source for extirpation? “For anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated.”Leviticus 18:29 What is the source for punishment? “If a woman” stood before an animal “to be impregnated, you should kill the woman and the animal; dying they shall be put to death, their blood be on them.” One infers killing from killing, stoning from stoning, “their blood be on them” from “their blood be on them.”
Rabbi Abba bar Mamal asked: Consider: if he erroneously has sexual relations with it. Should it be stoned because of him while he is not liable? Rabbi Simeon asked: Consider: if he used it to plow on the Sabbath. Is he not being stoned while it is not liable? You have only, as Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac explained: “With their silver and gold they made idols for themselves;” it is not written “that they be extirpated” but “that he be extirpated.” As if a person were to say: the bones of X be ground up for he led his son to evil ways.
Mishnah
8 The blasphemer is not liable unless he explicitly uses the Name. Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa said, during the trial one deals with the witnesses by substitute name, may Yose hit Yose. At the end of the proceedings one does not sentence him to death by substitute name but one dismisses the public, retains the most prestigious among them and says to him, tell us explicitly what you heard. He says it while the judges are standing; they tear their garments and never mend them. The second one says, also I heard like him; the third one says, also I heard like him.
Halakhah
“The blasphemer is not liable,” etc. What is the source for a warning for the blasphemer? “You shall not curse God.”Exodus 22:27 What is the source for extirpation? “Anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin.”Leviticus 24:15 What is the source for punishment? “He who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death.”Leviticus 24:16 But according to Rabbi Ismael, since Rabbi Ismael said that the verse refers to judges? If he is warned about judges, then how much more about divine substitute names. If he is subject to extirpation for substitute names, how much more for the Unique Name. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning and extirpation, for the Unique Name the death penalty. Some Tannaïm state: for substitute names warning, for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation. He who says, for substitute names warning and extirpation, “you shall not curse God” and “anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin” by extirpation; for the Unique Name the death penalty, “he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death.” He who says, for substitute names warning, “you shall not curse God,” for the Unique Name the death penalty or extirpation, “he who curses the Name of the Eternal shall be put to death; anybody who curses his God shall bear his sin,” etc.
Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: This implies that one proceeds on the basis of a doubt. How is this? “X killed a person.” One proceeds to try him until his witnesses come. Rabbi Yose said to him, does one arrest a person in the market and insult him? But is it as follows: “X killed a person, and there are witnesses.” Let him be put under arrest until his witnesses come.
Does one tell him, blaspheme? But that Name which I am saying before you, that one he cursed or by that one he cursed. But the witnesses need not tear their garments since they already tore them when they heard it the first time.
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, from here that in case the judges heard testimony while standing, their judgment is valid. You infer six statements from this. One infers the statement of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac, and one infers the statement of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish. Also one infers that he who hears from one who heard has to tear, and one infers that if one witness testified, the second one says, I testify to the same, and the third says, I testify to the same. Also one infers that this is one of the tears which are not mended, and one infers that even when they know from the start that it is the Unique Name, they have to tear.
Rabbi Ḥiyya said that Rabbi Yasa asked: We have stated: “The herald goes before him: ‘X ben Y is led to be stoned because he committed crime Z; U and V testified against him. Anybody who knows of his innocence shall come and argue.’ ” We inferred that he who hears from one who heard has to tear. Does he who hears from one who heard from one who heard have to tear?
Does one have to tear one’s garments for blasphemy? Let us hear from the following: “When king Hezekiah heard” the words of Rabshakeh, “he tore his garment.”2 Kings 19:1 Does one have to tear for a Gentile’s blasphemy? According to him who said that Rabshakeh was a Gentile, one tears. According to him who said that Rabshakeh was an Israelite, one does not tear. Rabbi Hoshaia stated: Both one who heard blasphemy from an Israelite or one who heard from the mouth of a Gentile has to tear his garment. What is the reason? “Since I am the Eternal, God over all flesh, should anything be extraordinary for me”Jeremiah 32:26?
Does one tear his garment nowadays? Rabbi Yose, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Abba, Rabbi Ḥisqiah, Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: When blasphemers proliferated, they stopped tearing. Does one tear for substitute names today? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish was traveling on the highway. He met a Samaritan who was repeatedly blaspheming, and he was tearing. He dismounted from the donkey and gave him a blow on his heart saying to him: Samaritan! Does your mother have garments to supply me with? His word This implies that one tears for substitute names and tears his garments at the present time.
Mishnah
9 The worshipper of strange worship whether he worships, or sacrifices, or burns incense, or makes a libation, or prostrates himself; also one who accepts it as a god and says to it: you are my god. But one who embraces, or kisses, or sweeps clean, or sprinkles water; one who washes, rubs with oil, clothes, or puts shoes on it, violates a prohibition. He who makes a vow in its name or keeps one in its name violates a prohibition. One who defecates in front of Baal Peor follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.
Halakhah
“The worshipper of strange worship,” etc. What is the source for warning about strange worship? “Do not worship them.”Exodus 20:5 What is the source for extirpation? “He blasphemed the Eternal and will be extirpated.”Numbers 15:30 But is “blasphemed” not written? As one would say to another, you scraped out the entire pot and did not leave anything; a parable which Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar formulated: Two people were sitting with a pot of porridge between them. One of them stretched out his hand, scraped out the entire pot, and did not leave anything in it. So both the blasphemer and the worshipper of strange worship do not leave any commandment as residue. What is the source for the punishment? “You shall lead out that man, or that woman, who did this deed to your gates,” etc., up to “and stone them with stones until they die.”Deuteronomy 17:5
“Do not worship them.”Exodus 20:5 Should I say, not unless he worshipped every single strange worship in the world? The verse says, “do not prostrate yourself before them.”Exodus 20:5 Prostration was included; why is it mentioned separately? To tie to it: Prostration is special in that it is the act of a single person and is punishable separately, so I am adding any single act that one is liable for separately. Even though Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. As Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: “They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.”Leviticus 17:7 They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. What is the source for this? As Rabbi Hila said, “do not do such to the Eternal, your God.”Deuteronomy 12:4 Anything that you might do for the Eternal, your God, you may not do in this case.
Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: “Do not worship them,”Exodus 20:5 a principle. “Do not prostrate yourself before them,”Exodus 20:5 a detail. “For you shall not prostrate yourself before another god”Exodus 34:14; He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle: is nothing covered but the detail? Rabbi Abun bar Cahana asked before Rabbi Hila: “Do not do such,”Deuteronomy 12:4 a principle. “One who sacrifices to gods shall be banned,”Exodus 22:19 a detail. “Only for the Eternal alone,”Exodus 22:19 He again stated the principle. Principle, detail, and principle; is not everything included? Does it not add one who embraces and one who kisses? He told him, why is prostrating mentioned? Not to infer from it that it is an action? He who embraces and he who prostrates himself do not exemplify actions.
What is the source about him who says, “you are my god”? Rav Abun in the name of the rabbis there: “They prostrated themselves before it, and sacrificed to it, and said, these are your gods, Israel.” Then he should not be guilty unless he sacrifices, burns incense, and declares. Rabbi Yose said, the verse is written only for the disgrace of Israel. “They prostrated themselves before it,” not before Heaven. “And sacrificed to it,” not to Heaven. And said, not to Heaven. What about this? Saying is mentioned here and saying is said about one who leads astray. Since for saying mentioned about one who leads astray, saying is equated with acting, also for the saying mentioned here, we have to equate saying with acting.
It is written: “He went and worshipped other powers and prostrated himself before them, and to the sun, and to the moon.” Rabbi Zeʿira said, it is not said “to the sun” but “and to the sun.” That is not principle and detail but addition. Rabbi Abba bar Zemina objected before Rabbi Zeʿira; is it not written “any which have fins and scales, and any which do not have fins and scales”Leviticus 11:9? Then this is not principle and detail but additions since “and” is written? Rabbi Joḥanan bar Marius said, wherever I encounter “and,” I delete it. Rabbi Samuel ben Eudaimon said, I would have said that anything in the oceans is forbidden, what is in barrels and vivaria should be permitted. The verse says, “and anything which lives in water,” an addition.
Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥmani in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: If one says to it, you are my god, there is disagreement between Rabbi and the Sages. If he prostrated himself, what is the rule? Rabbi Joḥanan said, everybody agrees that if he lowered his body, he is guilty. What is the difference between raising and lowering his body, and raising and lowering his lips? Rabbi Joḥanan said, following disagreement. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, following the distinction. Rabbi Zeʿira said, a verse supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “One rule should be for you, for the one” acting “in error.”Numbers 15:29 This only refers to what represents an action. The one who embraces and who prostrates himself, which are not actions: what is the source?
Mishnah
10 One who gives any of his descendants to Molech is only guilty if he delivers him to Molech and makes him pass through fire. If he delivered him to Molech but did not make him pass through fire, or made him pass through fire but did not deliver him to Molech, he is guilty only if he delivers him to Molech and makes him pass through fire. The necromancer is the python and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned.
Halakhah
“One who gives any of his descendants to Molech.” What is the source for a warning not to give any of his descendants to Molech? “Do not give any of your descendants to Molech.”Leviticus 18:21 What is the source for extirpation? “For he gave one of his descendants to Molech,”Leviticus 20:3 “and shall be extirpated.” What is the source for punishment? “Each one of the Children of Israel, or of the sojourner in Israel, who would give any of his descendants to Molech shall be made to die; the people of the Land shall smash him with stones.”Leviticus 20:2 “Do not give any of your descendants,” I could think that he was guilty if he handed over but did not make him pass; the verse says: “Do not give any of your descendants to pass through.” I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through but not for Molech; the verse says: “Do not give any of your descendants to pass through” for Molech. I could think that he was guilty if he handed over and made him pass through for Molech but without fire; the verse says: “among you, nobody should be found to make his son or his daughter pass through fire.”Deuteronomy 18:10 Passing through, passing through as an equal cut. Since “passing through” mentioned there is through fire, so “passing through” mentioned here also is through fire. You have to say that he is not guilty unless he handed over and made him pass through fire for Molech. Rabbi Nasa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: He is guilty only if he hands him over to the priests, takes him, and makes him pass. What if he lets him walk normally? It was stated: one was drawing him and made him pass through. It was stated: if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable. Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon declares him guilty. Whether for Molech or for any other foreign worship; Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, he is guilty only for Molech, he is guilty only for his descendants. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon’s reason is from here: “It shall not be found in you,” from your body you should not be found making pass through. “I shall extirpate him ... from among his people.” To include all other foreign worship for extirpation. What is the source for punishment? “Of his descendants he gave to Molech,”Leviticus 20:3 “death he shall be made to die,”Leviticus 20:2 if he made him pass through himself. Does he not pass through on his feet? Because he made him pass through himself, but if he was drawing him and made him pass through, he is guilty. What does Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon mean, if he made him walk through on his feet he is not prosecutable? He has to make him pass through jumping.
Rabbi Abun bar Ḥiyya asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: If he handed over but did not make him pass through, is that the disagreement between Ḥizqiah and Rabbi Joḥanan? For they disagreed: If he slaughtered but did not sell, Ḥizqiah said he is liable, but Rabbi Joḥanan said, he is not liable.
Rabbi Abba bar Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Look at the expression which the Torah taught you, Molech; anything that you make king over yourself, even a chip of wood, even a pebble. “I shall extirpate him from amidst his people,” to include all other foreign worship in extirpation. Rabbi Nasa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: to include all other foreign worship relating to sons and daughters, as it was stated: He is guilty whether for Molech or any other foreign worship, whether he worshipped them with sons and daughters, or worshipped them with fathers and mothers. Rabbi Zeʿira said: if its worship did not prescribe this; but if its worship did prescribe it, he is free from prosecution. Rabbi Hila said, even if its worship did prescribe it, he is twice guilty. A baraita supports Rabbi Hila: Molech was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he is guilty only for his descendants. Rabbi Tanḥum bar Jeremiah said, it follows that Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon follows the argument of his father Rabbi Simeon. Just as Rabbi Simeon said, Molech was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he is guilty only for his descendants, so Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, Molech was included in all other foreign worships; it is mentioned separately to be lenient in this regard that he is guilty only for his descendants.
Rabbi Tanḥum ben Yudan said, even though Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical to the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action. What is the source that if one sacrificed, and burned incense, and poured a libation in one forgetting he is liable only for one; he agrees that if one worshipped it in its proper worship which is identical with the worship of Heaven like prostrating, he is liable for each single action? As Rabbi Samuel said in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: “They should not continue to offer their sacrifices to spirits.”Leviticus 17:7 They said to him, turn and refer it to sacrifices.
Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: If he sacrificed a defective lamb to it, he is guilty. What is the source for this? As Rabbi Hila said, “do not do such to the Eternal, your God.”Deuteronomy 12:4 Anything that is for the Eternal, your God, you may not do.
Rabbi Phineas said before Rabbi Yose in the name of Rav Ḥisda: If its worship prescribed sons or daughters but he worshipped it with fathers or mothers, he is twice guilty. Rabbi Zeʿira enjoyed this; he thought that this was said following the system of his teacher Rabbi Hila and referred to Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon. He told him, what do you have in your hand? It referred to the rabbis! He answered, did you need it for this?
What is the source for the warning about the necromancer? “Do not turn to the necromancers.”Leviticus 19:31 What is the source for extirpation? “A person who would turn to necromancers and mediums,”Leviticus 20:6 etc. What is the source for punishment? “A man or woman, impersonating a necromancer or a medium, shall be put to death.”Leviticus 20:27 Why is the medium not mentioned in Keritut? Rabbi Ḥizqiah in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because they are taken together in one prohibition, “do not turn to the necromancers,” etc. Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Because it is a prohibition implied by a positive commandment. Rabbi Zeʿira said before Rabbi Yasa: No person except you thought of stating the medium in this way in Keritut. He told him, because as the verse formulated it so the Mishnah formulates it, “a necromancer or a medium.”
“The necromancer is the python and one who speaks from his armpit. The medium speaks through his mouth. These are stoned but one who consults them is forewarned. ‘And one who asks the dead.’Deuteronomy 18:11 Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates a skull. Some Tannaïm state: this is one who interrogates his masculinity. What is the difference between one interrogated by his skull or one raised by his masculinity? The one interrogated by his skull rises normally, rises on the Sabbath, and a commoner can raise a king. But one raised by his masculinity does not rise normally, does not rise on the Sabbath, and a commoner cannot raise a king.”
Rabbi Huna said, a verse supports him who said, the necromancer is the one who raises by his masculinity. What is the reason? “Please apply necromancer’s magic and raise for me whom I shall tell you.” What do you understand from here? Rabbi Mana said, it implies that she was competent in many ways. What about it? “Your voice will be from the earth like that of a necromancer.”Isaiah 29:4
The words of the rabbis support Rabbi Yasa, as Rabbi Yasa said in the rabbis’ name: Because they burn incense to spirits. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Yasa: Because they all were included by actions.
Mishnah
11 One who desecrates the Sabbath by something which if performed intentionally makes him liable to extirpation, or to a purification sacrifice if in error. But he who curses father or mother is guilty only if he cursed them by the Name. If he cursed them by a substitute name, Rabbi Meïr declares him guilty but the Sages free him from prosecution. One who has sexual relations with a betrothed adolescent is only liable if she was an adolescent, a virgin, and betrothed, in her father’s house. If two men had relations with her, the first one is stoned, the second is subject to strangling.
Halakhah
“One who desecrates the Sabbath,” etc. What is the source for warning for the desecrator? “Do not perform any work.”Exodus 20:10 What is the source for extirpation? “For any who would perform work on it would be extirpated.”Exodus 31:14 What is the source for punishment? “Its desecrator shall be made to die the death.” Should we not state 37 kinds of extirpation in the Torah? Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, because if he performs all of them, intentionally on the Sabbath and intentionally for the work, he is liable for each one singly.
What is the source for a warning for the one who curses father or mother? “Everybody has to fear his mother and father.”Leviticus 19:3 What is the source for punishment and extirpation? “And he who curses his father or mother shall be made to die the death.”Exodus 21:17 And it says, “for anybody who would commit any of these abominations will be extirpated.”
“One who has sexual relations with a betrothed maiden.” Rabbi Yasa in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan, Rabbi Ḥiyya in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: This is Rabbi Meïr’s. But for the rabbis even if she is a minor. What is Rabbi Meïr’s reason? “Lad” is written defectively in the paragraph. How do the rabbis explain “a lad”? Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: Once in the paragraph it is written “a young woman;” this teaches that in the entire paragraph she is an adult. Rabbi Meïr objected to the rabbis: In the matter of the slanderer, a lad is written and she is an adult since a minor is not stoned? What do the rabbis do with this? Rabbi Abin said, explain it that he came to her as a male. Rabbi Jacob bar Abba asked before Rav: What is the law of him who comes to a minor? He said to him, by stoning. What is the law of him who comes to an adult? He said to him, I am reading an adolescent, not an adult. Read an adolescent, not a minor! Do you not agree with me that she has the right to a fine? He answered, “because he mistreated her,” that includes a minor for a fine. Read “because he mistreated her,” that includes an adult for a fine! Rav said, even though Rabbi Jacob bar Abba won the logical argument, practice is that he who comes to a minor is punished by stoning but she is free. Rabbi Abun in the name of Samuel: Why? He understood it from the following: “The man who had lain with her alone shall die.” Do we not know that the girl has not committed a capital crime? Why does the verse say, “do not do anything to the girl; the girl has not committed a capital crime”? That includes him who has sexual relations with a betrothed underage girl; he is stoned and she is free.
Mishnah
12 The one who leads astray is a commoner who leads a commoner astray, by saying to him: There is something to worship at place X; it eats such and such, drinks such and such; it gives such and such benefits, can do such and such evil. For no capital crime in the Torah may one use entrapment, except for this one. If he said it to two persons, they become his witnesses, bring him to court, and stone him. If he said this to a single person, he should tell him, I have friends who also want this. If he was sly and did not talk in their presence, one sets a trap behind a wall; he tells him, repeat what you told me alone; then he tells him, how can we abandon our God in Heaven and worship wood and stones? If he repents, it is good; if he says, it is our duty, or so it is good for us, those who stand behind the wall bring him to court and stone him. He says, I shall worship, I shall go and worship, let us go and worship; I shall sacrifice, I shall go and sacrifice, let us go and sacrifice; I shall burn incense, I shall go and burn incense, let us go and burn incense; I shall pour libations, I shall go and pour libations, let us go and pour libations; I shall prostrate myself, I shall go and prostrate myself, let us go and prostrate ourselves. The seducer is one who says, let us go and profess a strange worship.
Halakhah
“The one who leads astray is a commoner,” etc. Therefore, not a Sage? Since he seduces, he is not a Sage. Since he is seduced, he is not a Sage. What does one do to outwit him? One hides two witnesses in an inner room and puts him into the outer room, lights a candle near him so they can see him and hear his voice. That is what they did to Ben Sateda in Lydda, where they hid two Sages, brought him to court, and stoned him. And here, you say so? It is different because he said, “I am.” Here also, “I am”? That he should not get wise to it. And what if he got wise to it? That he should not go away, and continue to seduce himself and others with him.
The one who leads astray says it aloud, the seducer speaks in a low voice. One who leads astray who spoke in a low voice becomes a seducer; a seducer who spoke in a low voice becomes one who leads astray. The one who leads astray speaks in Hebrew, the seducer speaks in a vernacular. One who leads astray who spoke in a vernacular becomes a seducer; a seducer who spoke in Hebrew becomes one who leads astray.
Mishnah
13 The sorcerer is one who does a deed but not one who creates an illusion. Rabbi Aqiba says in the name of Rabbi Joshua: Two are collecting green melons; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. He who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.
Halakhah
“The sorcerer is one who does a deed,” etc. “A sorceress you shall not let live,”Exodus 22:17 whether man or woman, but the Torah taught you the way of the world that most women have a tendency to sorcery. Rabbi Eliezer said, a sorcerer is executed by stoning. What is Rabbi Eliezer’s reason? It says here, “a sorceress you shall not let live,” and it says there, “whether human or animal they shall not live.”Exodus 19:13 Since “shall not live” there means by stoning, also here by stoning. What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, “a sorceress you shall not let live,” and it says there, “you shall not let live anybody.”Deuteronomy 20:16 Since “you shall not let live” there means death by the sword, also “you shall not let live” here means death by the sword. Rabbi Aqiba said, from this argument I am deciding. It is preferable to learn “you shall not let live” from “you shall not let live” rather than from “shall not live.” What is Rabbi Jehudah’s reason? It says here, “a sorceress you shall not let live,” and it says there, “anybody lying with an animal shall die the death.”Exodus 22:18 Since the execution of the animal is by stoning, so here also by stoning.
Example. Rabbi Eliezer, Rabbi Joshua, and Rabbi Aqiba went to bathe at the public baths of Tiberias. A Minean saw them, said what he said, and the cupola caught them. Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. When this Minean was leaving, Rabbi Joshua said what he said and the door trapped him. Anybody who entered hit him with his fist, anybody leaving hit him when forcing the door open. He told them, undo what you did; they told him, you undo, then we shall undo. They mutually undid. When they left, Rabbi Joshua said to this Minean, is that all you are wise to? He answered, let us go down to the sea. When they had descended to the sea, this Minean said what he said and the sea was split. He told them, is that not what your teacher Moses did to the sea? They answered, do you not agree that our teacher Moses walked through it? He said to them, yes. They told him, enter it. He entered it. Rabbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who swallowed him.
Example. Rabbi Eliezer, and Rabbi Joshua, and Rabban Gamliel traveled to Rome. They came to a place where they found children making stone heaps and saying as follows: What they do in the Land of Israel is to say, this is heave, this is tithe. They said, it is clear that Jews live here. They entered a place and were received at a house. They sat down to eat. It happened that no dish was brought to them unless it was brought first to a certain bedroom. They became afraid that perhaps they were eating offerings to the dead. They asked him, why is it that you bring no dish before us unless you brought it first to that bedroom? He told them, I have an old father who vowed not to leave that bedroom until he saw the Sages of Israel. They told him, go and tell him to come out because they are here. He came out; they asked him, what is your problem? He told them, pray for my son because he is sterile. Rabbi Eliezer said to Rabbi Joshua: Joshua ben Ḥanania, look what you can do. He told them, bring me linseed; they brought him linseed. It appeared to them as if he was sowing it on a table. It appeared as if he was watering it; it appeared to grow; it appeared that he was plucking out of it, until there appeared a woman with braided hair. He told her, undo what you did. She answered, I shall not undo. He told her, then I shall make you known. She said, I cannot, because they were thrown into the sea. Rabbi Joshua commanded the prince of the sea who disgorged them. Then they prayed for him and he had the merit of raising Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra. They said, if we came here only to bring the just person to the world, it would have been enough.
Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥanania said: I am able to take gourds and watermelons and turn them into rams and deer who would produce rams and deer. Rabbi Yannai said, I was walking on a road in Sepphoris when I saw a Minean taking a pebble, throwing it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf. But did not Rabbi Eleazar say in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Zimra: If all people of the world came together, they could not create one mosquito and bring it to life. Let us say that this Minean did not take a pebble, threw it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf, but he called on his genie who stole a calf for him from a cattle barn and brought it to him.
Rabbi Ḥinena ben Ḥanania said: I was walking at Gufta of Sepphoris when I saw a Minean taking a skull, throwing it into the air, after which it came down transforming itself into a calf. I went and told it to my father. He said, if you ate from it, it was an action; otherwise it was an illusion.
Rabbi Joshua ben Ḥanania said: Rabbi Eliezer used to explain 300 chapters in the matter of the sorceress, but from all of them I understood only two things: “Two are collecting green melons; one who collected cannot be prosecuted, the other one is guilty. He who does a deed is guilty; he who creates an illusion cannot be prosecuted.” Rabbi Darosa said, there were 900 chapters. 300 where one is guilty, 300 where one is free, and 300 where one is guilty but cannot be prosecuted.
Mishnah
1 The deviant and rebellious son. When can one become a deviant and rebellious son? From the moment he grows two pubic hairs to when he sports a beard, the lower, not the upper, because the Sages used clean language. For it is written: “If a man has a deviant and rebellious son.”Deuteronomy 21:18 A son but not a daughter, a son but not a father. The underage son is not liable since he does not have any obligation.
Halakhah
“The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. Rabbi Zeʿira, Rabbi Abbahu, Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is written: “If a man would concoct against his neighbor to kill him slyly.”Exodus 21:14 When does he become a man? When he concocts. When is he done cooking? When his palm expands. A simile: If the seed is fully cooked inside, the pot becomes black on the outside. Rabbi Zeʿira said that Rabbi Shila bar Bina stated: “If a man has a son,” not that the son is a father. From the moment that he may come to a woman and make her pregnant, he is a potential father, not a son. But the Torah said, a son, not a father. It parallels what Rabbi Yasa said in the name of Rabbi Sabbatai: The entire period of a “deviant and rebellious son” is only six months.
Rabbi Yasa said, all these rules would be reasonable if they were the opposite. It was stated: You should know that this is the case. Who according to reason should be guilty, son or daughter? One would say, a daughter. But the Torah freed the daughter and declared the son guilty. Who according to reason should be guilty, the younger or the older? One would say, the older. But the Torah freed the older and declared the younger guilty. Who according to reason should be guilty, one who steals from others or one who steals from father or mother? One would say, one who steals from others. But the Torah freed the one who steals from others and declared the one who steals from father or mother guilty. To teach that all of these rules are only the King’s decisions.
Mishnah
2 When is he guilty? From the moment he eats a fourfold portion of meat and drinks half a log of wine. Rabbi Yose says, a mina of meat and a log of wine. If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem, or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things, that is, if he ate anything which either is an obligation or anything forbidden, or ate any food but not meat, or drank any drink but not wine, he does not turn into a deviant and rebellious son unless he ate meat and drank wine, since it is said: “gorging and drinking to excess.”Deuteronomy 21:18 Even if it is not proof, there is a hint in what is said: “Do not be among those who drink wine excessively, nor with those who are gorging themselves on meat.”Proverbs 23:20
Halakhah
“When is he guilty,” etc. Rabbi Yose said, the fourfold portion is half a Roman pound.
He is guilty only if he ate it rare. If he ate it raw, he is a dog. If he ate it cooked, he is a human. If he ate cartilage, what is the rule? What is the rule about soft sinews? Rabbi Joḥanan said, one subscribes to them; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one does not subscribe to them. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish disagreed about what is stated there: “The following have their hides treated like their flesh.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, this was only said as prohibition and regarding impurity, but not for flogging. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, Rabbi stated a complete Mishnah, not only for prohibition and regarding impurity. The reasoning of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted. There, he treats it as flesh, but here, he does not treat it as meat. Rabbi Judah bar Pazi said, there is a difference, since there one refers to skin which in the end will become hard. This emphasizes that the reasoning of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish seems inverted! Since there, where in the end it will harden, he treats it as flesh, here where in the end it will not harden, how much more so? Rabbi Abbahu said, the reason of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi is: “they shall eat the meat in that night,”Exodus 12:8 not sinews.
“If he ate in a company of obligation, or at the lengthening of a month, or ate Second Tithe in Jerusalem.” “They would discipline him,” but he does not listen to their voice. This excludes one who listens to the voice of his Father in Heaven.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if you were nominated for the city council, may the Jordan be the master of your border. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one complains to the government to be freed from the city council. Rabbi Joḥanan said, one borrows at interest for a company of obligation and the sanctification of the month. Rabbi Joḥanan used to go to the assembly hall in the morning, collect the crumbs, and eat them, saying: May my part be with those who in the evening were sanctifying the month.
“Or ate torn or carcass meat, abominations and crawling things.” “They would discipline him,” but he would not listen to their voice. This excludes one who even to the voice of his Father in Heaven does not listen.
Mishnah
3 If he stole from his father and ate at his father’s property, or from others and ate at others’ property, or from others and ate at his father’s property, he is not treated as deviant and rebellious son unless he stole from his father and ate at others’ property. Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Jehudah says, unless he stole both from his father and his mother.
Halakhah
“If he stole from his father,” etc. What is the source for a first warning about stealing? “you shall not steal.” What is the source for a second warning about stealing? “you shall not steal.” “You shall not steal,” in order to aggravate; “you shall not steal,” in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property from the thief, so that you are not seen stealing.
Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rav Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he steals money. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: he is guilty only if he shows contempt for money. What does showing contempt for money mean? What case are we dealing with? If about him who says, here you have five and give me for three, he is an idiot. Here you have three and give me for five, he is a regular person. But we deal with one who says, here you have five and give me for five.
What is a thief and what is a robber? Rabbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rabbi Zeʿira asked: but if he intended to rob in front of its owners, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rabbi Zeʿira? Rabbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: only if he robs in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: “He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian and killed him with his own spear.”2 Samuel 23:21
Mishnah
4 If his father was willing but not his mother, or his father unwilling but his mother willing, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son unless both are willing. Rabbi Jehudah says if his mother was inappropriate for his father, he cannot be treated as deviant and rebellious son.
Halakhah
“If his father was willing,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, even if his mother was not suitable for his father. But is not all of his mother’s property also his father’s? Rabbi Yose ben Abun said, explain it about one who took in lodgers, made repasts, and he stole from there.
Mishnah
5 If one of them was one-armed, or lame, or mute, or deaf, he cannot be tried as deviant and rebellious son, as it is said: “His father and mother shall grab him,” not one-armed ones, “bring him out,” not lame ones, and say, not mute ones, “this son of ours,” and not blind ones, “he does not listen to our voice,” not deaf ones. One warns him before three judges and whips him. If he becomes a repeat offender, he is tried by 23 but cannot be stoned unless the original three were present, since it is said “this son of ours,” this is the one who was whipped before you.
Halakhah
“If one of them was one-armed.” etc. Just as one explains for his father and mother, so one explains for the Elders of the Court, as it is said: “They shall go out,” to exclude lame ones; and say, to exclude mute ones; “our hands did not spill,” to exclude one-armed ones; “and our eyes did not see,” to exclude blind ones. The verse tells you that just as the Elders of the Court must be unblemished morally, so they must be unblemished physically.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, if one of the first judges died, he cannot be stoned. Is that not the Mishnah: “he cannot be stoned unless the original three were present”? Rabbi Hoshaia said, you should not say that the second trial should become the first; therefore, one had to state this.
Mishnah
6 If he escaped before sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is not liable; but if he escaped after sentence was passed and then grew the lower beard, he is liable.
Halakhah
“If he escaped before sentence was passed,” etc. Rabbi Joshia said, Zeʿira told me in the name of the people of Jerusalem: In three cases, if they want to forgive, they may forgive. These are: The suspect wife, the deviant son, and the Elder rebelling against the Supreme Court.
The suspect wife, is that not a Mishnah, “one whose husband refuses to let her drink”? They wanted to say, before the scroll was written. He comes to tell, even after the scroll was written. But it does not apply to the case where the scroll had been erased.
The deviant son, is that not a Mishnah, “if his father was willing but not his mother, or his mother willing but his father unwilling”? They wanted to say, before he was tried. He comes to tell, even after he was tried. But it does not apply to the case where judgment had been passed.
The rebellious Elder; that means not to kill him. But they cannot let him return to his place.
But when I came to Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra at Nisibis, he agreed with me in two cases and disagreed in one. He disagreed about the rebellious Elder, so that quarrels would not increase in Israel.
What is the reason of the House of Shammai? “Bring me my husband and I shall drink.” What is the reason of the House of Hillel? Since there is no husband to let her drink, the Torah returns her to a state of doubt, which induces another doubt, which remains a doubt.
There, we stated: “If she had compromised her ketubah, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” It was stated “compromised,” not that she reduced her ketubah. How? If her ketubah was 200 but she claims a mina, she is paid without an oath. What is the difference between one who did compromise and one who claims less? Rabbi Ḥanina said, if she compromises there was a transaction between them; if she claims less there was no transaction between them.
Rabbi Jeremiah asked: Since we stated there: “If one witness testified that the ketubah was paid, she shall not be able to collect without an oath”; should it be similar that if one witness testifies that the ketubah was reduced, she shall not be able to collect the reduced amount without an oath? Rabbi Yose said, at the moment when one witness testified that it was paid, he does not contradict two witnesses; but when he testifies that it was reduced he would contradict two witnesses.
It was stated: “If she collects in his absence, she shall not be able to collect without an oath.” Can one collect from a person in his absence? Rabbi Jeremiah said, explain it about a contract for which interest is due. Would the court collect interest? Explain that it was guaranteed for a Gentile.
It was stated: If an heir’s father held a partially paid promissory note, the son collects without swearing. In this the son’s power is greater than the father’s since the father can collect only by swearing. Rabbi Eleazar said, nevertheless he has to execute an heir’s oath, “that our father did not charge us, that our father did not tell us, that we did not find a document among our father’s documents stating that this note was paid.” Therefore, if there was a document, the note was paid. Rabbi Hoshaia asked, does the baraita follow the House of Shammai? For the House of Shammai say, “she collects her ketubah and does not drink.” Rabbi Yose said, there the reason of the House of Shammai is: bring my husband and I shall drink! But here, it would be in order that even his father would not have to swear. They instituted a rule that he has to swear. They instituted this for him, but not for his son. When he died, you put his son on the biblical rule.
If a father became obligated to swear in court and died, his son cannot collect. If it were otherwise, what could we say? Can a man let his son inherit an obligation to swear? Rabbi Ba said, it was said as follows: if a man compromised his document in court, his son cannot collect. Rav Ḥisda asked: Because he walked two steps, does he lose? If he compromised it outside the court, he collects. Because he compromised it in court, he cannot collect?
Mishnah
7 The deviant and rebellious son is judged because of his end; the Torah said, it is better that he should die innocent rather than guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Wine and sleep of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Scattering of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world. Coming together of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world. Quiet of the evildoers is bad for them and bad for the world, but concerning the just it is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world.
Halakhah
“The deviant and rebellious son,” etc. The Holy One, praise to Him, saw that this one in the end will waste his father’s and his mother’s properties, will sit at road crossings, rob people, and kill them, and in the end will forget all he has learned. Therefore, the Torah said, he should die innocent rather than die guilty, for death of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world.
“Wine and sleep of the evildoers is an enjoyment for them and enjoyment for the world, but concerning the just it is bad for them and bad for the world.” Rabbi Abbahu said, only wine with an excess of sleep. Rabbi Jonathan said, they sleep a little so they can concentrate better.
Mishnah
8 The intruder by stealth is judged because of his end. If in the course of a burglary he broke an amphora, if he has blood-guilt attached to him, he is liable; if he has no blood-guilt attached to him, he is not liable.
Halakhah
“The intruder by stealth,” etc. Rabbi Ismael stated: This is one of three verses which in the Torah have been formulated as a simile: “If he gets up and walks outside on his support.”Exodus 21:19 “If the thief is found in the digging, if the sun shone on him, he has blood.”Exodus 22:2 Does the sun shine only on him? Does the sun not shine on all beings in the world? But just as sunshine is special in that it brings peace to the entire world, so in any case in which you know that you are at peace with him, whether it is day or night his killer will be killed. If sometimes he comes to steal, sometimes he comes to kill, you say that if certainly he comes to steal, his killer will be killed? Since sometimes he comes to kill, he may be killed. From here you argue about danger to life, to say that just as foreign worship is special in that it defiles the Land, desecrates the Name, removes the Divine Presence, and doubts are disregarded, how much more must doubts be disregarded in cases of danger to life.
It is written: “If the thief was found in a tunnel, was struck, and died, there is no blood-guilt.”Exodus 22:1 Rabbi Ḥiyya stated: In the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, outside the tunnel there is blood guilt. Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Even outside the tunnel there is no blood-guilt, for a person’s property is beloved by him like his own soul. He sees him, that he comes to take his money away from him, stands up against him and kills him. Rav Huna said, if he took a wallet, turned to leave and went, if then one stood up against him and killed him the killer will not be killed. What is Rav Huna’s reason? “For his temper is hot.”Deuteronomy 19:6 Rav said, I would kill anybody who would come against me, except Ḥanania ben Shila, of whom I know that he would come only to take his meal from me. Rabbi Isaac said, if he has the temerity to do something like that, he cannot be Ḥanania ben Shila.
Mishnah
9 The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons: He who pursues another to kill him, the male, or the betrothed virgin girl. But he who pursues an animal, or who desecrates the Sabbath, or who worships strange worship, one may not save at the cost of their own persons.
Halakhah
“The following ones one saves at the cost of their own persons” etc. “He who pursues another to kill him, whether in a house or on the field one saves at the cost of his own person, both him who pursues another to kill him or him who pursues any of the transgressions in the Torah one saves at the cost of his own person. But if it was a widow for a High Priest, a divorcee or one who had received ḥalîṣah for a common priest, a bastard or a Gibeonite for an Israelite, an Israelite woman for a bastard or a Gibeonite, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If the deed had been done, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. If there are people to save her, one does not save him at the cost of his own person. Rabbi Jehudah says, if she said, let him do it, one does not save at the cost of his own person. For if they would injure him, they through him would come to spill blood.”
The following is obvious: A murderer who broke vessels or otherwise caused damage is liable to pay. If he continued to break until he came to the town, Rabbi Zeʿira and Rabbi Hoshaia: One said, he pays, the other said, he does not pay. If the pursuer becomes the pursued, may one save the pursuer through the person of the pursued? An adult who became a minor, may one save the adult through the person of the minor? Rabbi Jeremiah objected, did we not state: “If his head and most of his body were born, one does not touch him, for one does not push aside one life for another.” Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said in the name of Rav Ḥisda: It is different there since you do not know who is killing whom.
It was stated: “Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon says, one who goes to worship a strange worship is saved at the cost of his own person.” If one saves at the cost of his own person to protect the honor of flesh and blood, how much more because of the Life of the World.
Mishnah
1 The following are to be burned: one who copulates with a woman and her daughter, and the daughter of a Cohen who committed adultery. In the category of “a woman and her daughter” are included his daughter, his daughter’s daughter, his son’s daughter, his wife’s daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter. The following are to be beheaded: the murderer, and the inhabitants of a seduced town.
Halakhah
“The following are to be burned,” etc. There, we have stated:
“One may marry relatives of a rape victim or a seduced woman.” The Mishnah means: One may marry after a rape or after a seduction. If he raped a woman, her mother is permitted. If he seduced a woman, her daughter is permitted.
“He who rapes or seduces a relative of a married woman is criminally liable.” Rabbi Joḥanan said, one stated this for marriage. If he married a woman and then raped her mother, he is criminally liable. If he married a woman and then seduced her daughter, he is criminally liable.
Rabbi Eleazar said, Symmachos and Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said the same thing, since we stated there: “If he slaughtered her, her daughter’s daughter, and afterward her daughter, he receives forty lashes. Symmachos said in Rabbi Meïr’s name, he receives eighty.” There, we have stated: “Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri said, he who copulates with his mother-in-law may be liable because of his mother-in-law, his mother-in-law’s mother, and his father-in-law’s mother. They said to him, all three fall under the same law.” Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: Symmachos agrees with Rabbi Joḥanan. It was found stated: it still is in dispute. What is Rabbi Joḥanan ben Nuri’s reason? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under two separate prohibitions. What is the reason of the rabbis? Since a woman and her daughter and a woman and her daughter’s daughter fall under one and the same prohibition, also a woman and her son’s daughter and her daughter’s daughter fall under the same prohibition.
It is written, “the genitals of a woman and her daughter you shall not uncover,” and it is written, “if a man takes a woman and her mother, it is taboo.” Everywhere “lying with” is written, but here “taking” is written, to teach you that he cannot be criminally liable for the second woman unless she is taken by him. Or maybe he is criminally liable only by marriage? We already said that there is no valid incestuous marriage. But is it not written: “Nobody may marry his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s garment’s corner”? This comes to tell that she was permitted to him before his father married her. But is it not written: “If a man takes his brother’s wife”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before his brother married her. This is understood by levirate. But is it not written: “You should not take a woman in addition to her sister”? This comes to tell you that she was permitted to him before he married her sister. This is understood after her sister’s death. But is it not written: “A man who would take his sister, his father’s daughter or his mother’s daughter, it is ḥesed”? That you should not say that Cain married his sister, Abel married his sister, “it is charitable,” I was charitable with the first generations so the world could be inhabited; “I said, the world was built on ḥesed.” But is it not written: “Widow, divorcee, and desecrated, these he shall not take”? This comes to tell you that if he became betrothed to her, the betrothal is valid.
So far his daughter’s daughter from marriage. His daughter’s daughter from a rape? It is written, “the genitals of your son’s daughter or your daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover.” What case are we dealing with? If from marriage, it already had been said. So it cannot refer to marriage but must refer to rape. So far about his daughter’s daughter; what is the source for his daughter? Rav said, if he is forewarned about his daughter’s daughter, how much more for his daughter! If for his daughter’s daughter he is subject to punishment, how much more for his daughter!
Where does he get this from? It was found stated by Ḥizqiah: “And if the daughter of a Cohen man starts to whore.”Leviticus 21:9 Why does the verse say man? To include one who copulates with his daughter from a rape among the burned.
Rav Huna understood all of these rules from this verse: “The genitals of a woman and her daughter you should not uncover.” And it is written, “if a man takes a woman and her daughter, it is taboo.” Taboo-taboo for an equal cut. Since there are three generations downwards, so there are three generations upwards. Since there is a prohibition downwards, there is a prohibition upwards. Since downwards one requires marriage, so upwards one requires marriage. Since downwards they are burned, so upwards they are burned. Since downwards He gave the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter, so upwards we give the male’s daughter the same status as the female’s daughter.
And following Rabbi Meïr? Since Rabbi Meïr said, a gezerah šawah is at the place it comes from, what is the source that the third generation downwards is forbidden? And following the rabbis, who say, a gezerah šawah is said about them, what is the source that the third generation upwards is punished by burning? Both for Rabbi Meïr and the rabbis, what is the source that the third generation downwards is forbidden? Since it is written taboo-taboo, it is as if all were there.
Rabbi Yose ben Rabbi Abun said, one may even understand this from the warning: “Do not desecrate your daughter to force her into prostitution.”
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Why do we not say, “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover”? He said, if it were written “the genitals of a woman and her daughter’s daughter you shall not uncover,” we would have said “your daughter you should not uncover, your daughter’s daughter you should not uncover.”
If there are two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation. What is the reason? “On human flesh it may not be rubbed and in its proportions you should not make a compound like it,” etc. And it is written: “A man who would compound like it, etc.” This implies that for two prohibitions and one liability to extirpation, the prohibitions split the extirpation.
They asked before Rabbi Abbahu: If a man copulated with a woman, she had a daughter, and after that he came and copulated with the latter. Is he criminally liable about her because of a woman and her daughter, her daughter’s daughter, and her son’s daughter? He said to them, “they are relatives, it is taboo,” all because of taboo.
What is the reason of Rabbi Jehudah? “A man may not take his father’s wife, and he should not uncover his father’s wing;” that is his rape victim. How do the rabbis explain “his father’s wing”? There, they say and they do not know the origin of the tradition, that refers to a wing which is in need of his father. Would he not anyhow be criminally liable for her because of “his father’s wife”? Rabbi Hila said, because of forewarning; if he was warned because of his father’s wife he will be whipped, and because of his father’s wing he will be whipped. Rabbi Jehudah agrees about whipping. Rabbi Jehudah agrees about sacrifice. Rabbi Jehudah agrees about all other men that he is free. Rabbi Jehudah agrees that if he betroths her, the betrothal is legally valid.
Rabbi Ḥaggai asked before Rabbi Yose: Is the child a bastard following Rabbi Jehudah? He said to him, “No one with a damaged testicle or with cut-off penis may marry into the Eternal’s congregation” interrupts the argument. It interrupted the argument in the matter of the father’s wife. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Similarly, let the rape victim be selected to teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims. The father’s wife was part of the set of all incest prohibitions; it was selected from this set to teach about bastardy for all incest prohibitions. Can you say here that the rape victim was in the set, that it could teach a prohibition concerning all rape victims? Why cannot the father’s wife be selected to teach about the rape victim in her case? He said to him, if she is his father’s wife, she is not his rape victim; if she is the father’s rape victim, she is not his wife.
Mishnah
2 A murderer who attacked someone with a stone or an iron, or forced him under water or into fire so he could not escape from there and died, is criminally liable. If he pushed him into water or fire and he could have escaped from there by himself but died, he is not criminally liable. If he provoked a dog or a snake against him, he is not criminally liable. If he let a snake bite him, Rabbi Jehudah declares him criminally liable but for the Sages he is not criminally liable.
Halakhah
“A murderer who attacked someone,” etc. It is written: “If he hit him with a lethal stone in his hand so that he died, the hitter shall die, he is a murderer,”Numbers 35:21 “the murderer shall be put to death. Or he hit him with a lethal wooden implement in his hand so that he died, the murderer shall be put to death.”Numbers 35:18 When He comes to iron, He does not speak of lethal or not lethal, but even a small hook when applied to the esophagus could kill him; but a stone must be lethal, wood must be lethal. If he put him in front of a horse, in front of an arrow, in front of a spear, put him out in the cold, gave him bad water to drink, removed the ceiling over him and the rains came down and killed him, or he opened a water canal whose waters swept over him.
What is Rabbi Jehudah’s reason? Because of the poison in the hollow teeth. What is the reason of the rabbis? There is no poison in the hollow teeth until it excretes it.
Mishnah
3 If somebody injures another person by a stone or with his fist and they expected him to die, but he got better and only afterward deteriorated and died; he is criminally liable. Rabbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.
Halakhah
“If somebody injures another person,” etc. The Mishnah means: “Rabbi Neḥemiah declares him not criminally liable but the Sages declare him criminally liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” The Sages say, two estimations have precedence over one estimation; Rabbi Neḥemiah says, the intermediate estimation has precedence over the two. What is Rabbi Neḥemiah’s reason? “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated.” Could you think that this one walks in the market and the other one is executed because of him? But even if he dies according to the first estimation, he cannot be prosecuted. What is the rabbis’ reason? “If he does not die but is bedridden.” Would we not know that even if he does not die that he will be bedridden? But if they did not estimate that he would die. If they did not estimate that he would die, that is what is written: “If he gets up and walks outside on his cane, the attacker is exonerated.” Therefore, if he does not get up, the attacker is criminally liable. But if they estimated that he would die? If they estimated that he would die, that is what is written: “But he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs.” Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: It is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina: It was an erroneous estimation. What is the difference between them? “But he got better and only afterward deteriorated and died; he is criminally liable. Rabbi Neḥemiah declares him not liable since it is not unsubstantiated.” For him who said, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay; if he paid, he paid. If he did not pay, does he have to pay? For him who said, it was an erroneous estimation; if he did not pay, one does not order him to pay. If he paid, can he take it back? A baraita supports one and a baraita supports the other. A baraita supports Rabbi Yose bar Ḥanina: If they estimated that he would live but he died, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. This implies that the estimate was wrong. If you say, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay, he should pay from the first moment. A baraita supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: If they estimated that he would die but he lived, from when does one count for him? From the moment he turns worse. Rabbi Yose said, it does not say here “from the moment he turns worse” but “from the moment he turns better.” That means, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he has to pay. But if you say, it was an erroneous estimation, he has to pay until the victim dies.
If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Let us hear from the following: “If people quarrel, if people brawl.” Is not brawl quarrel? Why does the verse say, “if people quarrel, if people brawl”? To apply the rules of the intended to the unintended and of the unintended to the intended. One understands from the intended to the unintended. Of the unintended to the intended? It must be the following: If he hit him on his hand and it withered. The physicians said, if his hand is amputated he will live. Does he have to pay for the hand? Since you say there, it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pays for the hand, so here it is an extraordinary decree of Scripture that he pays for the hand.
“If one intended to kill an animal,” etc. Rabbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would survive but he died; is it not common for the living to die? Since it is written “but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs,” he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs. Rabbi Isaac asked: If they estimated that he would die but he survived; is it not common for the dying to live? Since it is written “but he has to pay for his disability and the medical costs,” he is liable to pay for disability and medical costs.
Mishnah
4 If one intended to kill an animal but he killed a human, a non-Jew but he killed a Jew, a stillborn but he killed a viable baby, he is not criminally liable. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it would not have been enough to kill but it went on his heart where it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his heart where it would have been enough to kill but it went on his hips where it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone big whom it would not have been enough to kill but it went on somebody small whom it was enough to kill and he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone small whom it would have been enough to kill but it went on somebody big whom it was not enough to kill but he died, he cannot be prosecuted. If one intended to hit someone on his hips where it was enough to kill but it went on his heart and he died; or if one intended to hit someone big and it was enough to kill but it went on somebody small and he died; he is criminally liable. Rabbi Simeon says, even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.
Halakhah
“If one intended to hit someone on his hips,” etc. Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a deadly stone which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other? Ḥizqiah asked: If one threw a stone which was not deadly but which killed one person and broke another’s vessels, did the verse give the law for one but not for the other?
Rabbi Simeon says, those of the House of Rabbi state: even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable. The House of Rabbi follows Rabbi Nathan, as it was stated in the name of Rabbi Nathan: If one was standing next to a group of people and said, I am intending to kill one of you. Even if he intended to kill one person but killed another, he is not criminally liable.
Mishnah
5 If a murderer was mixed up with others, none of them are criminally liable. Rabbi Jehudah says, one keeps them in jail. Any condemned to death who were mixed up with others shall be executed by the easier way. Those to be stoned with those to be burned, Rabbi Simeon says they shall be stoned because burning is more painful, but the Sages say they shall be burned since stoning is more painful. Rabbi Simeon told them, if burning were not more painful it would not have been prescribed for a Cohen’s daughter who committed adultery. They answered him, if stoning were not more painful, it would not have been prescribed for the blasphemer and those who worship strange cults. Those to be beheaded with those to be strangled, Rabbi Simeon says by the sword, but the Sages say by strangulation.
Halakhah
“If a murderer was mixed up with others,” etc. Rabbi Joḥanan said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer mixed up with innocent people. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, the Mishnah deals with a murderer being tried mixed up with a murderer who already was convicted. Samuel said, the Mishnah deals with a bull mixed up with other bulls. If the Mishnah referred to a bull mixed up with other bulls, would we state about them that “one keeps them in jail”?
Rabbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rabbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation.
Mishnah
6 Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties shall be sentenced to the more painful one. One who committed one crime punishable by two death penalties shall be sentenced to the more painful one. Rabbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection. If somebody was repeatedly whipped, the court sends him to jail where he is fed barley until his belly bursts. One sends the murderer without witnesses to jail and feeds him scanty bread and sparing water.
Halakhah
“Somebody who was found guilty of two death penalties,” etc. There it was stated that one states: “Rabbi Yose says, he shall be convicted for the first connection.” How is this? His mother-in-law who then became a married woman is executed by burning. As a married woman who later became his mother-in-law it is by strangulation, if he copulated with his mother-in-law. How with his mother-in-law and daughter-in-law? How can this be? A man married a woman, and her brother’s daughter, and the woman’s daughter. If he copulated with the old woman he is liable for her because of his mother-in-law, the mother of his mother-in-law, and the mother of his father-in-law. If his mother-in-law is simultaneously his daughter-in-law, how does Rabbi Yose treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rabbi Yose treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rabbi Yose treat this?
They said, what was asked of Rabbi Yose also can be asked of Rabbi Ismael since it was stated in the name of Rabbi Ismael: If she became widowed, divorced, desecrated, and a whore in this order: when afterward he copulated with her, he is liable only once. If she whored, was desecrated, and after that he copulated with her, he is liable for every single transgression. If she became widowed and divorced simultaneously, how does Rabbi Ismael treat this? The more severe and the lesser, how does Rabbi Ismael treat this? Two simultaneous prohibitions, how does Rabbi Ismael treat this?
Rav said, the Mishnah deals with the case that the crime was committed inside from the witnesses. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, when he could not receive warning.
Mishnah
7 He who steals the chalice, or who curses by charms, or who copulates with a Gentile woman, one strikes him. If a priest officiated while impure, his brother priests do not bring him to court but the young priests take him outside the courtyard and smash his brain with bats. A non-priest who officiated in the Temple: Rabbi Aqiba said, by strangulation, but the Sages say, by the hands of Heaven.
Halakhah
“He who steals the chalice,” etc. Qasvah: cista. Rav Jehudah said, it was a Temple vessel, as one says “and the libation chalices.”Numbers 4:7
“He who curses by a charm.” Like those Nabateans who curse “your creator, your smith, your acquisition.”
“One who copulates with a Gentile woman,” etc. Rabbi Ismael stated: This is one who marries a Gentile woman, sires children, and from her raises enemies of the Omnipresent. It is written: “Phineas ben Eleazar ben Aaron the priest saw.” What did he see? He understood what happened and remembered practice: “One who copulates with a Gentile woman, zealots strike him.” It was stated: not with the agreement of the Sages. Would Phineas act against the Sages? Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, they wanted to excommunicate him if the Holy Spirit had not jumped on him and declared that “an eternal covenant of priesthood shall be for him and his descendants after him,”Numbers 25:12 etc.
What is Rabbi Aqiba’s reason? It says here, “dying he shall be put to death,” and it says there, “anybody acceding to the Eternal’s dwelling will die, etc.”Numbers 17:28 What is the rabbis’ reason? It says here, “dying he shall be put to death,” but it says there, “any outsider coming close shall be put to death.”Numbers 18:7 It is better to compare “shall be put to death” with “shall be put to death” and “not shall be put to death with shall die.”
Mishnah
1 All of Israel have a part in the World to Come. But the following have no part in the World to Come: One who says that the resurrection of the dead is not biblical, or that the Torah is not from Heaven, or the Epicurean. Rabbi Aqiba says, also one who reads outside books, or who whispers over a wound and says, “any sickness that I put on Egypt I shall not put on you, for I am the Eternal, your Healer.” Abba Shaul said, also one who pronounces the Name by its letters.
Halakhah
“The following have no part in the World to Come,” etc. They added one who tears away the yoke, one who breaks the Covenant, and one who finds aspects in the Torah, to those who have no part in the World to Come. He who tears away the yoke is one who says the Torah is obligatory but I cannot stand it. He who breaks the Covenant is one who restores his foreskin. He who finds aspects in the Torah is one who says that the Torah was not given from Heaven. But did we not state separately: “He who says that the Torah is not from Heaven”? Rabbi Ḥanina Entanaya stated before Rabbi Mana: This is one who publicly transgresses the words of the Torah in the manner of Jehoiakim ben Josiah, king of Judah, and his circle.
Idolatry and incest and adultery. Rabbi Jonah and Rabbi Yose, one said, like the easy ones, and one says, like the hard ones. What are we talking about? If he repented, there is nothing that stands in the way of those who repent. But what we are talking about is one who did not repent and died through extirpation.
A majority of merits and a minority of transgressions: they let him pay for the minority of transgressions in this world in order to give him his complete recompense in the Future World. A majority of transgressions and a minority of merits: they give him the reward for his merits in this world in order to make him pay completely in the Future World.
He who has a preponderance of merit inherits paradise. He who has a preponderance of sins inherits hell. What if he is in equilibrium? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, it does not say “He lifts sins” but rather “He lifts sin.”Exodus 34:7 The Holy One, praise to Him, removes one document from the sins and the merits tilt. Rabbi Eleazar said, “kindness is Yours, Master, because You repay everyone according to his deeds,”Psalms 62:13 and if he has none, You give him from Yours. This is the opinion of Rabbi Eleazar, because Rabbi Eleazar said, “and much kindness,”Exodus 34:7 He turns toward kindness.
Rabbi Jeremiah said that Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac asked: “Justice protects the one on the straight path but sin destroys the sinner.”Proverbs 13:6 “Evil deeds will pursue the sinner but He will reward the just.”Proverbs 13:21 “While He makes scoffers targets of scoffing, He will bestow grace on the meek.”Proverbs 3:34 “He will watch over the feet of his pious ones, but evildoers will be silent in the darkness.” “The wise will inherit honor, but shame will mark the stupid ones.”Proverbs 3:35 Fences are made fences and doors doors. Is it so that fences make fences and doors doors? But so it is: Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac: If a person is careful the first, second, and third times not to commit a sin, then in the future the Holy One, praise to Him, will watch over him. What is the reason? “All this God will do twice, three times with a man.”Job 33:29 Rabbi Zeʿira said, but only if the person does not revert to sin. What is the reason? It does not say “the triple thread” “will never snap” but rather “will not quickly snap.”Ecclesiastes 4:12 If you work on it, it will split.
Rabbi Huna said in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: There is no forgetting before the Holy One, but for Israel He becomes forgetful. What is the reason? “He forgives sin”Exodus 34:7; “He forgets” is written. And so David said, “You forgot Your people, You covered up all their misdeeds, Selah.”Psalms 85:3
Rabbi Matthew ben Ḥarash asked Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah in the Academy. He told him, did you hear the four types of Atonement which Rabbi Ismael explained? He answered him, there are three in addition to repentance. One verse says, “return, wayward children, I shall heal your waywardness.” But another verse says, “for on that day, He shall pardon you, to cleanse you.” And another verse says, “I shall visit their crime with the rod, and their iniquity with plagues.” And another verse says, “the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die.” How is this? If somebody violates a positive commandment and repents, immediately before he moves from there the Holy One, praise to Him, forgives him. About this one it says, “return, wayward children, I shall heal your waywardness.” If one transgresses a prohibition, repentance suspends judgment, and the Day of Atonement pardons. About this one it says, “for on that day, He shall pardon you,” etc. If one intentionally transgressed sins punishable by extirpations or death penalties, repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon half, and sufferings pardon half. About this one it says, “I shall visit their crime with the rod,” etc. But one through whom the Name of Heaven was desecrated, there is no power in repentance to suspend judgment, nor in the Day of Atonement to pardon, nor in sufferings to scour; but repentance and the Day of Atonement pardon a third, and suffering a third, and death scours a third. About this one it says, “the iniquity of this people shall not be atoned for until you die.” From this we learn that death scours.
Rabbi Joḥanan said, these are the words of Rabbi Eleazar ben Azariah, Rabbi Ismael, and Rabbi Aqiba. But the words of the Sages are that the sent-away ram pardons. How does it pardon? Rabbi Zeʿira said, gradually. Rabbi Ḥanina said, at the end. What is the difference between them? If somebody died in-between. In the opinion of Rabbi Zeʿira, he already was pardoned. In the opinion of Rabbi Ḥanina, he was not pardoned. Rabbi Ḥanina said, a baraita supports Rabbi Zeʿira: There is strength in the ram which is not in the Day of Atonement, and in the Day of Atonement which is not in the ram, for the Day of Atonement pardons without a ram, but the ram does not atone except on the Day of Atonement. There is strength in the ram, for it pardons immediately but the Day of Atonement only at nightfall. Rabbi Huna said, the question was raised before Rabbi Jeremiah and he said, explain it if they intended to bring another ram but they did not bring it. Rabbi Yose ben Yose said, but does the Holy One, praise to Him, not see into the future? Then He should pardon immediately.
It is written: “For he showed contempt for the Eternal’s Word.” Not only if he was contemptuous of the teachings of the Torah, what is the source if he denied one verse, one Aramaic expression, one argument from the lesser to the greater? The verse says, “His command he violated.” One verse, “Lotan’s sister was Timna.”Genesis 36:22 One Aramaic expression, “Laban called it Yegar Sahadutha.”Genesis 31:47 One argument from the lesser to the greater: “For Cain would be avenged sevenfold,” etc.
Another interpretation: That is one who mentions teachings of the Torah at a filthy place. As in the following: Rabbi Hila and the colleagues were sitting in front of a hostelry in the evening. They asked, may one say words of the Torah? They said, since if it were daytime we would see what is before us, therefore now it is forbidden.
Bar Qappara said, Ahaz and all evil kings of Israel have no part in the World to Come. What is the reason? “All their kings fell, not one of them calls to Me.”Hosea 7:7 They objected to him: Is he not mentioned in the era of kings, “in the days of Uzziah, Jotham, Ahaz, Hezekiah, the kings of Judah”Isaiah 1:1? He answered them, because he showed shame. How did he show shame? Rabbi Aḥa in the name of Rabbi Eleazar, Rabbi Yose in the name of Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: You find that when the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place, implying that the Divine Presence does not dwell at an impure place. That is what is written: “The Eternal said to Isaiah, please go out toward Ahaz, you and your son Shear-jashub, to the end of the canal of the upper pond, to the path of the fuller’s field.” Do not read fuller’s but suppressing. He hid his face and fled before him. How is that? When the prophet came to accuse him, he fled to an impure place and buried his face in an impure place. Rabbi Jehudah says, because he was made to suffer about his firstborn son. What is the reason? “Zimri, the strongman of Ephraim, killed”2 Chronicles 28:7 etc. Rabbi Hoshaia the Elder said, because his father was just. But was Manasseh’s father not just? Manasseh’s father was just but his son was evil. Hezekiah’s father was evil and his son was evil. That is what Hezekiah says: “Look, for peace, bitter is bitter for me.” Bitter before me, from Aḥaz. Bitter after me, from Manasseh. Aḥaz’s father was just and his son just, that is what is written: “hand to hand will not cleanse evil, but the seed of the just will escape.” Rabbi Phineas said, it is not written “the seed of a just will escape” but “the seed of the just will escape.” The seed lying between two just men will escape.
Another explanation: “Hand to hand will not cleanse evil.” Rabbi Phineas said, that is one who gives alms and expects an immediate reward. Rabbi Simon said, like a man who says, here is a sack, here is a tetradrachma, and here is a seʾah, go and fill it. You should know that this is so, for if the patriarchs had demanded to receive the reward in this world for the good deeds which they did, how would their merit remain for their descendants after them? That is what Moses told Israel: “I shall remember My covenant with Jacob,” etc.
How far did the merit of the ancestors extend? Rabbi Tanḥuma said in the name of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya, Rabbi Naḥman said it in the name of Rabbi Berekhiah, Rabbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Zavda, up to Jehoahaz. “The Eternal was compassionate about them and had mercy for them” etc., “up to now.”2 Kings 13:23 Up to that moment, the merit of the ancestors existed. Samuel said, up to Hosea’s time. “But now, I shall uncover her scandalous behavior before the eyes of her lovers, and no man may save her from My hand.”Hosea 2:12 Man can only mean Abraham, as you say, “but now return the man’s wife, for he is a prophet.”Genesis 20:7 Man can only mean Isaac, as you say, “who is this man coming in the field toward us”Genesis 24:65? Man can only mean Jacob, as you say, “but Jacob was a simple man.”Genesis 25:27 Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, up to Elijah: “It was when the time of the afternoon service came that Elijah the prophet approached and said, Eternal, God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, today it shall be proclaimed that You are God in Israel and I am Your servant”1 Kings 18:36 etc. Rabbi Yudan said, up to Hezekiah, “to increase dominion and peace without end.”Isaiah 9:6 Rabbi Aḥa said, the merit of the ancestors extends forever: “For the Eternal is a Merciful Power,” etc., up to “and He shall not forget your ancestor’s covenant.”Deuteronomy 4:31 This teaches that the covenant was sealed with the tribes. Rabbi Yudan bar Ḥanan in the name of Rabbi Berekhiah: The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Israel: If you see that the merit of the fathers reels, and the merit of the mothers trembles, go and cling to grace. “For mountains may reel, and hills tremble; for mountains may reel,” this is the fathers’ merit, “and hills tremble,” this is the mothers’ merit. After that, “but My Grace will not leave you and My Covenant of Peace will not reel, says the One Who has mercy on you, the Eternal.”
“The Epicurean.” Rabbi Joḥanan and Rabbi Eleazar, one said, like him who said “this book,” and one said, like him who said “these rabbis.” Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Samuel ben Rabbi Naḥman, one said, it is comparable to a stone cupola. If one stone is weakened, all are weakened. The other said, it is comparable to a house full of chaff. Even if one removes it from there one finds that it weakened the walls.
Rav said, Koraḥ was very rich; the treasury of Pharaoh was discovered by him between Migdol and the Sea.
Rav said, Koraḥ was an Epicurean. What did he do? He went and made togas completely of blue wool. He came before Moses and asked him, does a toga made completely out of blue wool need ṣiṣit? He answered, it is an obligation since it is written: “braids you shall make for yourselves.” Does a house full of Torah scrolls need a mezuzah? He answered, it needs a mezuzah since it is written, “you shall write them on the doorposts of your house,” etc. He asked him, what is the rule for a white spot the size of a bean? He answered him, it is impure. If it spread over his entire body? He answered him, it is pure. At that moment, Koraḥ said that the Torah is not from Heaven, nor is Moses a true prophet, nor Aaron a High Priest. Then Moses said, Master of all worlds! If a mouth of the earth had been created during the Six Days of Creation, it is fine. Otherwise it should be created now: “If the Eternal would create a Creation.”Numbers 16:30
Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, three persons were untrue to their prophetic insights because of ponaria, namely: Moses, Elijah, and Micaiah. Moses said, “if an everyman’s death these should die,”Numbers 16:29 etc. Elijah said, “hear me, Eternal, hear me, so this people will know,” otherwise “You would have turned their hearts backwards.”1 Kings 18:37 Micaiah said, “if you would return in peace, the Eternal did not speak through me.”1 Kings 22:28
“They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit.” Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Ḥelbo, even their names flew away from their papyrus rolls. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, even one of their needles that was in the hand of an Israelite as a loan was swallowed up with them, for it is written: “They and everything that belonged to them descended alive into the pit.” Who prayed for them? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Moses prayed for them, “Reuben shall live and not die.”Deuteronomy 33:6 Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Hannah prayed for them. This is Rabbi Joshua ben Levi’s opinion, as Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said in the name of Rabbi Yose: Koraḥ’s band was continuously sinking until Hannah stood up and said, “the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and lifts.”1 Samuel 2:6
“Rabbi Aqiba says, also he who reads outside books.” For example, the books of Ben Sirach and Ben Laana. But the books of Homer and all books written from now on, one who reads them is like one who reads a letter. What is the reason? “More than these, my son, be careful”Ecclesiastes 12:12 etc. They are given to be read, not given for exertion.
“The words of the Sages are like goads;” Rabbi Huna said, like a pearl. There, they call a pearl dirah. Another explanation, like goads, like a girl’s ball. Just as this ball is caught from hand to hand but in the end will come to rest in one hand, so “Moses received the Torah from Sinai and transmitted it to Joshua, Joshua to the Elders, the Elders to the Prophets, and the Prophets transmitted it to the Men of the Great Assembly.” Another explanation, like goads. It has three names, mardeaʿ, darevan, malmad. Mardeaʿ, because it teaches knowledge to the cow. Darevan, because it plants understanding in the cow. Malmad, because it teaches the cow to plow, to keep its owners alive. Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina said, if a person makes a goad for his cow, certainly he has to make one for his bad inclinations which will remove him from this world and the World to Come.
“And like planted nails.” Why does he not say, “like fixed nails and planted trees”? They chose and selected the iron and improved the planting of iron rods. Another explanation, “and like planted nails.” Just as this nail, once it has been fixed, if you then remove it from its place, its place remains visible; so everybody against whom the rabbis stretched out their hand, even if afterward they took him back, in the end he will take what is coming to him from their hands. Another explanation, “and like planted nails;” it is written watches. Since there are 24 watches, there should be 24 nails. How many nails should it have? Rabbi Joḥanan said five, corresponding to the five books of the Torah. Rabbi Ḥinena said seven, “corresponding to your days are your steps.”Deuteronomy 33:24 Rabbi Aḥa explained following Rabbi Ḥanina: nine. Rabbi put eleven on one shoe and thirteen on the other, for the number of watches. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, a crooked nail is not counted with the nails. Rabbi Abba bar Zavda asked before Rabbi Zeʿira: may one put all of them on one boot? He told him, it is permitted. May one put all of them on one sandal? He told him, it is permitted. It was stated: One does not scrape old boots or sandals but one may anoint them or dip them in water. Rabbi Crispus in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The students of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya say that those of first rank said, one may scrape, those of second rank said, one may not scrape. They asked Rabbi, who told them, one does not scrape. Rabbi Zeʿira said, here goes one of the students of the Elder Rabbi Ḥiyya. Rabbi Ḥiyya bar Ashi said, we used to sit before Rav and would anoint and rinse, but not scraping. It was stated: A person should wear new boots and sandals only if he walked in them during daytime. How far should he walk? The people from the house of Bar Qappara said, from the House of Study of Bar Qappara to the House of Study of Rabbi Hoshaia. The Sepphoreans say, from the Babylonian synagogue to Rabbi Ḥama bar Ḥanina’s house. The Tiberians say, from the Academy to Rabbi Hoshaia’s store. It was stated: Nobody should anoint his foot in a shoe or sandal but he may anoint his foot and step into his shoe or his sandal. One may anoint himself and roll on a tarpaulin without worry. One should not put it on a marble slab to roll himself in it, but Rabban Gamliel permits it. Another explanation, “and like planted nails.” If words about Torah are spelled out clearly by their authors, they are sweet to their listeners like well-ordered saplings. But if they come out confused, they are as bitter for their listeners as nails.
“Masters of assembly.” “Assembly” only means the Sanhedrin, as you say: “Assemble for Me seventy men from the Elders of Israel.”Numbers 11:16 Another explanation, “masters of assembly,” it was said in an assembly. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, if somebody told me that Chronicles was to be found in Babylonia, I would go and fetch it from there. But now, if all our rabbis came together, they could not bring it from there.
“They were given from one shepherd.” The Holy One said, if you heard something from the most insignificant one of Israel and it gave you satisfaction, it should not be in your eyes as if you heard it from an insignificant one but from an important one; and not as if you heard it from an important one but from a Sage; and not as if you heard it from a Sage but from a prophet; and not as if you heard it from a prophet but from a shepherd and shepherd only means Moses, as it is said: “He remembered the days of old, Moses with his people; where is He Who brought them up from the Sea with his people’s shepherd; where is He Who gave His Holy Spirit in its midst”; not as if you heard it from a shepherd but from Divinity. “They were given from one shepherd,” but “One” is only the Holy One, praise to Him, as it is said: “Hear, Israel, the Eternal is our God, the Eternal is One.”
“One who whispers over a wound and says, ‘any sickness that I put on Egypt I shall not put on you, for I am the Eternal, your Healer.’” Rav said, only one who spits. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, even if he only said, “damage by skin disease if it is on a human”Leviticus 15:26 and spits, he has no part in the Future World.
Abba Shaul said, also one who pronounces the Name by its letters. Rabbi Mana said, for example, those swearing Samaritans. Rabbi Jacob bar Aḥa said, it is written as yod he but read as alef dalet.
Mishnah
2 Three kings and four private persons have no part in the Future World. Three kings: Ahab, Jeroboam, Manasseh. Rabbi Jehudah says, Manasseh has part in the Future World, as it is said: “he prayed to Him. He let Himself be petitioned, and heard his supplications, and returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingdom.” They told him, He returned him to his kingdom; He did not return him to life in the Future World. Four private persons: Balaam and Doeg, Ahithophel and Gehazi.
Halakhah
“Three kings and four private persons,” etc. All of these invented new kinds of sins.
So what did Jeroboam do? Because he made two golden calves. But did Israel not make many calves? Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated: Israel made thirteen calves; of these one was common property to all of them. What is the reason? “They said, these are your gods, Israel”Exodus 32:4; this refers to the twelve tribes. “This is your god,”Nehemiah 9:18 that is, one common property for all of them.
So what did Aḥab do? It is written: “If it would have been too easy to follow the sins of Jeroboam ben Nebat.” Are not the light sins of Aḥab the serious sins of Jeroboam? Why was Jeroboam counted first? Because he started the misconduct. What did Aḥab do? He adorned himself every day and stood before his army commander Ḥiel, asking him, for how much am I good today? He answered him, so and so much; then he donated its value to foreign worship. That is what is written “Because you sold yourself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes.” Rabbi Levi continued for six months to explain the following verse to his shame: “There never was anyone like Aḥab who sold himself to do evil in the Eternal’s eyes.” He came to him at night and asked him, how did I sin against you, what did I do before you? You have the first part of the verse, but you do not have the end of the verse: “whom his wife Jezebel had misguided.” He continued for six months to explain it as praise, “only one should not be like Aḥab ... whom his wife Jezebel had misguided.”
It is written: “In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho; with his firstborn Abiram he set the foundation and with his youngest son Segub he put in the doors.” Ḥiel is from the descendants of Jehoshaphat, Jericho is in the territory of Benjamin. But good deeds are put in the hands of the worthy and bad deeds in the hands of the unworthy; therefore, it is said, “with his firstborn Abiram he set the foundation and with his youngest son Segub he put in the doors.” If it was not appropriate for him to learn from his firstborn Abiram, should he not have learned from the wicked Segub? Because they wanted to make more money, the curse ruled over them and they were continuously weakened to confirm what was said, “following the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had spoken through Joshua ben Nun.” It is written: “Elijah the Tishbite, from the inhabitants of Gilead, said to Aḥab: By the Living Eternal, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew or rain in the coming years except by my word.” What is the connection between these? The Holy One, praise to Him, had said to Elijah: this Ḥiel is an important personality, go and pay a visit of condolence. He answered, I do not want to go. He asked, why? He said, for if I go and they say things that enrage You, I shall not be able to bear it. He told him, If they say anything that would enrage Me, anything that you decide I shall fulfill. He went and found them discussing the verse: “At that time, Joshua pronounced this curse: Cursed be the man before the Eternal who would build this town, Jericho; with his firstborn he shall put in the foundation and with his youngest set the doors.” He said, praised be the God of the just, Who fulfills the words of the just. Aḥab also was there. Aḥab said to them, who is greater, Moses or Joshua? They told him, Moses. He said to them, in Moses’s Torah it is written: “Watch yourselves, so that your hearts are not seduced, you deviate, and worship other powers and bow down before them.” What is written next? “The rage of the Eternal will burn against you, He will lock up the sky and there will be no rain.” But I did not leave any strange worship that I would not have worshipped, and all good and comforting things came in my generation. He did not uphold the words of Moses; would He uphold Joshua’s words? Elijah told him, it is as you say, “by the Living Eternal, the God of Israel, before Whom I stood, there will not be dew or rain in the coming years except by my word.” When he heard this, he started crying. That is what is written: “When Aḥab heard these words, he tore his garments, put sackcloth on his flesh, fasted, slept in sackcloth and went at.” How long did he fast? He fasted for three hours. If he usually ate at 6 o’clock, he ate at noontime. If he usually ate at noontime, he ate at three p.m. “He went at.” What is at? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, he went barefoot. It is written: “The word of the Eternal went to Elijah the Tishbite as follows: Did you see that Aḥab surrendered before me?” The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Elijah: See the good part which I put in My world. A person may sin greatly before Me, but if he repents I accept him. That is what is written, “did you see that Aḥab surrendered before Me?” You saw that Aḥab repented. “Because Aḥab surrendered before me, I shall not bring the evil in his days; in his son’s days I shall bring the evil over his dynasty.”
But what did Aḥaz do? He built a throne in the Temple Court. That is what is written: “The throne-hall which they built in the Temple,” etc. Rabbi Onias in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: Why is he called “the grabber”? For he grabbed synagogues and houses of study. To what may Aḥaz be compared? To a king who had a son whom he entrusted to his pedagogue. The latter wanted to kill him. He said, if I kill him, I will be put to death. But I shall draw his wet-nurse away from him and he will die of himself. So Aḥaz said, if there are no kid goats there are no he-goats. If there are no he-goats there are no goats. If there are no goats there is no shepherd. If there is no shepherd there is no world; if one could imagine that there would be no world. So Aḥaz was thinking, if there are no children there are no adults. If there are no adults, there are no Sages. If there are no Sages, there are no prophets. If there are no prophets, there is no Holy Spirit. If there is no Holy Spirit, there are no synagogues and no houses of study. If one could imagine it, the Holy One, praise to Him, will not let His Presence rest over Israel. Rabbi Jacob bar Abbai in the name of Rabbi Aḥa brings it from the following “I shall wait for the Eternal, Who hid His Face from the House of Jacob, and put my hope in Him.” There was no worse moment in the world than when the Holy One, praise to Him, said to Moses: “I shall certainly hide My Face at that time.” From that moment on, “I put my hope in Him,” Who said at Sinai, “for it shall not be forgotten by his descendants.” What would its use be? “Here am I and the children which the Eternal has given me.” Were they his children? Were they not his students? But this teaches he loved them as if they were his sons and called them “my sons.”
What did Manasseh do? It is written: “In these days, Hezekiah became critically ill,” etc., “for you will die, you will not live. For you will die,” in this world, “you will not live,” in the Future World. He asked him, why? He answered him, because you did not want to have children. He asked him, why do you not want to have children? He answered him, I saw that I will have an evil son; therefore, I do not want to have children. He told him, marry my daughter, maybe descending from me and you he will become a good person. Nevertheless the result was only a bad person. That is what is written, “but my vessels, his vessels are bad.” He told him, I am not listening to you, I only am jumping on what my ancestor said, who told me, if you see bad dreams or bad visions do jump onto three things and you will be saved. These are: prayer, giving alms, and repentance. All three from one verse: “If My people, over whom My Name is called, are subdued and they will pray,” that refers to prayer, “and they will ask before me,” that refers to giving alms, as you say, “I, by giving alms, shall see Your Face, I shall be satiated in waking by Your image. They shall repent their evil ways,” that is repentance. If they did this, what is written there? “I shall listen from Heaven, forgive their sins, and heal their land.” Immediately, he turned, as it is written.
“Hezekiah turned his face to the wall.” Which wall did he lift his eyes to? Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, he lifted his eyes to Raḥab’s wall, “for her house was on the wall of the fortification; she lived on the wall.” He said before Him: Master of all worlds, Raḥab saved two souls for You, and see how many souls You saved for her. That is what is written: “The youths, the spies, came and led out Raḥab, and her father’s house, and her mother, and her brothers, and all of hers, and all her families they brought out and left them outside of Israel’s camp.” Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai stated, even if her family was 200 persons strong and they furthermore were related to other families, all of whom were saved by her merit. My ancestors brought all these proselytes to You; how much more should You spare my life.
Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the woman from Sunem, as it was said: “Let us make a small upper room on the wall and put there a bed, a table, a chair, and a lamp.” He said before Him: Master of all worlds, the woman from Sunem made one wall for Elisha and You revived her son. My ancestors built all this glory for You; how much more should You spare my life.
Rabbi Ḥinena bar Pappus said, he lifted his eyes to the wall of the Temple. “When they put their lintel next to My lintel, their doorposts next to My doorpost, with the wall between Me and them.” They were important people; they could not go and pray in the Temple every time, so they prayed in their house and the Holy One, praise to Him, considers it as if they had prayed in the Temple. My ancestors built all this glory for You; how much more should You spare my life.
But the rabbis say, he lifted his eyes to the walls of his heart. “My innards, my innards I make tremble, the walls of my heart are in uproar; my heart is beating inside me, I cannot be silent.” He said before Him: Master of the world, I checked all my 248 limbs that You gave me and I did not find one with which I offended You; how much more should You spare my life.
It is written: “The Word of the Eternal was to the prophet Isaiah as follows: Go and tell Hezekiah, My people’s leader” ... “so says the Eternal, your ancestor David’s God, I heard your prayer, I saw your tear; now I am adding fifteen years to your days.” He told Him, first I told him one way, now I have to tell him this? He told Him, he is a great personality and will not believe me. He answered him, he is a very meek person and will believe you. Not only that, but the rumor has not yet spread in the city: “Isaiah had not yet left the middle courtyard;” “city” is written.
When Manasseh became king, he went after Isaiah; he wanted to kill him, but he fled before him. He fled to a cedar tree, the cedar swallowed him, except for a fringe of his coat. They came and reported it before him. He said, go and cut down the cedar. They cut down the cedar and blood was seen flowing. “But the Eternal did not want to pardon”2 Kings 24:4: from here we learn that he has no part in the Future World. And is it not written, “in addition to the sins of Manasseh ben Hezekiah, the king of Judah.” Let us say, before he changed his ways. “Because of all the rages by which Manasseh enraged him.”2 Kings 23:26 Let us say, before he repented. But is it not written: “For he, Amon, increased in criminality.” He did not add, but he found new ways. And is it not written: “Also innocent blood did Manasseh spill, a great deal, until he filled Jerusalem from mouth to mouth”? How is it possible for flesh and blood to fill Jerusalem with innocent blood from mouth to mouth? But he killed Isaiah who was equal to Moses, about whom it is written: “Mouth to mouth I would speak to him.”
It is written: “The Eternal spoke to Manasseh and to his people but they did not listen. He brought over them the generals of the king” ...; “they caught Manasseh in ḥo̅ḥîm.” What are ḥo̅ḥîm? Handcuffs. Rabbi Levi said, they made a bronze mule for him, put him inside, and started heating it from below. When he realized that he was in real trouble, he did not forget any strange worship but appealed to it. Since this did not help him any, he said, I remember that my father let me read the following verse in the synagogue: “When you are in straits, and all these things will find you in the future, then return to the Eternal, your God, and listen to His voice. For the Eternal, your God, is a merciful power. He will not let you slacken, He will not destroy you, nor will He forget the covenant of your ancestors which He concluded with them.” I shall call to Him. If He hears me, it is good; otherwise all faces are the same. The angels on duty closed all windows so that Manasseh’s prayer would not ascend before the Holy One, praise to Him. The angels on duty said to the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of the Universe, would You receive in repentance a man who worshipped other powers and put up an idol in the Temple Hall? He told them, If I did not receive his repentance, I would close the door in front of all repenting sinners. What did the Holy One, praise to Him, do for him? He dug out a tunnel under His Seat of Glory and accepted his supplication. That is what is written: “He prayed to Him, He had mercy on him, He accepted his supplication, and He returned him.” Rabbi Eleazar ben Rabbi Simeon said, in Arabia a tunnel is called ʿatharta. “He returned him to Jerusalem, to his kingship.” How did He return him? Samuel bar Bina in the name of Rabbi Aḥa: He returned him by the wind, as one says, “He returns wind.” At that moment, Manasseh said, there is judgment and there is a judge.
But what did the evil Balaam do? Because he counseled Balak ben Zippor to fell Israel by the sword. He told him, the God of this people hates whoring. If you put up your daughters for whoring, you may rule over them. He answered, but will they listen to me? He told him, put your own daughter up, they will see and listen to you. That is what is written: “he is the head of related tribes in Midian.” What did they do? They built dining rooms from Bet Hayyešimon to the Snow Mountain and installed there women selling pastries. They put an old woman outside and a young girl inside. Israel were eating and drinking. If one of them went to stroll around, to buy himself something from the grocer, the old woman would offer to sell to him for the going price, but the girl told him, come and take it for less. This happened that first day, the second day, the third day. After that, she told him, from now on you are like a member of the family; enter and select for yourself. When he entered, there was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and libation wine was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. Immediately she took out a shape of Peʿor from her bosom and told him, bow down before this one and I shall consent to you. But he answered her, should I bow down before foreign worship? She told him, you do not bow down, you only strip for it. This is what the Sages said, “one who defecates in front of Baal Peʿor follows its worship. One who throws a stone at a statue of Mercury follows its worship.” There was a pitcher full of wine, of the strong Ammonite wine which seduces the body to whoring. Its smell was seething and libation wine was not yet forbidden for Israel. She told him, maybe you want to drink a cup of wine? He answered her, yes. She gave to him and he drank. When he drank, the wine was burning in him like a viper’s poison; he told her, consent to me. She told him, do you want me to consent to you? He answered, yes. She told him, make a vow to deny the teachings of Moses and I shall consent to you. That is what is written: “They came to Baal-Peʿor, made vows for the shame, and turned into abominations like their love life.”
Rabbi Eleazar said, just as a nail cannot be taken out of a door without loss of wood, so it is impossible to get rid of Peʿor without loss of life. It happened that Sabbatai from Ulam leased his donkey to a Gentile woman to bow down before Peʿor. When they arrived at Peʿor’s temple, she told him, wait here for me while I am entering and bowing down before Peʿor. After she came out, he told her, wait here for me while I am entering and do what you did. What did he do? He entered, relieved himself, and cleansed himself on Peʿor’s nose. All were praising him and said, nobody yet had done what this man did. It happened that Menaḥem from Guvta-Ariaḥ was occupied with amphoras when the spirit of Peʿor came to him in the night. What did he do? He took a spit, stood up against him; he fled. He came to him in the second night and asked him, Menaḥem, why do you curse me? He was afraid of him and promised him, I shall not curse you in the future. It happened that a ruler came from overseas to bow down before Peʿor. He told them, bring one bull, one ram, and one sheep, to bow down before Peʿor. They told him, you have no need for all of these; you only have to strip yourself for him. What did he do? He provoked sanegorim against them; they were hitting them and smashing their brains with bats, saying to them: woe to you and your error.
It is written “The rage of the Eternal was kindled against Israel. The Eternal said to Moses: Take all the heads of the people and hang them for the Eternal before the sun.” What he told him was, install their heads as judges over them and let them execute the sinners at daytime. That is what is written: “Moses told the judges of Israel: each one should kill his men who cling to the Baʿal Peʿor.”Numbers 25:5 How many were the judges of Israel? 78,600. Heads of thousands, 600. Heads of hundreds, 6,000. Heads of fifties, 12,000. heads of tens, 60,000. It turns out that the judges of Israel were 78,600. He told them, each of you should execute two. It turns out that the number of the killed was 157,200. “Look, a man from the Children of Israel came and introduced to his brothers the Midianite woman, to the eyes of Moses.”Numbers 25:6 What does “to the eyes of Moses” mean? Like a man who says, that is in your eyes, Moses. He told him, is not Zipporah a Midianite, and are not her hooves split? This one is pure, that one is impure? There, Phineas was present. He said, is there nobody who would kill him or be killed? Where are the lions? “A lion whelp is Judah”Genesis 49:9; “Dan is a lion whelp”Deuteronomy 33:22; “Benjamin a rapacious wolf.”Genesis 49:27 When Phineas saw that nobody of Israel did anything, he immediately rose from his court, took the spear in his hand, and put its iron under his belt. He was leaning on its wood until he arrived at his door. When he arrived at his door, they asked him, where to, Phineas? He said to them, do you not agree that everywhere the tribe of Levi is with the tribe of Simeon? They said, let him, maybe the Pharisees permitted the matter. When he entered, the Holy One, praise to Him, performed six wonders for him. The first miracle: usually they would separate, but the angel glued the one to the other. The second miracle: He directed the spear into her belly so that his penis should be seen inside her belly because of the fault-finders, so that they would not say that he muscled himself in with them and satisfied himself. The third miracle: the angel closed their mouths, so they could not cry. The fourth miracle: they did not slip from the weapon but stayed in place. The fifth miracle: The angel lifted the lintel so that both of them were carried out between his shoulders. The sixth miracle: When the plague started to destroy the people, what did he do? He threw them on the ground and prayed. That is what is written: “Phineas stood and prayed; the plague was arrested.”Psalms 106:30
When Israel came to exact vengeance from Midian, they found there Balaam ben Beor. What did he do there? He came to collect his wages for the 24,000 of Israel who died at Shittim. Phineas told him, you followed neither your Creator nor Balak. You did not follow your Creator, Who told you, do not go with Balak’s emissaries, but you went. You did not follow Balak who told you to come and curse Israel, but you blessed them. I also will not hold back your wages. That is what is written: “The Children of Israel killed Balaam ben Beor the sorcerer on top of their dead.”Joshua 13:22 What does “on their dead” mean? That he was as important as all their dead. Another explanation, “on their dead.” Just as their dead were irrelevant, so he was irrelevant. Another explanation, “on their dead.” He was flying over their corpses, but Phineas showed him the High Priest’s diadem and he fell down. Another explanation, “on their dead.” This teaches that Israel paid him his wages in full and did not hold back.
Doeg was a man great in Torah. Israel came and asked David, does the showbread supersede the Sabbath? He told them, its arrangement supersedes the Sabbath, but neither its kneading nor its forming supersedes the Sabbath. Doeg was there and said, who is the one who comes to instruct in my presence? They told him, it is David ben Jesse. He went immediately and counseled Saul, the king of Israel, to kill the priests of Nob, the city of priests. This is what is written: “The king said to the runners who stood by him, surround and kill the priests of the Eternal for they also are involved with David,” etc., up to “they did not inform me.” Who were they? Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, they were Abner and Amasa. They told him, you have us indebted to you only for this belt and this kalinirin. Here they are torn for you. “The king’s servants did not want to kill the priests of the Eternal. The king said to Doyeg.” Rabbi Jehudah bar Pazi said, it is written to Doyeg. They told him, you are caught like a fish; you committed a great sin. “Turn and strike the priests of the Eternal. Doeg the Edomite turned and struck the priests,” etc. But did not Rabbi Ḥiyya state, “one does not appoint two High Priests together”? But this teaches that all of them were qualified for the High Priesthood. How was he removed? Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: One said, fire came from the Holiest of Holies and burned around him. But the other said, competent students came to him, they were learning but he was forgetting, to confirm what is written: “The property swallowed by him he throws up; God removes it from his belly.”
Ahithophel was a man great in Torah. It is written: “David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30,000.” Rabbi Berekhiah in the name of Rabbi Abba bar Cahana: David ordained ninety thousand Elders on one day, but he did not ordain Ahithophel with them. That is what is written: “David again assembled all young men in Israel, 30,000.” He added, 30,000. Again, 30,000, and the simple sense of the verse, 30,000; together 90,000. You find that at the moment when David came to carry the Ark of the Eternal’s Covenant, he did not carry it following the Torah. “They moved the Ark of God’s Covenant on a new cart,”2 Samuel 6:3 etc. The Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground; lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground. David sent and brought Ahithophel. He told him, can you not tell me why the Ark lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground, lifted the Cohanim up and tore them down to the ground? He answered, send and ask all the wise men whom you ordained. David said, any man who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said something in front of it and it was steadied. That is what is written: “It was when the carriers of the Eternal’s Ark took six steps that he sacrificed a bull and a fattened calf.” Rabbi Ḥanina and Rabbi Mana, one said, for every step a bull and a fattened calf and at the end seven oxen and seven rams; but the other said, for every step seven oxen and seven rams and at the end a bull and a fattened calf. The Holy One, praise to Him, said to Ahithophel: Something which the schoolchildren say every day in assembly you did not say to him: “to the sons of Kohath he did not give; for the service of the holy vessels is on them, they should carry on the shoulder.”Numbers 7:9 But so you told him. Similarly you find that when David started to excavate the foundations of the Temple, he dug down fifteen hundred cubits and did not find the abyss. At the end he found a clay pot and wanted to lift it. It told him, you cannot lift me. He asked, why? It answered, because I am here suppressing the abyss. He asked it, since when are you here? It answered, from the moment that the Merciful spoke on Sinai: “I am the Eternal, your God,”Exodus 20:2 the earth trembled and sank down, and I was put here to suppress the abyss. Nevertheless, he did not listen to it; when he lifted it the abyss rose and threatened to flood the world. Ahithophel was standing there. He said, now David will be strangled and I shall rule. David said, any Sage who knows how to put this in order but does not put it in order should end up strangled. He said what he said and it was steady. David started to sing “a song of ascent,” a song for a rise of 100 cubits. For each hundred cubits he composed a song. Nevertheless, he ended up strangled. Rabbi Yose said, that is what the proverb says, a person has to worry about the curse of a rabbi, even if it is for nothing. Rabbi Jeremiah in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac: The scroll which Samuel handed over to David, Ahithophel composed it by the Holy Spirit. What did Ahithophel do? If anybody asked for his counsel in anything and he gave his advice, he said go and do such and such, and if you do not believe me ask the Urim and Tummim. He went, asked, and found it correct. That is what is written: “The counsel of Ahithophel which he gave in those days,” etc. Man is read but not written; the verses could not call him “a man.”
How was he removed? “When Ahithophel saw that his counsel was not taken, he saddled his donkey,”2 Samuel 17:23 etc. Ahithophel commanded his sons three things: Do not rebel against the dynasty of David, since we find that the Holy One, praise to Him, shows them favor even when they acted brazenly. Do not have dealings with anybody who has a lucky streak. And if Pentecost was clear, sow wheat of the best quality. But we do not know whether clear from dew or clear from sharav.
Gehazi was great in Torah, but three things were the matter with him: He was grudging, dissolute in sexual matters, and denied the Resurrection of the Dead. Grudging. When Elisha sat and formulated his teachings, Gehazi sat outside the door. The students saw him and said, Gehazi did not find room inside, could we find room inside? His statements were said without anybody profiting from them. Once he was removed, what is written there? “The prophecy students said to Elisha” etc., “the place where we are sitting is too narrow for us.”2 Kings 6:1 It does not contain the general population and the students who were there.
Dissolute in sexual matters. For the woman of Shunem said to her husband: “Look, I know that he is a holy man of God.”2 Kings 4:9 Rabbi Jonah said, he is holy, but his student is not holy. Rabbi Abun said, because he never looked at her. But the rabbis of Caesarea say, he never had an involuntary emission. The slave girl of Rabbi Samuel ben Rav Isaac said, I was washing my master’s garments. I never saw a bad thing on my master’s garments. It is written: “Gehazi drew near to push her away.”2 Kings 4:27 What is lehodfah? Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, he put his hand on her beauty spot, between her breasts.
And denied the Resurrection of the Dead. You find that at the time when Elisha came to resurrect the Shunammite’s son, he told him: “Take my support staff in your hand and go, and if you meet a man do not greet him, or if a person greets you do not answer him.” But he did not do that, but when a person met him and asked, from where and to where, Gehazi? He told him, I am going to resurrect the dead. This one would tell him, only the Holy One, praise to Him, can resurrect the dead, as it is written: “The Eternal kills and gives life, brings down to the pit and lifts up.” He went there and did not do anything. He returned to him and said to him, I know that if he really were dead, he would not wake up through you.
You find written when Naaman, the army commander of the king of Aram, came to him with his horses and his chariot. Rabbi Joḥanan said, it is written “with his horse.” He wanted to give him gold and silver, stolas and garments, precious stones and pearls, but he did not accept. That is what is written: “He insisted that he take, but he refused.” Gehazi came and said, “by the living Eternal, if I would run after him and take anything from him.” “A defect” is written. He went, met him, took what he took, and hid it in his upper room. He came to Elisha, who asked him, from where to where, Gehazi? You refused the reward of the just! He answered, “your servant did not go here or there. But he said, did not my thoughts go when a man turned from his carriage toward you; is it time” to take silver and gold; is it time to take precious stones and pearls? Therefore, “Naaman’s skin disease shall cling to you.” It is written: “Four men afflicted with skin disease were at the door of the gate.” Who were they? Rabbi Jehudah in the name of Rav: They were Gehazi and his three sons.
It is written: “Elisha came to Damascus when Ben-Hadad the king of Aram was sick.” What did he come to do there? He went to bring back Gehazi but found him absolutely impure. From here we learn that one should push away with one’s left hand but bring back close with one’s right. Rabbi Joḥanan said, “the stranger should not stay outside overnight; my doors I opened for the guest.”Job 31:32 From here we learn that one should push away with one’s left hand but bring back close with one’s right. Not as Elisha did who pushed Gehazi away with both hands. Elisha was sick with two sicknesses. One in the ways of the world, and one because he pushed Gehazi away.
Rabbi Ḥanania and Rabbi Joshua ben Levi: at the time when they voted and said that three kings and four private persons had no part in the Future World, a disembodied voice came and said, “does it pay for you that you oppose, that you choose, not I, and what can you say”? They wanted to include Solomon with them. David came and bowed down before them, but some say that fire came out of the Holiest of Holies and flared around them. Hadar Illa used to be answered when he prayed. From the time he voted with them he prayed but was not answered. The interpreters of hints say, all of them have part in the Future World. What is the reason? “Mine is Gilead, mine is Manasseh, Ephraim my main fortress, Judah is my scepter, Moab my washing trough, at Edom I shall throw my shoe.”Psalms 60:9-10 “Mine is Gilead,” that is Ahab, king of Israel, who fell at Ramoth-gilead. “Mine is Manasseh,” its plain meaning. “Ephraim my main fortress,” that is Jeroboam ben Nebat the Ephraimite. “Judah is my scepter,” that is Ahithophel. “Moab my washing trough,” that is Gehazi. “At Edom I shall throw my shoe,” that is Doeg the Edomite. Israel said before the Holy One, praise to Him: Master of all Worlds, what can we do if David, King of Israel, cursed them? “Men of blood and deceit shall not live to half of their days”Psalms 55:24! He told them, it is up to Me to make them friends one to the other. “For me Philistia is friendly; to me Philistia makes friends”; it is up to Me to lead them to good deeds and to make them friends one to the other.
Mishnah
3 The generation of the Deluge has no part in the World to Come and they do not stand in judgment, as it is said: “My Spirit shall not judge man forever.” The people of Sodom have no part in the World to Come but they stand in judgment. Rabbi Neḥemiah says, neither of them stands in judgment, as it is said: “Therefore, evildoers shall not rise in judgment, nor sinners in the company of the just. Therefore, evildoers shall not rise in judgment,” that is the generation of the Deluge, “nor sinners in the company of the just,” these are the people of Sodom. They said to him, in the company of the just they will not rise; they will stand in the company of evildoers.
Halakhah
“The generation of the Deluge has no part in the World to Come,” and will not see the future. What is the reason? “He wiped off all that was standing” in this world; “they were wiped off from the Land,” in the future.
It was stated: Rabbi Neḥemiah says, one understands it from what was said “My Spirit shall not judge man forever.” Rabbi Jehudah says, “My Spirit shall not judge him,” for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall give My Spirit into people. Rabbi Simeon says, “My Spirit shall not judge him,” for I shall not give My Spirit into them when I shall distribute the rewards of the just. Others say, “My Spirit shall not judge him,” I shall not bring it back into its sheath. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, mainly their scalding was parboiling. What is the reason? “At the time when they were scalded they shrank; in its heat they disappear from their place.”Job 6:17 What is “in its heat”? In their boiling. Rabbi Joḥanan said, every single drop which the Holy One, praise to Him, rained on them, He brought to a boil in Hell and rained it on them. That is what is written, “in its heat they disappear from their place.” Jehudah ben Rabbi Ḥizqiah and Rabbi said, the Holy One, praise to Him, judges the evildoers in Hell for twelve months. First He brings the itch on them; then He brings them into fire and they say woe, woe; after that He brings them into snow and they say wai, wai. What is the reason? “He brought me up from the noisy pit, from miry mud.”Psalms 40:3 What is from yaven mud? From a place where one says woe. Why could they not receive their punishment and then take part in the World to Come? Because “the scoffer will not hear rebuke.”
“The people of Sodom have no part in the World to Come,” and they will not see the future. What is the reason? “The people of Sodom were very evil and sinful against the Eternal.”Genesis 13:13 “Evil and sinful” in this world, “against the Eternal very much” in the future. Another explanation: evil against one another, and sinful in incest and adultery, “against the Eternal” in foreign worship, very much in spilling blood.
Mishnah
4 The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come, as it is said: “in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die,” according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Eliezer says, about them it says, “assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice.” The band of Korah will not be resurrected in the future, as it is said “the earth covered them; they were lost from among the congregation,” according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Eliezer says, about them it says, “the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and raises up.”
Halakhah
“The generation of the desert has no part in the World to Come,” and will not see the future, as it is said: “in this desert they shall be terminated and there they will die. In this desert they shall be terminated,” in this world, “and there they will die, in the future;” and so He says, “what I swore in My rage, that they shall not come to My rest,” according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Eliezer says, about them it says, “assemble for Me My lovely ones, who sealed My Covenant by a sacrifice.” Rabbi Joshua said, “I swore and I shall keep it”Psalms 119:106; sometimes I do not keep it. Ḥanania the son of Rabbi Joshua’s brother says, it is written: “what I swore in My rage;” I swore in My rage, I am changing My mind. It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Menassia says, about them it says “assemble Me My lovely ones,” who performed acts of love for Me. “The executors of My Covenant,” who were extirpated by Me. By sacrifice, they elevated Me and were sacrificed for My name. It was stated: Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa says, about these generations He says, “those freed by the Eternal shall return.” Rabbi says, these and those have part in the World to Come. What is the reason? It “shall be on that day, a great ram’s horn will be blown, and those lost in the land of Assyria will come,” these are the Ten Tribes, “and those displaced in the land of Egypt,” that is the generation of the desert. These and those “will bow down before the Eternal on the Holy Mountain and in Jerusalem.”
The band of Korah will not have part in the Future World and not be resurrected in the future. What is the reason? “The desert covered them,” in this world; “they were lost from among the congregation,” in the future. It was stated: Rabbi Jehudah ben Bathyra says, one understands from what is said, “I erred like a lost sheep; look after Your servant,”Psalms 119:176 that just as the lost object mentioned there at the end will be searched for, so also the lost object mentioned here at the end will be searched for.
Who prayed for them? Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman said, Moses prayed for them, “Reuben shall live and not die.”Deuteronomy 33:6 Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Hannah prayed for them. This follows Rabbi Joshua ben Levi, as Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said: Korah’s band was continuously sinking until Hannah stood up and said, “the Eternal kills and brings to life, He sends down into the pit and lifts up.”
Mishnah
5 The Ten Tribes will not return in the future, as it is said, “He threw them into another country like this day.” As this day passes and never returns, so they go, never to return, according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Eliezer says, “like this day,” as the day gets dark and then light, so also they for whom there was darkness there will be light in the future.
Halakhah
“The Ten Tribes,” etc. The Ten Tribes have no part in the World to Come, and will not see the future. What is the reason? “He threw them into another country like this day.” As the day passes and never returns, so they go, never to return, according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Simeon ben Jehudah from Kefar-Ikos said in the name of Rabbi Simeon: If their behavior remains as on this day, they will not return; otherwise, they will return.
Rabbi Ḥizqiah, Rabbi Abbahu in the name of Rabbi Eleazar: When in the Future World the proselytes come, Antoninus comes at the head of all of them. How do you understand this? Since they saw him walking with a light shoe on the Day of Atonement, what do you infer since even God-fearing people go outside thus. There is information that Antoninus did not become a proselyte, and there is information that Antoninus did become a proselyte. Antoninus came to Rabbi and asked him, can you see me eating from the Leviathan in the World to Come? He said, yes. He told him, from the Passover lamb you would not let me eat, but from Leviathan you make me eat in the World to Come? He answered, what can we do for you since about the Passover lamb it is written that “no uncircumcised man may eat from it.”Exodus 12:48 This implies that Antoninus did not become a proselyte. When he heard this, he went and became a proselyte. He came to Rabbi and said to him, look at my circumcision. He answered him, at mine I never looked, and at yours I should look? This implies that Antoninus became a proselyte. Why is he called our holy teacher? Because he never in his life looked at his circumcision. And why is his name Naḥum the holiest of holies? Because he never in his life looked at the figure on a coin. Antoninus came to Rabbi; he said to him, pray for me. He said to him, may He save you from the cold, as it is written, “who can withstand His cold?” He said, is that not a superfluous prayer? You cover yourself with an outer garment and the cold will go away. He said to him, may He save you from the hot wind that comes into the world. He said, that is a prayer; may your prayer be heard, as it is written, “nothing is hidden from His heat.”
Rabbi Joḥanan said, the group of Joḥanan ben Qareaḥ has no part in the World to Come. What is the reason? “They were traitors to the Eternal for they produced foreign children. Now a new Moon shall eat their parts.”Hosea 5:7
Rabbi Eleazar and Rabbi Jehudah. One said, they were exiled only when they were uncircumcised. The other said, they were exiled only when they were bastards. He who says uncircumcised, for circumcision and commandments. But he who says bastards, from their fathers. Rabbi Joḥanan said, Israel was exiled only after they formed 24 heretical sects. What is the reason? “Son of man, I am sending you to the Children of Israel, to rebellious peoples who rebelled against Me.”Ezekiel 2:3 It is not written “to a rebellious people” but “to rebellious peoples who rebelled against Me; they and their fathers have acted criminally against Me up to this day.” Rabbi Berekhia and Rabbi Ḥelbo in the name of Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: Israel was exiled to three diasporas: one inside the river Sanbation, one to Daphne of Antioch, and one on whom the Cloud descended and covered them. Just as they were exiled to three diasporas, so the tribes of Reuben, Gad, and half the tribe of Manasseh were exiled into three diasporas. What is the reason? “You went in the way of your sister and I gave her cup into your hand.”Ezekiel 23:31 So when they return, they will return from three diasporas. What is the reason? “To tell the prisoners, leave,” those who were exiled inside the river Sanbation; “those in darkness, become visible,” those on whom the Cloud descended and covered them; “on the roads they are grazing and on all plains is their pasturage,” those who were exiled to Daphne of Antioch.
Mishnah
6 The people of a seduced town have no part in the World to Come, as it is said: Useless men “left your midst and seduced the inhabitants of their town as follows.” Therefore they cannot be executed unless the seducers are from that town and from that tribe, unless the majority was seduced, unless the seducers were men. If women or minors seduced them, or if a minority were seduced, they are single individuals and need two witnesses and warning for each single one. This is more stringent for individuals than for the multitude since individuals are stoned, therefore their money escapes while the multitude is executed by the sword, therefore their money is lost.
Halakhah
“The people of a seduced town,” etc. A town but not a village, a town but not a fortified place. This means, from five to ten, according to Rabbi Meïr; Rabbi Jehudah says, from one hundred up to a majority of the tribe. If two seduced two, is it possible to try the two who had seduced two both as seducers and as seduced? If there were proselytes and residents, are they counted for the majority? If there were menageries for wild animals, birds, or fish; birds flying higher than ten handbreadths, what are the rules?
Rabbi Simeon says, burning is worse than stoning, but the rabbis teach that stoning is worse than burning. Rabbi Simeon says, strangulation is worse than decapitation; but the rabbis teach that decapitation is worse than strangulation.
Mishnah
7 “You shall surely kill the inhabitants of that town by the sword.”Deuteronomy 13:16 A caravan of donkeys or of camels which passes from place to place saves them. “Destroy it and all which is in it, including its domestic animals, by the sword.” From here they said, the properties of just people in its midst are lost, what is outside escapes; that of evildoers both inside and outside is lost.
Halakhah
“You shall surely kill the inhabitants of that town by the sword,” etc. Rabbi Simeon says, “its domesticated animal,” not firstborn or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina asked: What is the status of hair of its just women? Let us hear from the following: Rabbi Simeon says, “its domesticated animal,” not firstborn or tithes found there; its booty, not Temple money or Second Tithe found there. The sancta of a seduced town, Rabbi Joḥanan said, one cannot commit larceny with them; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, one can commit larceny with them. Rabbi Joḥanan objected to Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: According to your opinion that one can commit larceny with them, should one not state that “six purification offerings are left to die”? He answered, because in this case even an elevation offering dies. Rabbi Hila in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: One can commit larceny with them because of sancta of an apostate. Should they not be sacrificed? Because “the sacrifice of an evildoer is an abomination.”Proverbs 21:27 Rabbi Uqba said, also in the following they disagree: If a bull was led out to be stoned when its witnesses were found to be perjured, Rabbi Joḥanan said, the first to come acquires it; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair. Similarly, if a slave was led out to be executed when his witnesses were found to be perjured, Rabbi Joḥanan said, he acquired himself; Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, it was false despair.
Mishnah
8 “All its plunder you shall collect in its public square.”Deuteronomy 13:17-18 If it has no public square, one creates a public square in it. If its public square was outside, one collects it inside, for it is said: “In its public square you shall burn the town and all its plunder in fire;” its plunder but not Heaven’s plunder. From here they said that dedicated objects in it shall be redeemed, heaves shall be left to rot, Second Tithes and Holy Scriptures shall be put away. “Totally for the Eternal, your God.” Rabbi Simeon said, if you judge the seduced town, I will credit it for you as if you brought an entire elevation offering before Me. “It shall be an eternal mound, it shall not be rebuilt.” It should not even be made into gardens and orchards, according to Rabbi Yose the Galilean. Rabbi Aqiba says, it shall not be rebuilt as it was but it may be made into gardens and orchards. “Nothing of what should be destroyed shall stick to your hands, so the Eternal may change from His anger to grant you mercy, have mercy on you and increase you,” etc. Any time evildoers are in the world, anger is in the world; when the evildoers are lost from the world, anger passes away from the world.
Halakhah
“All its plunder you shall collect,” etc. Rabbi Simeon said, is there not an argument from the lesser to the greater about this? Since properties, which have no knowledge of good or bad, but because they caused the just to dwell with the evildoers the Torah said, should be burned, if somebody has the intention of influencing his neighbor and influences him from good ways to bad ones, how much more so? Rabbi Eleazar said, the matter is demonstrated by Lot who dwelt in Sodom only because of his money but left there with his hands on his head. This is what is written: “Quickly escape to there;” it is enough for you that you escape with your life.
It is written: “In his days Hiel of Bethel built Jericho.” Ḥiel is from the descendants of Jehoshaphat, Jericho is in the territory of Benjamin. But bad deeds are put in the hands of the unworthy; therefore, it is said, “with his firstborn Abiram he set the foundation and with his youngest son Segub he put in the doors.” If it was not appropriate for him to learn from his firstborn Abiram, should he not have learned from the wicked Segub? Because they wanted to make more money, the curse ruled over them and they were continuously weakened to confirm what was said, following “the word of the Eternal, the God of Israel, which He had spoken through Joshua ben Nun.”
“Totally, for the Eternal, your God. Nothing of what should be destroyed shall stick to your hands.” It was stated: Rabbi Simeon ben Eleazar says, they did not rebuild it but built another town. After it was built, you are permitted to dwell there. Rabbi Yose and Rabbi Joshua ben Qorḥa say, why does the verse say, “who would build this town, Jericho?” That one may not build another town and call it Jericho, or Jericho and call it another town. And so He says, “you shall not continue to return on this way,” you may not return for dwelling; you may return for peddling, business, or to conquer the land.
Mishnah
1 But the following are strangled: One who hits his father or his mother, and one who kidnaps a person from Israel, and the Elder who rebels against the Court, and the false prophet, and one who prophesies in the name of foreign worship, and one who copulates with a married woman, and the perjured witness of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour. One who hits his father or his mother is not punishable unless he inflicts a wound on them. The following is more aggravating about one who curses than one who hits, in that one who curses is punishable even after death, but one who hits after death cannot be prosecuted.
Halakhah
“But the following are strangled,” etc. What is the source for warning about one who hits his father or his mother? “Forty times he shall hit him, he may not add.”Deuteronomy 25:3 Since one who is commanded to hit is commanded not to hit, one who is commanded not to hit a fortiori is commanded not to hit.
“He is not punishable unless he inflicts a wound on them.” What kind of wound? A wound for the laws of the Sabbath, a wound for the law of torts? If you say, as a wound for the laws of the Sabbath, even if he did not cause them to miss anything; if you say, as a wound for the laws of torts, only if he caused them to miss something.
Mishnah
2 And one who kidnaps a person from Israel is not punishable unless he brings him into his property. Rabbi Jehudah says, unless he brings him into his property and uses him, as it is said, “and enslaved him or sold him.” One who kidnaps his own son, Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable. One who kidnapped a person half slave and half free Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa declares punishable but the Sages make him not prosecutable.
Halakhah
What is the source for a first warning about stealing? “you shall not steal.” What is the source for a second warning about stealing? “you shall not steal. You shall not steal,” in order to aggravate; “you shall not steal,” in order to pay double restitution, in order to pay quadruple or quintuple restitution. Ben Bagbag says, do not steal your own property back from the thief, so that you are not seen stealing.
Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: he is punishable only if he steals money. Rabbi Zeʿira in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: he is punishable only if he shows contempt for money. What does showing contempt for money mean? What case are we dealing with? If about him who says, here you have five and give me for three, he is an idiot. Here you have three and give me for five, he is a regular person. But we deal with one who says, here you have five and give me for five.
What is a thief and what is a robber? Rabbi Hila said, if he stole in the presence of witnesses, he is a thief, in the presence of the owners he is a robber. Rabbi Zeʿira asked: but if he intended to rob for copulation, he is not a robber. What is a robber according to Rabbi Zeʿira? Rabbi Samuel ben Sosarta in the name of Rabbi Abbahu: only if he robs in the presence of ten people. The prototype for all these: “He robbed the spear from the hand of the Egyptian,” etc.
What is the reason of Rabbi Joḥanan ben Beroqa? “Of the Children of Israel.” What is the reason of the rabbis? “Of his brothers,” not his sons. What is the reason of Rabbi Jehudah? “Of his brothers,” even partially his brother. What is the reason of the rabbis? “Of his brothers,” unless he is totally his brother.
Mishnah
3 The Elder who rebels against the Court, as it is said: “If a law case is too difficult for you, whether blood and blood, or case and case,” etc. Three courts were there, one at the entrance of the Temple Mount, one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard, and one in the ashlar hall. They come to the one at the entrance to the Temple Mount and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleague taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise they come to the one at the entrance of the Temple courtyard and he says, so I argued and so my colleagues argued, so I taught and so my colleagues taught. If they had heard it, they tell them; otherwise these and those come to the Supreme Court in the ashlar hall, for from there instruction goes out to all of Israel as it is said, “from that place which the Eternal will choose.” If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom, he cannot be prosecuted. If he instructed to act, he is punishable, as it is said, “but the man who would act criminally” etc. He is not punishable unless he instructs others to act. A student who instructed to act cannot be prosecuted; it turns out that his severity is his leniency.
Halakhah
“The Elder who rebels,” etc. “If he returned to his town, repeated and taught as was his custom,” etc. It is written: “If something is being distinguished for you in law,” this shows that the verse speaks about the distinguished member of the court. For you, this is counsel. Something is sermonizing. “Whether blood and blood,” whether menstrual blood or blood of virginity; whether menstrual blood, blood of flux, or blood of skin disease. “Whether case or case,” between those who are stoned, or burned, or decapitated, or strangled. “Whether defect or defect,” between a quarantined sufferer from skin disease or an absolute one; “whether defect or defect,” between defects of humans or of garments or of houses. Words, that is the drinking of the suspected adulteress, breaking the neck of the calf, and the purification of the sufferer from skin disease. Quarrels, these are estimations, bans, and dedications. “You shall get up,” from the court, and rise, this is the ascent.
Another explanation: “You shall get up,” from here that the Temple should be built only on the height of the world. What is the reason? For on My Holy Mountain, on “the mountain of the height of Israel shall I plant it, that it may sprout branch and carry fruit.”Ezekiel 17:23 “And you shall come,”Deuteronomy 17:9 to include the court at Jabneh. Rabbi Zeʿira says, to ask.
A rebellious Elder who instructed to act and acted is punishable. If he instructed but did not act, he is not prosecutable. If he instructed not for application, he is not prosecutable. If he instructed for application, even if he himself did not act, he is punishable. Rabbi Hila said, Rabbi Ismael stated thus: “Who would act,” even if he did not act himself. Rav Huna said, if he was instructing for practice and later a case came up, one acts on his instruction. If he taught it on the occasion of a case, one acts on it for others but not for himself.
Rabbi Simeon ben Menasia says: Beauty, and vigor, and riches, and wisdom, and white hair, and honor, and children, are an adornment for the just. What is the reason? “A crown of glory is white hair; on the way of piety it is found.”Proverbs 16:31 “A crown of the elderly are grandchildren; the glory of children are their parents.”Proverbs 17:6 “The glory of the young is their force; the splendor of the elderly is white hair.”Proverbs 20:29 And it says, “before his Elders in honor.” It was stated: Rabban Simeon ben Gamliel says, these seven qualities which the Sages enumerated for the just were all realized by Rabbi and his sons. Rabbi Joḥanan said, all seven qualities which the Sages enunciated about the just were in Rabbi. Who was Rabbi? Rabbi is Rabbi Jehudah the Prince. Rabbi Abbahu said, Rabbi is Rabbi Yudan the Prince, is Our Teacher.
Mishnah
4 Denial about words of the Sopherim is more serious than about words of the Torah. He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable. One executes him not at the court in his town, nor at the court at Jabneh but one transports him to the Supreme Court in Jerusalem, keeps him until a holiday of pilgrimage, and executes him on the holiday as it is said, “the entire people shall see and fear,”Deuteronomy 17:13 according to Rabbi Aqiba. Rabbi Jehudah says, one does not procrastinate in his case but executes him immediately, writes, and sends messengers to all places: Mr. A son of Mr. B was found guilty to be executed by the court.
Halakhah
“Denial about words of the Sopherim is more serious,” etc. “One executes him not,” etc. The colleagues in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are pleasant like the words of Scripture; “your throat is like good wine.”Song of Songs 7:10 Simeon bar Abba in the name of Rabbi Joḥanan: The words of the Sopherim are related to the words of Scripture and are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, “for your friendship is better than wine.”Song of Songs 1:2 Rabbi Abba bar Cohen in the name of Rabbi Judah bar Pazi: You may know that the words of the Sopherim are more pleasant than the words of Scripture, because if Rabbi Tarphon did not recite at all he would only have transgressed a positive commandment. But because he transgressed the words of the House of Hillel he should have suffered death since it says, “if one breaches a wall he will be bitten by a snake.”Ecclesiastes 10:8
Rabbi Ismael stated: In the Torah there are forbidden matters and permitted matters. There are easy parts and severe parts. But in the words of the Sopherim all are severe. You can realize that this is so since we have stated: “He who says that there are no phylacteries, to transgress the words of the Torah, is not prosecutable. Five compartments to add to the words of the Sopherim is punishable.” Rabbi Ḥinena, the son of Rabbi Ada, in the name of Rabbi Tanḥum bar Ḥiyya: The words of the Sages carry more weight than those of the prophets since it is written, “do not preach, they preach.”Micah 2:6 And it is written, “I shall preach to you for wine and liquor.”Micah 2:11 The relation of prophet and scholar can be compared to the case of a king who sent two diplomatarii to a province. About one of them it was written, if he does not show you my seal and sēmantērion, do not believe him. About the other it was written, even if he does not show you my seal and sēmantērion, believe him. So about a prophet it is written, “he gives you a sign or miracle.”Deuteronomy 13:2 But here it is written, “according to the teachings that they will teach you.”Deuteronomy 17:11
The Torah said, four compartments for four paragraphs. If he made five compartments for four paragraphs, he is punishable. Rabbi Abba, Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Hoshaia: He is punishable only if he instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim. Rabbi Zeʿira said, he never is punishable unless he denies and instructs in a matter whose root is from the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim; for example, the carcass; for example, the crawling animal, whose root is from the words of the Torah but whose explanation is from the words of the Sopherim, provided that he simultaneously subtracts in a matter which permits subtraction and addition. The face of Rav Hoshaia lit up. He told him, do I need you that you enjoy it? I do not need you, I am adding to your statement. For thirteen years he came and went before his teacher even though he did not need him. Rabbi Samuel in the name of Rabbi Zeʿira: Was it not enough for him to have paid his respects to his teacher since anybody who pays his respects to his teacher is as if he paid his respects to the Divine Presence. Rabbi Berekhiah objected, did we not state, “the body of baheret is the square area of a split Cilician bean”? Rabbi Abba Mari said, one who said it is pure. Rabbi Abba bar Mamal objected, did we not state, “two paragraphs in the mezuzah”? He told him, phylacteries and mezuzah are the same. Rav Hamnuna objected, was it not stated: The ṣiṣit must be four finger lengths for four threads? He told him, in that he diminished but did not add. Rabbi Ḥaggai objected before Rabbi Yose, was it not stated, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes. If he used it in thirds, one third for the scalded, one third for round cakes, one third for flat cakes? He told him, he subtracts from the scalded and adds for round cakes and flat cakes.
Mishnah
5 And the false prophet and one who prophesies what he did not hear and what was not said to him. But as to one who suppresses his vision, and one who disregards the prophet’s words, and a prophet who transgressed his own word, their death is by the Hand of Heaven as it is said, “I shall ask it from him.”Deuteronomy 18:19
Halakhah
“And the false prophet,” etc. “And one who prophesies what he did not hear,” like Zedekiah ben Chenaanah. “And what was not said to him,” like Hananiah ben Azzur. Rabbi Joshua ben Levi said, Hananiah ben Azzur was a true prophet; only he took instruction and heard what Jeremiah prophesied in the upper market; he went and prophesied in the lower market. Hananiah ben Azzur told him, is not the essence of the matter “only once seventy years will be fulfilled for Babylon, I shall remember you.”Jeremiah 29:10 In all, the days of Manasseh were 55 years. Deduct from them 20 years for which the Heavenly Court does not punish or extirpate, add the two of Amon and 31 of Josiah. That is what is written: “At the beginning of the reign of Zedekiah the king of Judah, in the fifth year, in the fifth month, Hananiah ben Azzur, the prophet from Gibeon, said to me in the House of the Eternal, before the priests and all the people, as follows: So said the Eternal of Hosts, the God of Israel, as follows. I broke the yoke of the king of Babylon; in another two years I shall return to this place all the Temple vessels which Nebuchadnezzar, the king of Babylon, took from this city and brought to Babylon.” Jeremiah told him, you are saying that “in another two years I shall return,” etc. But I say that Nebuchadnezzar will come and take the remainder. “To Babylon they will be brought and stay there,”Jeremiah 27:22 etc. He said to him, give a sign. He answered, I am prophesying bad things and cannot give a sign for my words since the Holy One, praise to Him, said to bring evil and might refrain from it. But you prophesy good things; you are obligated to give a sign. He said to him, no, it is you who has to give a sign for your words. He answered, if it is so, I shall give a sign and miracle in the person of that man; this year he dies, for he spoke obstinately about the Eternal. This happened to him; “Hananiah the prophet died in this year, in the Seventh month.”Jeremiah 28:17 This was another year and you are saying so? But it teaches that he died on the Eve of New Year’s Day and ordered his sons and wife to hide the matter, that they should bury him after the New Year in order to falsify Jeremiah’s prophecy.
“And one who suppresses his prophecy,” like Jonah ben Amittai. Rabbi Jonah said, Jonah ben Amittai was a true prophet. You find that when the Holy One, praise to Him, told him, “get up and go to the great city of Nineveh and call out over it that their evil came before Me,”Jonah 1:2 Jonah said, I know that Gentiles are close to repentance; if I would go and prophesy for them and they repented, the Holy One, praise to Him, would exact payment from the haters of Israel. What can I do? I must flee! “Jonah got up to flee to Tarshish from before the Eternal; he descended to Jaffa, found a ship destined for Tarshish, paid his fare and entered it,”Jonah 1:3 etc.
“And one who disregards the prophet’s words.” Like the seer Iddo. Rabbi Samuel bar Rav Isaac said, this is Amaziah the priest of Bethel. Rabbi Yose said, this is breaking of eggs; who is it? He is Jonathan ben Gershom ben Manasseh.
You find that when David came and found him serving foreign worship, he asked him: You are the grandson of that righteous man and you worship idols? He said to him, I have a tradition from my grandfather, sell yourself to foreign worship rather than need other people. He said to him, Heaven forbid! He did not say so, but rather sell yourself to work that is strange to you rather than need other people. When David saw that he loved money, he made him Count of the Temple treasuries. That is what is written, “Shabuel ben Gershom ben Moses, overseer of the treasuries.” “Shabuel” because he returned to God with all his might; “overseer of the treasuries” that he made him Count of the treasuries.
The colleagues asked before Rabbi Samuel ben Naḥman: He was a priest of idol worship and lived so long? He said to them, because he was grudging to his idol. How was he grudging to his idol? If a man came to sacrifice an ox, a sheep, or a goat to the idol and told him: Make it favorably inclined toward me, he would say, what use does it have for you? It never eats, nor drinks, nor does good or evil. He said to him, what should we do? He said to him, go, make, and bring me a wooden vessel full of fine flour and put on it ten eggs, then I shall make it favorably inclined toward you. After he left, he would eat it. One day, a son of pashas came and he said that to him. He said to him, if it is of no use, what are you doing here? He answered him, because of my livelihood.
They objected to Rabbi Samuel bar Naḥman: “Until the day the Land went into exile.” He said to them, when David died, Solomon rose and exchanged all his counselors. He returned to his former bad ways.
“And a prophet who transgressed his own word,” like the companion of Micaiah. That is what is written: “An old prophet was dwelling at Bethel; his son came and told him all the actions which the man of God had done,” etc. “Their father asked them, which way did he go,” etc. “He told his sons, saddle the donkey for me,” etc. “He followed the man of God and found him sitting under the terebinth,” etc. “He said to him, come with me to my house and eat. He told him, I cannot return,” etc., up to “he said to him, I also am a prophet like you and an angel spoke to me the words of the Eternal as follows,” etc., up to “he should eat food and drink water; he tricked him.” What does “tricked him” mean? He lied to him. “While they were sitting at table, the word of the Eternal came to the prophet who had turned him back.” It is not written “who had returned,” but “who had turned him back.” Is that not an argument from the lesser to the greater? Since one who fed his neighbor food in falsehood was worthy of the Word to be addressed to him, how much more one who feeds his neighbor food in truth.
It is written: “One of the young prophets said to his neighbor by the Word of the Eternal,” etc. “He told him, since you did not listen to the Word of the Eternal, when you depart from me the lion will hit you; he departed from him, the lion found him and hit him. He found another man, said to him, hit me, and he hit him” etc. “The prophet went, stood in the king’s way, and had disguised himself by a band over his eyes. When the king passed by, he cried to the king,” etc. “Your servant went to and fro,” etc. “He told him, so says the Eternal: Because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned, your life will be for his life, and your people for his people.” And it is written: “The man of God approached and said, so says the Eternal.” Why two times “and said”? But in the first address he told him, if Ben Hadad falls into your hand, do not have mercy on him and do not spare him. In the second address he told him, “because you sent away from your hand the man whom I had banned,” how many traps and hunting nets I made for him until I delivered him into your hand, and you sent him away and he went in peace. Therefore, “your life will be for his life, and your people for his people.” You find that when Israel went to war, nobody of them died but Ahab, the king of Israel. That is what is written: “A man shot from his bow without aiming and hit the king of Israel between the joints of his armor; he told the driver, take me out of the camp because I became sick.” How can I confirm “your people for his people”? Rabbi Joḥanan in the name of Rabbi Simeon ben Ioḥai: That drop of blood which was drawn from the just man atoned for all of Israel.
Mishnah
6 One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship and says, so speaks the foreign worship, even if he stated practice correctly to declare the impure impure and the pure pure. One who copulates with a married woman, from the moment she is in the husband’s domain for full marriage even if she did not have intercourse, one who copulates with her is strangled. And the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour. Therefore all false witnesses are executed by that death except for the false witnesses of a Cohen’s daughter and her paramour.
Halakhah
“One who prophesies in the name of foreign worship,” etc. Rabbi Yose ben Ḥanina said, everything was included in “do not testify against your neighbor as a false witness.” It came to judge whether by sign, or by miracle, whether about foreign worship or any other commandment. But about foreign worship, whether he intended to uproot the entire body or did not intend to uproot the entire body, according to Rabbi Simeon one does not prosecute him, but according to the Sages one stones him. For any other commandment according to the Sages one stones him, according to Rabbi Simeon he should understand his pywnṭ.
If a prophet starts to prophesy, one listens to him if he gives a sign or miracle; otherwise one does not listen to him. Two prophets who prophesied identically, two prophets who prophesied in the same sense? Rabbi Isaac and Rabbi Hoshaia: One said, each one has to provide a sign or a miracle; the other said, not each one has to provide a sign or a miracle. The one who said he did objected to the one who said he did not: Is it not written, “Hezekiah said to Isaiah, what is the sign?” He told him, that is different since he was occupied in reviving the dead. “He shall revive us after two days; on the third day He will lift us up and we shall live before Him.”Hosea 6:2
Rabbi Jehudah ben Pazi said, not only to the bridal chamber but also to a house containing the bridal chamber. The following is problematic: Dining room and bedroom, bridal chamber and bedroom; if she entered the dining room, for which consequence? Rabbi Joḥanan said, to inherit from her. Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows. Rabbi Zeʿira said, even though Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish said, to dissolve her vows, he agrees that he cannot actually dissolve them before she enters the bridal chamber. Rabbi Huna said, a verse supports Rabbi Simeon ben Laqish: “to whore in her father’s house.”Deuteronomy 22:21 This excludes the case where the father’s agents handed her over to the husband’s agents, that she could not be stoned, but is strangled.
Similarly by burning, she and they by burning. Similarly by stoning, she and they by stoning. Similarly by strangulation, she and they by strangulation.
About this book
Jerusalem Sanhedrin
0 connections
No connections in this book yet.